Linux-Advocacy Digest #700, Volume #31 Wed, 24 Jan 01 09:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Adam Warner")
M$ websites down again (Milton)
Re: Why "uptime" is important. (Bruce Scott TOK)
Re: Win -> Linux becoming easier than ever! (mlw)
Re: Why "uptime" is important. (Bruce Scott TOK)
Re: Why "uptime" is important. (Bruce Scott TOK)
Re: Does Code Decay (mlw)
Re: Games? Who cares about games? (Bruce Scott TOK)
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe ("Chad Myers")
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe ("Chad Myers")
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe ("Chad Myers")
Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software (.)
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe ("Chad Myers")
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe ("Chad Myers")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Chad Myers")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Chad Myers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 02:04:12 +1200
Hi Mark,
> > MS Office 2000 is a de facto standard. Every office suite that tries to
> > achieve MS Office 2000 file compatibility will always be found deficient
> > compared to Microsoft Office 2000.
>
> Not for any feature, mind you, but for file compatibility. Hmmm, maybe
that
> Monopoly thing is right. Ya think?
Well office suites usually have to match features in order to try and
achieve compatibility.
If I was vague what I am stating is that because MS Office is a de facto
standard, for any other office suite to be any good it has to exactly
duplicate how the document, presentation, etc. will look when loaded into
the compatible suite. And this is impossible given the closed nature of
Microsoft Office.
In my experience of using Microsoft Word and Excel to format very large
documents that are being exchanged with colleagues, nothing else but
Microsoft Word/Excel can be used to do any typesetting (and even then you
have to be careful to choose the settings, e.g. the printer).
Office has obviously not been designed from the ground up around an open
file format that promotes interoperability and consistent formatting across
platforms. Every quirk in how the file format is translated to the final
printout is an advantage to Microsoft that others have to second-guess and
attempt to emulate.
No-one takes a document created in StarOffice, loads it into Microsoft Word
and then complains how Microsoft Word didn't do an exact job of preserving
the formatting. So all I'm pointing out is how easy it is to find fault with
any office suite that is attempting to provide full Microsoft Office
compatibility.
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: Milton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: M$ websites down again
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 08:05:28 -0500
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/16321.html
Gee, all the winvocates keep telling me how robust NTW2K is!
--
���������������������������������������������������
Milton B. Hewitt
CAUCE Member - http://www.cauce.org
Proud supporter of the Microsoft Boycott Campaign
http://www.vcnet.com/bms/
���������������������������������������������������
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Scott TOK)
Subject: Re: Why "uptime" is important.
Date: 24 Jan 2001 14:22:47 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It is a well formatted site. The text is divided logically in to
>paragraphs as apropriate, and that is enough. The good thing about it is
>that it will fit the text to the width of my screen[*], and it is
>perfectly readable if I use a large font size (which is comfortable).
>This is a good thing. It is also readable in any browser.
>
>[*]I hate sites that render everything in to one huge table. It is a
>waste to have a site with unreadably small text taking up a width of 5
>inches on a 17" moniter. Hate, hate, hate.
I really hate CNet for this... I have to copy their source and edit it
by hand to get reasonable font sizes. I am guessing they do it for
their advertisers.
>If you don't like the colours, then change the default colours in your
>browser.
I finally figured out how to do this... pretty lame not to have done so
before. Just edit preferences --> appearance --> colors under netscape
and change the default to white. Makes a big difference. I haven't the
slightest idea how IE handles this.
What I hate are those color watermark backgrounds, especially when they
dance and move around.
>> retina burn doesn't give you return visitors...I know this for a fact. ;-)
>
>But a well designed site like this one does.
Thanks for the tips and comments Ed.
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win -> Linux becoming easier than ever!
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 08:28:44 -0500
sfcybear wrote:
>
> http://www.telekomnet.com/writer_telekomnet/1-23-01_virtual_SuSE.asp
>
> Gotta love it!
I'm thinking that, maybe, we are trying to beat Windows with the wrong game.
What do I mean? Think about this:
A user of Windows will give you that "deer in the headlights" look when you
mention stability. They have no concept of a computer that is reliable, thus it
means nothing to them when you say it. They really don't understand that would
not have to "reboot."
They will give you the same look when you talk about using many applications at
the same time. Sure they've used a couple here and there, but they don't dare
have many "active" programs at once. When they do, they feel themselves lucky
if nothing crashes. Besides, WinDOS can't schedule many applications
effectively, NT/2K is much better, but most people still use the DOS extender.
The very things we have grown to rely on, and have become the very features we
have found we truly know as important, the Windows users of the world have no
concept. Like explaining what a CD is to someone back in the '50s. They can
understand what you say, but can't put it in mental terms that mean anything.
I suspect this many of the Winvocates are the same way. When I first started
out in computers, CP/M was all the rage, and the 8080/Z80 was THE Micro. The
IBM PC came around and trounced the Z80. However, by the time the IBM and DOS
came around, I was using UNIX on a Sun 1, with a VAX connected via triaxal
ethernet. CP/M and DOS were good for one thing at a time, and often had to be
rebooted for each new thing. They were usable, similar to the way one would use
an embedded system. They weren't "real" computers.
I knew "stable" hardware from the start. Every version of every MS OS has been
and is lacking, and left me missing my first "real" system. It is possible,
that if I had never used those systems in the '80s I would not have seen the
flaws.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Scott TOK)
Subject: Re: Why "uptime" is important.
Date: 24 Jan 2001 14:26:22 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Nothing that a good case of W3 (www.w3c.org) won't cure. :-)
Duly noted :-)
>It also allows one to actually *read* the text. (Gosh, what
>a concept!) Granted, there are some issues, such as viewing
>pictures (usually, this is handled via an external pic viewer).
Lynx either sends them to an application (usually gv or xv) or loads
them to disk.
>And I'm not sure how well it handles math expressions -- in fact,
>I'm not sure any browser currently out there handles math
>expressions more complicated than x<sub>j</sub><sup>2</sup>
>very well.... :-)
This is a real problem and Latex2html is no solution (all that time for
all those little tiny graphics to load, and a _separate_ html query for
each one!). My only way out is to leave the text HTML pages as simple
as possible and put the write ups into ps files (no, I don't do PDF).
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Scott TOK)
Subject: Re: Why "uptime" is important.
Date: 24 Jan 2001 14:29:17 +0100
In article <94leou$qmo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ayende Rahien <Please@don't.spam> wrote:
>AFAIK, math expressions are almost always done in PostScript.
>I've never had to produce things of that level, but many of the physics
>articles that I follow use PS format for the articles, preciesly because of
>this.
>I rarely have a chace to see advance stuff (IE, anything with equations)
>that is done in HTML. On those occasions, they do it with pictures.
About the best we can do.
>That being said, there is a lot to be said on presenting the data in a nice
>way. (commenting about this thread, not this post alone)
>Personally, I don't see nothing wrong with the page's layout. I took a look
>at the page's code, and while I would prefer the body's tag to be something
>like:
><body bgcolor="#185603" background="none" text="#F9D797" vlink="#797979"
>alink="#CDD0FE" link="#DCE19F">
>I like the color combination, but I understand that it might not be
>everyone's cup of tea.
I just tried it; no it isn't :-)
I recommend people who have this sort of style wish configure their
browsers the way they want. This is the purpose of not putting any
color tags in.
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Does Code Decay
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 08:45:07 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Yes and no. Code itself doesn't decay, but it's associations can.
>
> For instance, an interface the code uses can be changed, and thus the code
> breaks despite no actual decay in the program itself.
>
> Over time, architectures become clouded and brittle when there are many
> changes. We've all seen a house that's had addition after addition added on
> to it, and after a while it looks like a frankenstein's monster. The same
> is true of code that is hacked or patched but not rewritten.
Oh, wait. Lets let just of brief silence punctuate the humor. ready? ready?
OK, I have code that is almost 10 years old that still compiles and works for
console DOS and UNIX.
I have very little code that can be compiled without tweaks for Windows.
A stable platform is very important.
One of the reasons Microsoft only makes crap is because they do not design
before they write. They hack an interface and change is constantly making it
virtually impossible to build a stable code base. Most UNIX code can remain
untouched for a decade or more and still be usable. The same can't be said for
Windows.
Aside from UI and Multimedia, computer technology has changed very little in 20
years. Yes, the PC platform has grown leaps and bounds but mostly only
improvements to existing constructs. If one were to look at a Sun from 1984 and
a PC today, you would be hard pressed to find many fundamental differences.
They would look different, and many things would be faster/bigger in the PC,
but there would be few "new" things.
So why has Windows changed so much?
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Scott TOK)
Subject: Re: Games? Who cares about games?
Date: 24 Jan 2001 14:35:37 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>mlw wrote:
>>
>> I don't know anyone that really plays games on their computers. is that out of
>> the ordinary? When people mention games as an issue, I often wonder why.
>>
>> I have a Nintendo for games, why would I waste a computer on games?
>>
>
>'cos Linux runs the chess program "Crafty". Nintendos can't compare
Atari ST ran Psion chess, which played to FIDE 2000, had beautiful 3D
graphics, let you pick up a piece and put it down very naturally with
the mouse, and fit into something like 100-200 kB.
Pretty amazing by today's standards... I would bet they didn't program
it in C/C++
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:37:35 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 03:55:59 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 02:48:14 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:94kpnb$13e0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> : Not only would they have less performance, less reliability, and
> >> >> : less remote management capability (Win2K terminal services rocks),
> >> >>
> >> >> Anyone who thinks Windows has better remotability than UNIX is
> >> >> either ignorant or lying.
> >> >
> >> >Have you seen Windows terminal services?
> >>
> >> What difference would that make?
> >>
> >> At best,even swallowing Microsoft's own propaganda, it
> >> would only buy you faster visual connectivity on low
> >> bandwidth connections.
> >>
> >> OTOH, it is particular to Microsoft. Whereas telnet/X/ssh
> >> clients and servers are widely available on multiple
> >> platforms from VMS to Macintosh.
> >
> >Which doesn't matter much since 90+% of the machines out
> >there are running Windows anyhow.
>
> That still leaves lots of machines that may or may not
> be up to the current Microsoft vendorlock revision.
>
> This includes Windows machines.
>
> ...might put an interesting new twist on the TOTAL part of TCO.
Regardless of your FUD, the terminal services client still
runs on 95, 98, ME, NT 4, and Win2K which effectively covers
more than 90-95% of all the machines out there.
For the remaining 5%, there is MetaFrame, which is an add-on
to Terminal Services and adds every other OS
(WinCE, any OS with a java-enabled browser, Unix, Linux,
MacOS, and many others).
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:40:19 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 06:20:40 +0200, Ayende Rahien <Please@don't.spam> wrote:
> >
> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Jan Johanson wrote:
> >> >
> >> > While little MiG tries to impress with some brochure sites...
> >> >
> >> > MediaWave is deploying over 3,100 windows 2000 advanced servers all over
> >> > europe to handle multimillions of simultaneous audio and video streams.
> >>
> >> And your point is?
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Talk about demanding! Is there even a streaming server available for
> >linux?
> >>
> >> Unix would do the same capacity with 300 servers.
> >
> >Prove it.
>
> Unix supports considerably larger hardware than NT does.
>
> It has to do severe shared nothing clustering to achieve
> database thruput in the same league with single machines
> AS/400 or Unix machines.
>
> As the machines that run DOS have scaled up, so have the
> machines that everyone thought DOS had obsoleted.
Well, Win2K Datacenter could do it in 300 or less servers with
a 32-way Compaq, NEC, or Unisys, but you would significantly
increase your costs.
Those 3100 servers would cost a fraction of the Unix or
Win2K DC servers.
Also, remember, one of the points of the main servers was
not concern of load, but regional traffic. I guess Europe
doesn't have as good a network infrastructure, so rather
than putting servers all in one place (which would've
taken significantly less), they had to place them all
over Europe to get better regional performance.
Those 300 Unix servers wouldn't do very well in this
scenario, unless you could split them in a few pieces.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:42:04 GMT
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > nuxx wrote:
> > >
> > > > W2K Advanced Server is an excellent choice for this application.
> > >
> > > it might be made to work, but they could have saved themselves
> > > a ton of money, and gotten better performance, reliability, and
> > > remote management capability by using Unix.
> >
> > Not true on all accounts.
>
> I feel a sermon coming on...
>
> Right about here is where the stirring music begins to
> play, and we are all moved by an impassioned speech
> about how swell windows is - really, this time they got
> it right!
>
> <propoganda snipped>
So, what we've learned here folks, is that it's ok for J Sloan
to make baseless, unbacked claims that are blatantly false,
and when someone counterpoints them with proven facts, it's
suddenly "propoganda"[sic].
Just shows you how the beFUDed Penguinista mind works.
Shout a claim then HURRY stick your head back in the sand.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software
Date: 24 Jan 2001 14:01:09 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 23 Jan
>> 2001 01:43:32 +0100;
>>>In article <94i3pb$d6l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>>> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>>> Ummm...how exactly is NAT an overhead? How exactly do you scale your firewall
>>>> performance appropriately?
>>>
>>>Do I really have to explain this? With NAT, whether it is one to one NAT or
>>>hide NAT the firewal has to keep a table of which internal addresses belong
>>>to which connection. This takes cpu cycles believe it or not. The speed of
>>>the line is not the only criteria for deciding how powerful a system you
>>>need. Number of rules, NAT, routing table size all affect perfomance.
>>
>> You were doing rather well until that last line, Roy. Don't confuse
>> routing tables with NAT tables; they aren't at all related. Likewise,
>> the firewall rules. These are three separate functions, NAT, router,
>> and firewall. They don't benefit from being munged together, and you're
>> going to find it easier to work with them, swear to god, if you keep
>> that in mind.
> Where in what I wrote am I confusing NAT and routing? A firewall which
> forwards packets between different networks is a router
Wow, does that mean my bridge is a router too?
=====.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:48:27 GMT
"salvador peralta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > RealVideo is pathetic. That is the biggest pile of crap software I've ever
> > seen.
>
> Pretty refreshing to see that the M$ FUDmeisters don't limit their FUD
> to just open source applications.
>
> "Innovation 101: Copy someone else's idea, produce an inferior
> alternative, bundle it for free with our product, and then have our
> marketing bots and lackeys like the chads FUD the hell out of the guy we
> stole the idea from."
>
> - snipped from the redmond guide to application development & product
> marketing
Nice try.
No, really, the Real products really DO suck. From the server which is
a horribly buggy security nightmare (yes, I ran several of them),
to the client which crashes on every OS it runs on. We exprimented with
different SMIL files and took advantage of some of the advanced
features of the Real Player, including interactivity and interlaced
graphics, timed graphic change events, and clickable regions. We
found so many bugs in the Player's SMIL implementation, we had to
scale our product back so much, it became almost irrelevant.
Our fearless leader, however, said that we had to stick with Real,
for some stupid reason. The company ended up giving up on the
Real Player because, "streaming video just doesn't work over the
web", and we started shipping all our products on CD. That's
when I left.
Had we used Microsoft Windows Media, everything would've worked,
worked securely, and cost fractions of the money we spent on the
outrageously expensive Real Server. I did some tests with
ASF files and interactivity, and it used the web browser, rather
than the Real Player window, which worked so much better. All
the links, the timed events, the synchronicity, everything,
flawless.
We started looking at Quicktime 4, which had promise. It used
SMIL rather than HTML+TIME which was a bonus, I guess. It
seemed to implement it rather well. QuickTime 4 has its share
of bugs, but not as many as the Real Player. By way of
contrast, I've never had WMP crash due to an error in an
HTML+TIME or ASF file, whereas there are easy ways to crash
Real Player or QuickTime player with simple syntactical
errors in the SMIL file.
Just a difference in quality, I guess.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:49:19 GMT
"Peter K�hlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> nuxx wrote:
> > You can do most admin tasks in a Telnet session to a W2k server. Use the
> > supplied support tools, W2k server resource kit utilities and WSH (Windows
> > 2000 Server Resource Kit should be required reading for any serious W2k
> > administrator).
>
> Well, if someone is after you as administrator, he just telnet's to that
> W2k-machine and simply stops at the login. Does nothing, nada.
> POOF, no more telnet to that machine.
> Now, isn't that a fine example of good, debugged MS-Code?
> And, I don't think that this was one of the 60k "issues"
What the hell are you talking about?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:53:16 GMT
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > Linux has less than one percent in the Desktop market (See Erik's browser
> > statistics from a debate on this very topic a few months ago).
> > The only OS it's a threat to would be OS/2 or Solaris in that market, I
suppose.
>
> Browser statistics from a windows centric site do little
> except amuse the wintrolls.
>
> So what if I examine the server logs from from www.linux.com and
> announce that Linux has 56% of the browser market - DOH!
>
> Does any of this make sense to you?
If you really would've looked, which I know is a stretch for you,
you would've seen that that site keeps statistics for several hundred
other sites. I realize that this may not be a scientific sample, but
it's at least in the ball park +/- 5% I would say. So, giving Linux
the benefit of the doubt, Linux is still 5%, so what?
It's also interesting you point out that Linux only accounts for
56% of the browser share on their site. Rather amusing, isn't it?
> > Facts? Of course not. Linux has what, 20-ish % in the server market,
>
> Your figures are a 2-3 years out of date - even early 1999,
> a brute force search of the internet space showed linux with
> 33% or so web server share, and comparable for ftp & news
> servers. I have heard credible estimates that Linux is now at
> 40% of the server market.
URL?
>
> > and that's even with the liberal estimates.
>
> No, that's with very outdated figures that call into question
> your integrity.
Until you provide a URL, your figures are fantasy.
> > Not much of a threat to anyone but the
> > Unix vendors that it's taking over. It hasn't touched Windows' market yet.
>
> It has hurt ms windows market to some degree, but the real
> pain hasn't begun yet. Wait until the effects of IBM's billion
> dollar investment begin to bear fruit.
Uh huh. IBM is known for taking over the OS market... ROFL.
If that's your saving grace, I'd be packing right now.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:54:01 GMT
"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > This is yet another factless post from Bobby D. Bryant.
>
> I notice that your eagerness for facts hasn't led you to respond to my
fact-filled
> post about Hot 100 uptimes.
Which post was this? You mentioned you were starting a thread, but I have
yet to see it on my news server. Did you cross-post to COMNA?
I don't check COLA any more.
-Chad
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
