Linux-Advocacy Digest #627, Volume #32 Sat, 3 Mar 01 23:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market (mlw)
Re: KDE or GNOME? (Donn Miller)
Re: NT vs *nix performance ("JS PL")
Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation (mlw)
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: RTFM at M$ (Bob Hauck)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Shane Phelps)
Re: Linux Joke (.)
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (mlw)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 22:29:27 -0500
al wrote:
>
> http://www.wininformant.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=20143
This is all well and good, but, I have some issues with this sort of
propaganda.
I work in the industry. I see NO interest in Windows, none. Yes, I see
companies having to develop Windows desktop applications, but I see no one that
takes NT or 2K seriously as a server. If they buy one, it is because of
Microsoft lock-ware, not because they would choose it. The first chance the
people I see get, they'll drop Windows on every system they can until it is
gone.
The "numbers" are meaningless. We buy one copy of RedHat, it is on 12 servers.
We buy 2 copies of NT 4.0, it is on two servers. Windows out shipped 2:1 to my
company, but is used 1:6. If entities like IDC could track this, they would see
very different numbers.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 22:26:39 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE or GNOME?
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> ORBit is nice, but useless to KDE since it is C based. BTW, writing
> CORBA applications in C is like brain surgery, it not a big problem
>
> I still wish that KDE had gone with CORBA though.
So, how does CORBA stack up against DCOP? You're right in that we
should probably be sticking to common components as much as possible.
The more compatible we are with each other, the better.
====== 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: "JS PL" <js@plcom>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 22:31:19 -0500
"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JS PL wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > >
> > > JS PL wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > Then why all the whining about a supposed microsoft tax. No one
who
> > has
> > > > > > ever bought a computer in the history of man has been forced to
pay
> > > > extra
> > > > > > for an OS they didn't want.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, they have.
> > > >
> > > > How so? At what time in history has it been impossible to buy the
> > hardware
> > > > to build your own computer? Seems to me that individual hardware
> > channels
> > > > were there long before people were building and selling packages
that
> > > > included MS Windows. Your about as dumb as they come.
> > >
> > > The average consumer has no more interest in building his own
> > > computer from scratch as he does in building a kit car.
> > >
> > > now fuck off and die, idiot.
> >
> > That's not the point. It doesn't matter if NO ONE want's to build their
own
> > computer. The fact is, all the components are available and have always
been
> > available to buy a computer with any or no operating system you choose.
> > Therefore, no possibility of a monopoly. Anyone who utters the sentence
> > "Microsoft has a monopoly" is clearly advertising their own ignorance.
Wait
> > and see what the appeals court says.
>
> You mean that if someone takes control of all the commerce of grain in
> USA, imposing exclusive contracts with all farmers, and owning all the
> warehouses where grain is stored, it could not be possibly sued for
> monopolistic action on the ground that you may grow grain in your back
> yard? I believe you're out of your mind, son.
You forget, grain unlike software cannot be duplicated to infinity at almost
no cost. If it could, there could be no monopoly on grain just as there can
be no monopoly on software. Software isn't a finite resource.
Two clicks from one of the most visited pages on earth is monopoly
prevention:
http://dir.yahoo.com/Computers_and_Internet/Software/Operating_Systems/
and always has been.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 22:41:41 -0500
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
> Pete Goodwin wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >
> > > Can't reject something that isn't even offered by the OEM.
> >
> > There's absolutely NOTHING stopping people from buying Linux or BeOS
> > seperately.
>
> Yes, there is. If someone gets an OS automatically loaded on the
> system, the impulse is to look no further for another OS.
It is even worse than that. I had an incident with a Gateway machine, on which
I had installed linux. The hard drive went bad. Gateway told me to reinstall
Windows so I could run their diagnostic program.
The argument was silly, it went something like this:
(Tech support) "Run the diagnostic utility, it is under the start menu......"
(Me) "I don't have Windows on the machine, and the hard drive is bad."
(TS) "You will have to reinstall Windows so we can verify the hard disk."
(Me) "I won't be able to install Windows, the hard disk is bad."
(TS) "If you can't run the diagnostic utility we can't verify the hard disk is
bad."
(Me) "I can't install Windows on a bad hard disk."
(TS) "We can't help you until you can run the diagnostic program."
(Me) "Can I talk to your manager."
It took me three people to get a new hard disk sent out. (This was a couple
years ago, it may be better now.) Suffice to say I will never buy a Gateway
again.
Microsoft's monopoly has really hurt the industry in so many ways. The original
IBM PS/2 had a configuration disk that was OS agnostic. Who does that these
days?
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 21:43:39 -0600
"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <_ddo6.31$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >I'm a little confused here. When exactly was Microsoft "almost giving
> >away "
> >> >the office products?
> >>
> >> When they were forcing OEMs to bundle it by threatening their Windows
> >> licenses, dumping it by using monopoly revenues to subsidize it, and
> >> further ensuring that consumers never saw the price tag for it, no
> >> matter what it was. So if you got a new PC, you got Office; that's
> >> "almost giving away", if you innocently presume it isn't
monopolization.
> >
> >You state this as fact. Yet, I've seen no evidence to support this. It
> >hasn't been asserted in any court of law.
> >
> "It's not illegal if you don't get caught."
>
> Sounds like sock-puppet wisdom to me.
I said nothing about anything being legal or not. I said, that this hasn't
been asserted in any court and there appears to be no evidence to support
this claim. Without any kind of evidence, acting like it's fact is simply
false.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: RTFM at M$
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 03:43:42 GMT
On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:12:56 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Bob Hauck in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 02 Mar 2001 02:43:48
>> Perhaps you could stick to the point and tell me what the value to me
>> is in allowing random people to ping my broadcast address.
>
> The simple fact is that one cannot tell by looking what is a
> "broadcast address" from what is a host address, since the packet does
> not contain the subnet mask.
True, but there are a number of common cases, starting with the old
class A, B, and C. And it is quite simple to ping every address in a
range and see how many replies you get. If you get 200, then you have a
good smurf amplifier. Automate this with a script and you can scan huge
chunks of the address space while you sleep.
> particularly when the worst damage that can possible be done is to
> slow down your Internet connection, and while preventing Smurf attacks
> might be all well and good, regardless, there are a potentially
> infinite number of other ways to deny you service.
Smurf does not deny me service, necessarily, but some third party
victim. The attacker takes advantage of my bandwidth to attack someone
else while at the same time hiding his IP address.
>As far as direct value in pinging a broadcast address
I don't care if you can troubleshoot my network from outside. Really, I
don't.
> No, you haven't. You are still thinking that there is some way to
> know whether any particular ping is or is not a "broadcast ping"
What do you mean? I know what my broadcast addresses are. It is
trivial to block pings to those addresses at the border router. I am
not talking about blocking them at the source, but at the destination.
> isn't true. Plus, the Smurf attack works by using your address as the
> *source* of the pings, so you are flooded with the responses; there is
> no disallowing of pings which will suffice, save complete partitioning
No, Smurf uses the address of the *victim* as the source of the pings,
and I am merely the "amplifier", not the victim.
> You have not provided any reason, though you've parroted some dubious
> reasons provided by others (who not only don't have to pay the cost of
> implementing such things, but make money on the deal!) for firewalling
> ping.
Make money? Virtually all routers can block whatever IP protocol you
want, ICMP included.
The reason to block pings to broadcast addresses is to prevent your
network being used as a smurf amplifier by script kiddies.
>>>> CERT and Cisco both recommend that you filter ICMP to broadcast
>>>> addresses at your border. The recommend this because of the smurf
>>>> problem.
>>>
>>> Actually, they recommend this because of the paranoia problem.
>>
>> No, they recommend it because people were using the smurf attack to
>> cause trouble.
> With a clear understanding of topology and pings, there is no need to
> block them. To generate enough traffic to be a problem, the smurf
> would have to be an internal attack
No it is not an internal attack. The scenario is this: Party A has
limited bandwidth but wants to DoS party B. He picks a party C such
that C has a lot more bandwidth than B. A sends pings to C's broadcast
address with the source address set to B. For each ping A sends, some
number N go to B, where N is the number of hosts that respond to the
broadcast ping. If the factor N is large enough (i.e. C has lots of
hosts on that network), this can result in an effective DoS.
>> In an ideal world smurf wouldn't work because everybody would do proper
>> filtering so users could not forge packets. We do not live in an ideal
>> world.
>
> I must imagine you are riffing at this point. What "proper filtering"
> are you thinking of that would make "forged packets" impossible?
You can't make forged packets "impossible", but you can make it so that
users can't send packets that appear to come from outside their subnet.
This stops things like smurf because the kiddies packets with somone
else's source address on them get dropped at the next router.
You do this by filtering. For example, an ISP can put his dialup users
on their own subnet behind a filtering router that blocks outbound
packets with source addresess not on that subnet. Obviously, this has
to be done at the leaves of the network to be effective.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 03:45:51 GMT
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:97r9pn$hup$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > The GPL creates restrictions for redistribution. The BSDL has no such
> > restrictions, other than giving credit. The restrictions for GPL
>
> BUT it allows for further restrictions ot be introduced.
Only on additional work by other people. The original code remains
as available as ever from the original author without any further
restrictions.
> > redistribution can be having to give your work away, in the same way
> > that restrictions for commecial redistribution can be to give money
> > away. For commecial purposes, money is equivalent in many ways to
> > work-time or work-product.
>
> > Free software doesn't constrain the freedom of those who redistribute
> > code. It doesnt add conditions or create additional requirements
> > (including payment of money or code.)
>
> Neither does it constrain the freedom of the recipients, but if someone
> gets something under the BSDL and distributes it under the EPL, the
> recipient has restrictions, not freedom.
The recipient has the freedom to make his own choice about using this
work which can't even exist with any restrictive GPL components.
> > For example, for fun, link a GPLed library with your own code. The
> > entire work becomes redistribution encumbered (you must be able to
> > provide source code), especially if there is no other GPLed library with
> > the same interface. Not only is the GPL a restrictive license, but it
> > invokes the much hated interface copyright concept (per RMS.)
>
> Most libraries are under the LGPL, which was invented to prevent EPL's
> apps having to give away the source.
Why aren't they all - and code in general? The LGPL is fairly reasonable,
unlike the GPL which removes the rights of the authors of any other
components of derived works.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 14:49:36 +1100
Trimmed the X-post a bit...
J Sloan wrote:
>
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
[ snip ]
> >
> > I haven't been following this thread to intensely, so I'm not sure
> > if this is relevant or not, but the TPC units are typically transactions
> > per MINUTE, not second. I don't know if that changes anything or not, but
> > it might be useful in whatever you're talking about.
>
> You get an E for effort, but let's clear up a few things:
>
> 1. The specweb 99 units of measurement are "conforming connections".
>
> 2. This had nothing to do with specweb, but with a very suspicious
> benchmark, no doubt sponsored by microsoft, in which some obscure.
> incrediby slow and suspiciously expensive "unix" server was reported
> to be capable of some figure around 3500 requests per second, and
> supposedly represented the best that the unix world had to offer.
>
Actually, it was an application server comparison.
http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,409380,00.html
What it looked like to me was:
They were testing the various application servers available on
commercial Unices a couple of years back, and came up with a reasonably
well laid-out lab system (back-end RDBMS, application server, web servers,
assorted clients) to compare the *application servers* on identical hardware.
The hardware was Sun gear they'd probablu had sitting around for a few
years for precisely this purpose. It really didn't matter what the hardware
was, as long as it was up to the job of running a head-to-head comparison
of the application servers, because that's all they were comparing.
They had just about finished, and somebody tossed the MS system into
the mix.
The article wasn't in the slightest complimentary about the MS system.
The speed was acknowledged, but this was at the expense of robustness,
flexibility and manageability (Macdonalds, anybosy?). They weren't a
happy little lab crew.
This may just have been sour grapes because somebody disrupted their
cosy little testing arrangement; I couldn't say.
Somebody X-posted it completely out of context to annoy the Solaris and
Linux NGs, and seems to have succeeded. I read the article and decided
the
post was an obvious troll which I didn't want to feed. The article was
*very*
uncomplimentary towards MS.
The thread went off on a tangent very quickly, so it didn't seem worth
bringing it back to the original track.
> Of course this obscure "unix" server trailed the windows pc server
> by a significant amount. The obvious question was, where in the world
It actually wasn't particularly obscure "unix" equipment, it was just the
previous generation of SPARC boxes, and probably not very highly configured.
It was pretty well "state of the art" in 1996, which was probably when they
bought it. The comparison was run in 1998/9; by then all the gear had been
superceded.
I think it used an E3000 at the back end, a pair of E450s as app servers
and a mix of Ultra 1 and Compaq boxes as web servers.
Overall, the hardware was sufficient for the purpose, which was to compare
the application server software. They weren't after absolute speed.
Throwing IIS/SQL Server in at the last minute was an apples and oranges
comparison, which was clearly stated in the article.
> did they dig this nonsense up, and why didn't they just look at something
> sponsored by a neutral 3rd party, like specweb 99 for web benchmarks.
Because it wasn't a web benchmark. It was an application server comparison.
The MS stuff looked to have been thrown in at the last minute.
> Answer: specweb would not show what they wanted to show, e.g. windows
> victorious over all competitors; instead, it shows windows rather badly
> beaten by several Unixen until microsoft pulled out all the stops and
> tested with a special web cache to skew the results. This got them into
> the ballpark, but still trailing both Linux and AIX.
>
Now *that* is a different matter. Despite protests to the contrary, MS's
benchmark special was just as obviously built specifically built for
running this benchmark as the Linux/Tux one. As a matter of interest,
I wonder how well thttpd would perform on similar equipment.
> I noted that in running a "quick and dirty" benchmark on an old test
> box here, I see 4200 requests/second from a single 100 MB ethernet.
> That statement created hoots and howls of outrage from the anti linux
> crowd, but the numbers are easily recreated if any one cares to do so.
>
> Hope this clears things up,
>
> jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Joke
Date: 4 Mar 2001 04:00:20 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Keldon Warlord 2000 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Q. Why does the Linux user constantly obtain
>> upgrades of the kernel and other OS facilities?
>>
>> A. Because he can.
> wrong answer.
> the real answer is: because he has to.
Really now? Why exactly does he HAVE to?
I am in control of two webservers and a mail server which are all running
redhat linux, and havent had any kind of upgrade in 290 days.
Never hacked, never down, never fail.
=====.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 22:01:24 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Yes, that is the argument. Here is the original post which includes the
> >comment:
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_oq=&as_e
p
>
>q=&as_eq=&as_ugroup=&as_usubject=&as_uauthors=+&as_umsgid=3A995A7B.6260866D
@
> >home.com&lr=
> >
> >"PCs are becoming obsolete, you say? Wrong.
> >They're still selling in huge numbers, because
> >they're enormously useful devices whose
> >utility keeps expanding. The *ONLY* component
> >in the average PC that hasn't come down
> >sharply in price is -- you guessed it --
> >the operating system. Microsoft continues
> >to spin off monopoly profits, with no end
> >in sight."
> >
> >(Emphasis Mine, of course)
> >
> >Now, are you *STILL* going to deny that this was the argument, and that
it's
> >not based on a faulty premise?
>
> Of course I am. Just because its in caps doesn't mean that it is the
> central premise of an argument. Its pretty lame that this is the best
> you can do.
What exactly is the central premise then, if the words of the article cannot
be taken for what they say?
> >> Now stop being a pedantic ass. You're moving rapidly from 'boring' to
> >> 'repulsive'.
> >
> >Is this going to be another one of those "pretend it doesn't exist"
> >arguments?
>
> You tell me; you seem to have a corner on the market in that regards.
Not at all. Here you are claiming that the very words written to support
the claim of monopoly are not in fact the premise upon which the claim is
founded.
> [...]
> >> By pointing out, for only the umpteenth time, that the argument is not
> >> *BASED ON* the data you claim it is; you merely *wish* it were, so that
> >> you could pretend it is a flawed argument. The fact is, it is an
> >> extremely strong argument showing that Microsoft maintains the price of
> >> their products above competitive levels. A consumer in 1985 buying an
> >> MS OS off the shelf would pay about $49, I think; in 2001, its up to
> >> $185.
> >
> >Bullshit. You couldn't buy a MS OS "off the shelf" in 1985. MS didn't
start
> >to retail MS-DOS until Dos 4.0, which came out around 1989, and Windows
did
> >not become an OS until Windows 3.0 (possibly Windows 2/386, but that was
> >like 1988/89 as well).
>
> Being as you're a sock puppet, its hard to tell whether this is pure
> spin or historical fact, as you might well have more than enough of both
> when sowing confusion in an argument. Perhaps my purchasing of DOS 3.3
> and earlier, and seeing boxes for MS-DOS 2.x on the computer store's
> shelves, was illusionary. I certainly don't have documentation, and I
> guess you probably have MS's official timeline. Windows 1.0 and 2.0 and
> 286/386 were likewise commercial packages purchased off the shelf,
> AFAIK.
Yes, Windows was a commercial package. I was wrong though, It wasn't MS-DOS
4.0, it was 3.2. What I was thinking about was MS-DOS 5, which was the
first retail UPGRADE version of MS-DOS designed to replace an older version
which shipped in 1991. I remember a lot of fuss about it being the first
retail version, but I guess I didn't catch that it was the first retail
upgrade. MS-DOS 3.2 was released in 1986.
> >Furthermore, DOS 5.0 retailed for $99, not $49 (and
> >Dos 4.0 was about the same price)
>
>http://www.smartcomputing.com/editorial/article.asp?article=articles%2F1992
%
> >2Fjan92%2F0106%2F92n0106%2Easp
> >
> >The price of Windows 1.0 was $100 (I was wrong in an earlier post when I
> >thought it was $500) but required DOS, which meant Dos + Windows costed
> >$199, about $8 cheaper than the MSRP today, and Windows today is 1000x
what
> >Windows 1.0 was.
>
> Except now you don't get DOS, right; you just get Windows. Isn't that
> an increase of 100%?
Uhh.. you do get DOS in Win9x based products, and in NT based products you
get the 32 bit equivelant of DOS.
> >http://www.islandnet.com/~kpolsson/comphist/comp1985.htm
> >
> >> Pray save us the inevitable whining about "how much more you get"; it
> >> really has nothing to do with the matter.
> >
> >You were saying?
>
> That you're a fraud who's apologizing for a monopolist, and rather than
> having a solid argument, you misrepresent things in order to avoid
> admitting that Microsoft entirely and unilaterally (and predatorally and
> illegally) controls the price of their software, and maintains them
> above competitive levels *REGARDLESS OF WHAT THAT AMOUNT IS*: monopoly
> pricing.
Given the appelate courts reaction to Jacksons lack of definition of the
market, how do you think they'd act to the claim that Windows is priced
above competitive levels without defining what the competitive level is.
Are they supposed to be mind readers?
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 23:11:43 -0500
Pat McCann wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard) writes:
>
> > That is why calling the GPV free is a baldfaced lie.
[snip]
One man's freedom is another mans prison. Perspective has a very important role
in the definition of freedom. Should southern plantation owners have had the
freedom to run their farms as they see fit, or was slavery infringing on
another's freedom?
A viable freedom requires rules which ensure that one mans freedom does not
steal another's. For freedom to remain viable, it must not dissolve into
anarchy. Freedom without some discipline and control is anarchy.
The BSD license is anarchy. A person can contribute code to the world. Someone
else can build upon this work, and not contribute. This means that someone is
gaining an advantage from something they do not own.
In the GPL world, a person can share code with the world. Anyone can come along
and use and improve this code. To do so, however, they must agree to share in
the same spirit as the authors who created the code they wish to use. If you
ask me, this is not unreasonable, nor does it infringe on any freedoms. One
need not use GNU software at all. if you want to keep it to yourself, you are
100% free not to use something with a GPL license.
--
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time.
The terror of their tyranny, however, is alleviated by their lack of
consistency.
-- Albert Einstein
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
