Linux-Advocacy Digest #707, Volume #31 Wed, 24 Jan 01 17:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: More to an OS than GUI's (was Re: A salutary lesson ...) (Salvador Peralta)
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) )
("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Poor Linux ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Poor Linux ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ("ono")
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe (J Sloan)
Re: Poor Linux ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (.)
Re: The Server Saga (J Sloan)
Re: Poor Linux ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: The Server Saga (J Sloan)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (.)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (J Sloan)
Re: The *BEST* advertising! ("ono")
Re: Crappy CDROM? (Bones)
Re: Please help! adding a line (Bones)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: The *BEST* advertising! (J Sloan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: More to an OS than GUI's (was Re: A salutary lesson ...)
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:20:58 -0800
Donn Miller wrote:
>
> Salvador Peralta wrote:
>
> > The speed with which linux, thanks in very large part to a heretofore
> > much-maligned troll-tech, has gained on windows as a desktop OS is
> > remarkable. In doing so, at least with the mandrake release, they have
> > made all the usual FUD ( tough to install, people don't want to edit
> > config files, ugly gui, no dnd, etc ) that we hear from people like
> > yourself, the other chad, and claire, very badly out of date.
>
> That's what I don't get. The purpose of fancy GUIs with DnD is to
> appeal to the lowest common denominator of computer user. It's an
> interface which tries to appeal to the common people. But once you've
> experienced what unix can do for you, and you make that step up to a
> better OS (which is Linux, FreeBSD, or Solaris, BTW), you find that you
> don't need to rely on DnD or GUIs. The only place where GUIs are
> absolutely necessary, IMO, are web browsers and games. Otherwise they
> just function as glorified eye candy.
I still use lynx all the time, so I'm not even sure that gui's are
really necessary for browsers. I guess I agree with the jedi when he
says that power users will use both interfaces and just pick the right
tool for the job. Things like graphic manipulation really require a
graphical interface. They also are a real benefit to programmers who
have users that simply won't use a cli or tui interface.
You just can't stuff a genie back into a bottle.
--
Salvador Peralta
http://salvador.venice.ca.us
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) )
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:16:38 GMT
"Sgt Detritus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:94lk32$717$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Try this twit. Windows, all programs shut down. only explorer and
> systray in the task list. EVEN THE SCREENSAVER AND POWER MANAGEMENT WAS
> TURNED OFF. Walked away for two hours and came back to a blue screen!
> --
> Any man agitated enough to lift a 300lb. ape
> without noticing is a man with way too much on
> his mind.
> ~~Terry Pratchett, Guards, Guards~~
This is what you get for running Windows 9x. If you had any expierence in
the enterprise market (which I seriously doubt you do) then you would know
why Linux is unfeasable as a workstation platform. You would also know why
Windows NT & 2000 is the prefered enviroment under such areas.
You would also know that Windows 9x is crap, always has been, probably
always will be. Try Me, you have nothing (but money, and your time) to
loose.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:17:33 GMT
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Oh, definitively Windows 2000.
>
> Oh please - so predictable, just parroting the party line...
>
> > Linux used to make my hard drive do a tap
> > dance when performing high-memory operations (creating big pictures
under
> > GIMP), yet Windows 2000, similar software, similar application sizes.
>
> Of course you'd swear to the above, regardless of whether it
> actually happened...
>
> > Windows 2000 loaded a majority of the program into psychical memory,
> > removing what seemed to have been my other programs (even the ones I had
> > been working in) to VRam.
> >
> > Chalk it up to dynamic process resource reallocation under 2000!
>
> That's something Unix users have enjoyed for years.
>
> Sorry Kyle, your testimony is that of a shill.
I know. The previous conversation was just SO boring I had to send
SOMETHING to spice up the conversation.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:18:14 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > No, it was distinctly "no comment" to your "MATCH.... jerkoff" line...
> > Again, I have no comment as that making rude, personal and often
undeserving
> > comments about people on USENET is, cowardly, and wrong.
>
> loser.
No comment.
------------------------------
From: "ono" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:12:24 +0100
> "The tests that produced the greatest failure rates are the random Win32
> message tests. In the normal course of events, these messages are
> produced by the kernel and sent to an application program. It is
> unlikely (though not impossible) that the kernel would send messages
> with invalid values. Still, these tests are interesting for two reasons.
> First, they demonstrate the vulnerability of this interface. Any
> application program can send messages to any other application program.
> There is nothing in the Win32 interface that provides any type of
> protection. Modern operation systems should provide more durable
> firewalls."
We're talking about os failures here, not about badly written applications.
btw: The person who made those tests is full of it!
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:22:41 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
> 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.
That would be quite extravagant hardware wise. If someone
is going to spend that kind of money, why would they futz
around with gigantic windows PCs?
Just buy some Solaris and/or Linux boxes and be done with it.
> Those 3100 servers would cost a fraction of the Unix or
> Win2K DC servers.
Sorry to have to inject some facts into your discussion,
but the pc server solution actually ends up being quite a bit
more expensive - first of all it's more expensive up front,
due to both higher hardware requirements, and the cost
of pc server licenses. Then windows is more expensive
to support -don't forget the hidden cost of windows here.
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:20:35 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Lost on you, my faux "Unix Systems Engineer" friend.
> >
>
> Must be why I clear over $100,000/year as a Unix Systems Engineer.
So, a person with a gross annual income such as yourself MUST surely have
something else to do then doling out balloon juice on USENET in his spare
time.
> > I have a little parable for you.
> >
> > The sadist and the masochist meet together in some obscure public place.
The
> > masochist immediately begins begging:
> >
> > "O Please!" he cries, "Beat me! Hurt me! Spank me! Punish me! Make me
> > SUFFER!"
> >
> > The evil sadist's eyes brighten, ever so slightly, as he utters the
word:
> > "no".
>
> Trotting out that story never works.
Made someone laugh, problem solved.
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 10:29:12 +1300
> > > I don't turn it off every night. It runs constantly, it usually runs for
> > > 10-30 day spans before being shut down for one reason or another.
> > > Now if my dial up to a Unix server could be so stable. I usually can't
> stay
> > > connected for more than 48 hrs!!
> >
> > So you got windoze ppp to stay up as long as 48 hours? bravo.
>
> I guess you didn't comprehend. The dial up won't stay connected for more
> than two days. The local system is fine.
How ironic. I guess jjs just didn't know what he was talking about.
Bwahahahahaaaa
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Server Saga
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:30:38 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > By why do you help someone out in the wrong group?
> >
> > I'm not sure what you mean by "wrong group", Linux users
> > tend to be generous and willing to help, regardless of "group".
> >
> > You amused yourself by abusing that generosity. Your style
> > is different from the other wintrolls (flatfish, chad, and kyle) but
> > you're cut from the same cloth.
>
> Really? And what happens when someone comes here for help? Sometimes
> they get it, but mostly they get told to go elsewhere.
Depends on how they ask, or whether they just dump on
Linux and split. People were willing to help because you
acted out the part of someone who was trying to get some
problems solved.
Wow, you showed us, didn't you -
haha, joke's on us, eh?
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:28:14 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Oh, definitively Windows 2000. Linux used to make my hard drive do a
tap
> > dance when performing high-memory operations (creating big pictures
under
> > GIMP), yet Windows 2000, similar software, similar application sizes.
> > Windows 2000 loaded a majority of the program into psychical memory,
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Are Diana Ross and the Psychic Friends Network a part of this
configuration?
No, but my terrible spelling is.
> > removing what seemed to have been my other programs (even the ones I had
> > been working in) to VRam.
>
> Kyle, you don't have the faintest fucking clue about how virtual memory
works.
I don't think you have a clue how Windows 2000 deals with virtual memory.
Windows 2000 Professional doesn't use "sleep" (to put it into UNIX
terminology) definitions to transfer programs, it uses the UI focus to
denote priority, or when changed to "background process" priority mode, uses
the old style of "load first" to load applications into memory, in priority
going to real, and then virtual.
Pity Win2k doesn't have a "sleep timer".
> > Chalk it up to dynamic process resource reallocation under 2000!
>
> moron. ALL virtual memory systems work like that, you ignorant fucking
twit.
Linux does not have the ability to auto-reneice applications based upon
activity. My GIMP process tree doesn't get priority level neicing when
doing a complicated math operation while the rest of XFree86 sits idle. It
gets what it was started at (0) and shares resources with all my other
programs running at the time.
So rather than shooting your mouth off about a technology you clearly know
nothing about (Windows), I suggest you avoid from future embarrassment.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Server Saga
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:32:09 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > At the time we thought we were helping you fix whatever
> > it was you screwed up, and get everything working. It
> > did not become clear until later that you were just
> > wasting our time, and had no intention of ever fixing
> > the problems, if they ever really existed.
>
> It does say in my original post my final solution - I installed Windows ME.
Which was probably your intention all along - then again, surely
you see it's questionable whether you ever actually installed Linux.
jjs
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 10:34:42 +1300
> Four of our NT4 boxes are running SQL server 7 and run continuously 24x7 and
> sometimes running near 90-100% for days on end. We replaced a hotswap hard
> drive during that time - THAT is how reliable we've found NT4 to be. How
> long? Nearly 8 months now - since these are not public facing servers we do
> not need to apply security patches so we have no planned reboots. We haven't
> upgraded these four boxes because they have been running non-stop for 8
> months now (and the reason for that reboot was updating SCSI BIOS and
> drivers).
>
> Our two W2K boxes that have never been rebooted since Feb 20th and, although
> I'm sure it's coincidence, not even had a hard drive pop yet. We haven't
> applied SP1 or security patches cause these are internal servers.
You want us to believe you're an NT admin who DOESN'T apply the service
packs to machines in use? You think perhaps SP1 was designed solely to
address internet security issues? This, along with some of your more
rabid claims indicate you are probably talking out your arse.
> Our solaris box
> we've retired and I can say not soon enough, we were tired of it crashing
> all the time.
HAHAHAHAHAAAA.
Two possibilities here:
1) You're lying
2) Your admins are incompetent
Which is it?
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:36:33 GMT
"." wrote:
> > > > I don't turn it off every night. It runs constantly, it usually runs for
> > > > 10-30 day spans before being shut down for one reason or another.
> > > > Now if my dial up to a Unix server could be so stable. I usually can't
> > stay
> > > > connected for more than 48 hrs!!
> > >
> > > So you got windoze ppp to stay up as long as 48 hours? bravo.
> >
> > I guess you didn't comprehend. The dial up won't stay connected for more
> > than two days. The local system is fine.
>
> How ironic. I guess jjs just didn't know what he was talking about.
Oh, cool - bring me up to speed then -
I hear you saying windows gets disconnected, but you
didn't give any indication that it's anything other than
just another windows problem -
How did you determine that the fault is on the other end?
And if the disconnect was coming from the other end, it
could well be ISP policy to disconnect idle users.
Waiting to hear more,
jjs
------------------------------
From: "ono" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: The *BEST* advertising!
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:32:41 +0100
> It's pretty clear that flatfish is beside himself because Linux
> is threatening windows - why this should bother anyboy is not clear,
> unless they own ms stock, or getting paid to poison usenet forums.
It bothers me because there are always 'managers' asking us why we build
industrial robots using w2k instead of linux. Of course they heard that
linux is free and stable where w2k is too expensive and unreliable.
We mostly respond that it is theoretically possible but if they want to find
out, they have to hire new programmers.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bones)
Subject: Re: Crappy CDROM?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:51:12 GMT
> mlw wrote:
[snip]
>> Bones wrote:
>> Oops, I just repeated what you said.
> I always get a kick out off people that don't read an entire post before
> responding. Who knows, maybe I just compose messages in a way that is too
> dis-joined.
You're very diplomatic. No, I think it is a matter or my mind being disjointed.
----
Bones
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bones)
Subject: Re: Please help! adding a line
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:51:13 GMT
> Edward Rosten wrote:
>> Bones wrote:
>> 1) Assuming that you want a carriage return:
>> echo -e "I wonder \n$(cat fileA)" > filea
^^^^^^^^^^^
> YUK! This isn't going to work for big files. It's also a little
> inefficient to copy the whole of the file to the command line before
> putting it back in to a file.
OK, I was shooting for elegant. No one said anything about adding entries to
the tops of huge files. Anyway, I made a flub. What I meant was:
echo -e "I wonder \n$(cat fileA)" > fileA
I know it doesn't make too much of a difference with your argument, but I
did not mean to involve another file in that snippet.
Anyway... I tried my method and added the line "I wonder" to the beginning
of the Text-Terminal-HOWTO, weighing in at about 265K. It worked fine, so I
got brave. I concatenated the entire collection of documents in the HOW-TO
directory on my system into a single file. That topped out at 9,119,701
bytes. Although it took about 20 seconds, I was able to successfully prepend
the monster document with "I wonder" using my example above. How big is big
relative to file sizes?
Your examples:
> echo "I wonder" | cat - fileA > filea
[trim]
> echo -n "I wonder" | cat - fileA > filea
I see where you are coming from. Also, Bash on my Linux system doesn't add a
newline with the second example, assuming that is what '-n' is there for.
> With the 2 above examples, filea and fileA MUST NOT BE THE SAME!!!
> because the shell will truncate the file (as a result of >) before
> trying to read it, so you will loose the old file.
...
> Or you could try:
> echo "I wonder" > filea
> cat filea >> fileA
Hmmm... I believe this appends "I wonder" to the end of fileA, a result
which the original poster expressly forbade.
What OS are you using?
----
Bones
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:52:19 GMT
"Lewis Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:94lmk7$h7s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> WHAT?! Did you not listen to a word that was said? There already is a *nix
> solution. The HP is running UNIX. I'm not suggesting putting Linux on the
work
> stations. And you know how you impliment a system wide policy on HP/UX?
You
> aply the policy to the HP and it's done. The HP is the whole system.
That's why
> it has a multi-user OS. Many users, one machine. Why is NT fine on the
> workstation? Because only one person logs onto that machine. Then they
load
> their term prog and log onto the HP.
As I said, you could replace the NT machine with Linux, it's only a telnet
connection. This is a lucky scenario.
> >People prefered Works.
>
> SOME, a few did I'm sure. Most ppl know it is worthless.
Sure, now. "Back then" Microsoft Works was a fantastic suite. WP users had
training (remember Word Perfect classes?) Works required none. People just
understood, and having a well made instruction manual didn't hurt either.
> > Eventaully. Word Perfect was everything BUT until it finaly came to
> > Windows. Even then, Microsoft Office & Works was pushing it off the
> > desktop. Hmm, wonder why so many people prefered Works over WP?
>
> OK also don't mention Office and Works in the same sentence. Because
Office, is
> an office package a collection of programs. Works, is one program, that
sucks.
> Now if you want to compare Word to WP. that's fair and I could even see
> competition. But Works, not even.
WP is older than office. Back in "the day", MSDOS based WP was the
"professional rage" even though it didn't come to Windows for quite some
time. Even then, the Win version was terribly slow, and majorly buggy. Of
course people prefered Office.
> >What are you talking about? Downloadable doesn't mean free.
>
> YES it does.
No, it doesn't. Some companies aren't at the liberty of violating liscense
policy provided by the manufactuers.
> >That box sitting on the shelf at your local computer store isn't free,
>
> No, that's why I don't get it there.. THAT is where suckers go. Or the
puppet
> yuppies.
YOU don't go there, becasue you aren't subject to the liscensing
restrictions on StarOFfice, you also own a broadband connection, don't
you...
> >neither is the 40 hours needed to download it over a modem.
>
> umm. pretty darn close.. but why are you downloading it over a modem?
Some people can't afford cable modems, some don't have access, some don't
even know about it. (Reapply do DSL as well)
> > BROADBAND doesn't make everything free.
>
> Everything that is downloadable...
Your circular logic is giving me a headache.
> >And is it so terrible that I demand quality software from makers?
>
> NO! By all means, demand quality! Thats my beef w/ windows. MS is giving
me a
> not so great product. For the price I'm paying for software from MS, it
damn
> well better be nearly completely bug free. Star Office? It's free, you
can't
> demand shit from someone you're not paying. Cause if I make a program, and
you
> don't pay me for it, fuck you. What makes you think I made it for you? I
made
> it for me, and it works well enough for me. If you want a copy, go ahead
and
> have it, because I don't see why I shouldn't share.
StarOffice isn't free. StarOffice is a commercial prodcut. StarOffice is a
terrible product, on any platform.
> >I haven't ever expierenced anyone who didn't understand that "the data's
> >gone, because the computer is off."
>
> Knock on fucking wood, you've obviously never worked on a help line. Even
help
> lines for techs get dumbasses sometimes. Now when you directly support the
end
> user? They don't know the difference between turning the monitor off, and
> rebooting. They don't understand the computer at all, so they don't
understand
> why you can't make it do exactly what they want. This is the wonderful
result
> of us not forcing training on users.
I've had numerious people who haven't understood the fact that the monitor,
and computer were powered independently, I tolerate ignorance (aparently,
unlike you), because I can perceive the difference between stupidity and
ignorance.
But I have NEVER had anyone who didn't understand that "the computer is off,
there is no more data."
You may wish to get the quality of your local water tested...
> >Second, my situation requiring a lunch break is as such; uninteruptable.
I
> >ensure my legaly protected breaks are enforced, and penalization for
> >respecting that time period is not tolerated.
>
> Oh bullshit. Fine you work some place where there a NO politics. When the
CEO
> walks in on your lunch break, and he wants you to come install a screen
saver
> that someone e-mailed him, you damn well do it and don't ask questions.
The
> head of payroll, is running late on a Friday and you're off the clock and
she
> tells you that her machine went down and she needs to get these expence
reports
> off, ( and your's is in that pile) you stop, and you fix it. For yes
politcal
> reasons, and personal reasons, but also, if you don't, you're being a
dick, and
> HR can replace you.
I have no issue about providing assistance when something is wrong. If
something is broken, and I'm on salary, it's my JOB to fix it. I do fix it,
even when I'm "off" the clock. I know that work needs to be done, and being
a prick about not aiding that is not only being an ass for the sake of being
an ass, but that it hinders prodcutivity.
But my lunch break is uninteruptable...
As for the CEO needing a screensaver post-haste, I have not had the
"fortune" of dealing with such petty, self-centered narcissism in a
corporate environment.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: The *BEST* advertising!
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:08:01 GMT
ono wrote:
> > It's pretty clear that flatfish is beside himself because Linux
> > is threatening windows - why this should bother anyboy is not clear,
> > unless they own ms stock, or getting paid to poison usenet forums.
> It bothers me because there are always 'managers' asking us why we build
> industrial robots using w2k instead of linux. Of course they heard that
> linux is free and stable where w2k is too expensive and unreliable.
> We mostly respond that it is theoretically possible but if they want to find
> out, they have to hire new programmers.
Why, has your manager somehow managed to hire
*exclusively* programmers who have been taught
only the windows api and can learn nothing new?
Programming skills are transferable if the programmer
has his wits about him, perhaps a brief ramp up period,
but he would have to go through that with every single
new version of windows anyway, so that's a push.
I began programming on microsoft c + blaise turbo tools
in the msdos environment, then got into the windows api
with borland turbo c/c++, but when I switched to the Unix
platform, I was able to begin coding immediately, and just
had to unlearn some single user assumptions that held
in the pc programming environment.
jjs
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
