Linux-Advocacy Digest #630, Volume #32 Sun, 4 Mar 01 06:13:05 EST
Contents:
It's here! IBM's new Linux ad! (Tim Hanson)
Re: It's here! IBM's new Linux ad! ("Tom Wilson")
Re: It's here! IBM's new Linux ad! ("Adam Warner")
Re: Crimosoft will get off scot-free (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (false analogies, and purposeful
misuse.) ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Ed Allen)
Re: How would you do this with Linux ? ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation ("Edward Rosten")
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: It's here! IBM's new Linux ad! (Nico Coetzee)
Re: MS executives at LinuxWorld Expo (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Windows XP! Will it really be reliable? (Nico Coetzee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: It's here! IBM's new Linux ad!
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 08:37:22 GMT
Is this walkin' the walk? Or what?
http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/linux/passport.swf
--
"Never underestimate the power of a small tactical nuclear weapon."
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: It's here! IBM's new Linux ad!
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 09:19:02 GMT
"Tim Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Is this walkin' the walk? Or what?
>
> http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/linux/passport.swf
Well, the cards are certainly on the table now, aren't they?
Big Blue -vs- Big Bill
The Thriller in MaGNUli...
Place your wagers, gentlemen!
> --
> "Never underestimate the power of a small tactical nuclear weapon."
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: It's here! IBM's new Linux ad!
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 09:30:43 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Tim Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Is this walkin' the walk? Or what?
>
> http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/linux/passport.swf
I like these statements:
"IBM has put a stake in the ground: we are now and will remain a strong
contributor to and evangelist of the Linux movement."
"If you think it's just fluff, you've missed the point."
"We even built a Linux watch." ;-)
"Kids all over the world are learning Linux every day. The overwhelming
preference for Linux by young technical people is turning future
generations of skilled programmers into future generations of skilled
Linux programmers."
"IBM is betting on Linux because it's good for the IT industry, good for
the Linux community, good for IBM, and good for IBM customers.
Ths same is not true for some of our competitors who, despite repeated
overtures to the 'open' philosophy and the Linux community, remain tied
to proprietary legacy systems."
Have fun,
Adam
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Crimosoft will get off scot-free
Date: 4 Mar 2001 09:33:34 GMT
On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 06:37:11 GMT, Tim Hanson wrote:
>I don't think that is the "threat" he was addressing. His argument was
>with taxpayer supported software and the GPL. He was saying, in effect,
>"Our company pays taxes to support the creation of software we can't
>fold into our products." This refers to, among others, the Beowolf
>project, which was developed with the at least in part by NASA, but
>which Microsoft can't stea^H^H^H^H use because of the license. He was
>saying that since Microsoft dollars fund NASA through taxes, Microsoft
>ought to be able to reap the benefits.
As long as the GPLd products are not libraries, or code they want to
factor into a library, they can use it. Their argument does seem kind
of silly.
However, I wouldn't license anything under the GPL, because a lot of
applications are either a pile of libraries with some glue, or can
be easily modified to look like that. For this reason, I prefer the
LGPL, I find the conseuquences of the GPL on library code unacceptable.
The other problem is that it's difficult to purge the virus. I was working on
a project a little while back, and suggested a move from GPL to LGPL, but it
took a while to obtain a response a former employee, and this was cause for
concern for some time, since the code was at his mercy, even though I'd written
about 90% of it. (especially since a lot of the code in question was
library code that had been licensed under the GPL because it was not originally
library code)
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (false analogies, and
purposeful misuse.)
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 09:57:42 +0000
> No, there's plenty of room for honest disagreement about what best
> promotes freedom. Quite a few freedoms are quite simply mutually
> exclusive. Some people disagree with you about which freedoms to
> preserve at the cost of others. You're wrong to attribute this to
> malicious intent.
This is exactly my point, though rather better put.
cheers
Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
This argument is a beta version. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Allen)
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 10:01:03 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:13:10 GMT, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>
>>Linux can be had for free. This isn't better prices?
>
>No, it can't be "had for free". You either need to have a high bandwidth
>connection, or you need to pay for it. And no one sells Linux for free.
>
>In particular, when Linux *is* sold by a company, it usually goes
>for $40-80
>
Those companies are selling the support to get running and to help
identify and work around unusual hardware.
The same CD which you get from RedHat with a nice manual can be had
from CheapBytes for $1.98
That is really close to the cost of the media when compared to MS
or Sun prices.
>>>That's because the average user is choosing low end hardware. The
>>>apparent inconsistency is due to the fact that they aren't moving
>>>towards the low end on the software front.
>>
>>How is a PIII "low end hardware" compared to an 80386?
>
>A PIII-450 is lower end hardware today than (for example) a Pentium I
>was in 1995.
>
What is the low end of the Windows price ?
I thought that was supposed to be the "consumer oriented" Windows ME
at $180.00
MS does not sell versions older than two back because the tiny
improvements, mostly to allow changing the hardware enough that the
older version are not able to run it at full speed, are not
compelling enough to drive the upgrade treadmill.
You seem to want a single facet to be pointed out and be able to say
that defines the monopoly.
MS has built like beavers at a dam. They pile up interlocking
pieces until it begins to hold back the stream then they slap some
mud on to block the little trickles getting through the logjam.
Examining a single obstruction will never allow you to identify a dam
because, obviously, only when seen in their multitude could a
blockage occur.
>>This isn't true; it may be an opinion, but it is not an arbitrary
>>judgement. It isn't even opinion, but fact, if you know anything about
>>economics.
>
>I bet you would find that a lot of people who really understand economics
>more than any usenet crank would disagree with you.
>
You mean like the ones hired to give speeches at the "seminars" for
Federal Judges where they claim that single producers can make goods
more efficiently and that monopolies are "good" for consumers ?
--
GPL says
"What's mine is ours,
If you make *OUR* stuff better the result is still ours."
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How would you do this with Linux ?
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 10:12:12 +0000
> You could also keep track of payroll as each cashier must login too.
> Creative programming can go a LONG ways! You don't have to be the
> greatest programmer either. THAT is a nice thing about using Linux. I'm
> no hot-shot programmer by any means, but I could do it. All the
> programming needed is math and some text formatting in a CLI mode. With
> a GUI however, any display becomes a bitch to programme for, enough
> that I gave up on Visual BASIC. ASCII forever!
I've written a small program that generates text mode dialog boxes (for
ANSI terminals only at the moment) from a data file. It can cope with
check boxes, text/numeric input fields, radio buttons, tabs, push
buttons, text labels, hiding and greying out items based on rules.
email me if you are interested.
It's GPL, or course :-)
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
This argument is a beta version. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 10:14:53 +0000
>> Yes, there is. If someone gets an OS automatically loaded on the
>> system, the impulse is to look no further for another OS.
>
> That's not actually STOPPING them, that's just laziness.
Unless most people don't know that there are alternatives (which they
don't). Besides, having paid for something is usually incentive to use
it.
-Ed
--
| Edward Rosten
| u98ejr@
This argument is a beta version. | ecs.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[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: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 10:21:58 +0000
> I wish Jay and others would give the GNU crowd this one and limit their
> protest to the use of quotes on "free". If someone licenses proprietary
> software at no cost (as with the GPL), it is truthful English, if not
You can accuse GPL of not being free but it is in no way proprietary (not
according to my dictionaries definition).
-Ed
--
|
Edward Rosten
| u98ejr@
This argument is a beta version. | ecs.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[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 10:26:24 +0000
In article <PTio6.8646$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Les Mikesell"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "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.
I believe you don't have to modify the work to change the license.
Besides the origional is not necessarily easy to obtain.
>> > 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.
Choice is only one measure of freedom. there are others.
-Ed
--
| Edward Rosten
| u98ejr@
This argument is a beta version. | ecs.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[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 10:35:07 +0000
>> > Yes, please consider the receiver when the receiver is anyone other
>> > than a program developer himself, and wants working software,
>> > software that interoperates with other things that may be propriatary
>> > and may be willing to pay for it. How is this person's ability to
>> > obtain and use the well-tested free portion of the code as a part of
>> > the program he actually wants affected?
>>
>> Not everyone in the world has free or broadband access. If I bought
>> something and got sent the CDs (without source code) I would not have
>> the code.
>
> Not everyone wants or needs code. The burden of getting it should be
> left to the ones who do want it, not imposed on everyone else.
No but some of us do. It was no burden to get the code along with the CD.
it would be a burden to get it online.
>> When I don't have boradband access, it would not be proctical to
>> download BSD for me to look at the code. Whereas, I paid for Linux on
>> CD and got the code too. This point is especially important for most
>> places in the world, since most places do not have unmetered access.
>
> Be honest now: how many megabytes of that code have you improved? Has
That is not really relavent. Once in a while I modify a program.
Sometimes I just look at the code to see what they did.
> it really been too much to download over a modem? Besides, what you
Nothing is too much to download over a modem in theory. But when I'm at
home, I have one (metered) phonline shared between 4 people. Long
downloads aren't that fesiable.
> get on a CD is always out of date. You really want access to the
Not with what's on my computer.
> current CVS repository if you are doing anything that needs source in
> the first place. Would you really try to fix a bug in that old copy of
> source before looking for an update?
Depends. Sometimes I fix a bug to see if I can. Somtimes what I do isn't
bugfixing but modification.
>> >> The free licenses are more free than the GPL for the distributer
>> >> since there are fewer restrictions.
>> >
>> > And for the recipient.
>>
>> No. The recipient may receive it with restrictions.
>
> I thought we were talking about the recipient's freedom, not your
> unilateral demands. Why do you insist that the recipient not have the
> freedom to choose the restrictions or lack thereof that are acceptable?
The recipient does not have the choice. The recipient has to put up with
what the distributer lumped on them. The GPL stope that distributer
adding new restrictions, but the other licenses don't.
>> >> However, those licenses enable the distributer to place restrictions
>> >> on the code, so for the person receiving it it will not be as free.
>> >
>> > Beg your pardon, but it those things will be non-existant with GPL
>> > code. I don't see how people mange to confuse that with 'more free'.
>>
>> I don't follow. The GPL disallows more restrictions, so the software
>> maintains its level of freedom, where as the other ones can lose it.
>
> Try again. The GPL can only add restrictions. Consider the case
> where the software you need must include components (say encryption or
> encoding/decoding methods) that are patented and under control of
> someone else, and you are perfectly willing to comply with the licensing
> terms for those components. The GPL restrictions prevent you from
> obtaining or distributing ANY GPL component used in a derived work (and
> the FSF considers linking to a library as making a derived work) with
> these other needed parts. Such a thing cannot legally exist unless you
> build it yourself, and even that is questionable. So, back to the
> recipient of such code - his freedom to obtain and use it doesn't exist.
But you want to add restrictions to the derived work, thus making it less
free for the recipient.
>> > Judge the freedom of the recipient by the number of choices he can
>> > make.
>>
>> There are many ways to judge freedom. i'm using a different judge of it
>> from you. That is why comparing freedom in this way is fruitless since
>> there are so many ways to interpret it or judge it.
>>
>> -Ed
>
> But you aren't judging freedom at all. You are judging how well the
> situation meets your own demands. Freedom does not involve reducing
> the possible ways you can use a piece of code that anyone is allowed to
> obtain.
No, you're judging freedom by one standard. I'm judging it by a different
one. Remember there is no such thing as full freedom for everyone, which
is why anarchy does not work very well.
-ed
--
| Edward Rosten
| u98ejr@
This argument is a beta version. | ecs.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 10:38:01 +0000
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> says...
>> It doesn't _require_ them, it _allows_ them. You get to _choose_. That
>> is a _good_ thing. Unless you are a _dumb_ user. In which case: do
>> _not_ use this O/S.
>
> Allowing the choice is just as dumb.
Name an OS that doesn't allow you to pick a printer driver of your
choice in a userland application.
>> Yes, I am happy with that. Because I know how to use the feature to my
>> advantage. If you don't, stay away from it.
>
> I see.
>
>> BTW, could you enlighten us as to how you came to the conclusion that
>> "every other OS" doesn't allow for per-application printer drivers? I'm
>>
>> interested, because I'm quite sure you're dead wrong.
>
> I'm talking about drivers in general, not just printer drivers. What
> happens if you allow one application to drive the graphics and another
> to pick a different driver?
Printers don't require a driver necessarily.
-Ed
--
| Edward Rosten
| u98ejr@
This argument is a beta version. | ecs.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 10:39:32 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Pete
Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <97s48o$50u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> WHY THE HELL ARE YOU SO DAMN THICK THAT YOU CAN'T COMPREHEND THE
>> SIMPLEST THING I SAY?
>
> Calm down, no need to shout.
>
>> APPLICATION DRIVERS ARE NOT PART OF THE BLOODY OS!!!!!
>
> That they exist at all, doesn't that sound even the slightest bit WRONG
> to you?
No. Not at all. How is this the fault of Linux as you keep claiming?
Hint... it isn't.
>> HOW CAN I DRILL THIS IN TO YOUR HEAD?
>
> You tell me, you're the one NOT LISTENING!!!!
You keep saying it is the fault of the OS. How? it is nothing to do with
the OS. You are the one not listening. The OS has no control over what
the apps think they can do.
-Ed
--
| Edward Rosten
| u98ejr@
This argument is a beta version. | ecs.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 10:46:26 +0000
>> > The Gimp does!
>>
>> has != needs.
>
> And guess which drivers it used by default? Was it the OS ones? NO! It
> was its own! No wonder I got postscript printed as text!
You haven't paid the slightest bit of attention to anything I have said.
Every app needs a printer driver so that is can generate a file that can
be printed.
To save everyone writing every printer driver, everyone uses a standard
print language that is interprteted by a central driver mechanism
(although apps are free to use their own individual drivers if they wish*).
That is called POSTSCRIPT
Print from netscape in to a file. What do you get?
Print from XV in to a file, what do you get?
Print from Konqueror in to a file, what do you get?
Print from GIMP to a file using the default driver. What do you get?
The answer is the same for all of these. The answer is POSTSCRIPT.
For some reason, the GIMP was mislabeling it as raw. That is an entirely
different matter and has nothing to do with print drivers.
Go and read any documentation on the print filter system.
-Ed
[*] Some applications may choose to have their own drivers for efficiency
reasons. It is more efficient to go from a bitmap to a device dependant
bitmap (ie PCL ir similar) than it is to go from a bitmap to a device
independant bitmap to a device dependant one.
--
| Edward Rosten
| u98ejr@
This argument is a beta version. | ecs.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 13:01:38 +0200
From: Nico Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: It's here! IBM's new Linux ad!
Tim Hanson wrote:
>
> Is this walkin' the walk? Or what?
>
> http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/linux/passport.swf
> --
> "Never underestimate the power of a small tactical nuclear weapon."
I think it's about time big blue get back on the wagon. Hope they make a
success of it...
--
=========================================================
This signature was added automatically by Linux:
.
Extreme feminine beauty is always disturbing.
-- Spock, "The Cloud Minders", stardate 5818.4
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS executives at LinuxWorld Expo
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 05:47:11 -0500
Rex Ballard wrote:
>
>
> I just recently heard that Microsoft has had so many patents and
> copyrights challenged by GPL software that they are now trying to
> get Congress to declare it illegal. Unfortunately, this would
> mandate that the "Use License" which restricts the use of copyrighted
> material such as Microsoft Windows would also have to be revoked.
> Furthermore, it would be an ex-post-facto law which would be
> unconstitutional. Microsoft's lawyers are baffled by GPL and
> can't seem to find a legal way around it.
Which is PRECISELY what the GPL was designed to do.
Stallman is a programmer.
Good programmers prevent unexpected input from freaking out the
program.
So, if you put a good programmer in league with some decent
attorneys....the GPL is what you get.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 13:06:18 +0200
From: Nico Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows XP! Will it really be reliable?
Sean Turner wrote:
>
> It is built on the 2000 kernal, so it will be much better than ME, 95, or
> 98. My 2000 machine can stay up for a month.
>
> --
> Sean Turner
>
> "jtnews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I just saw a news piece on Windows XP!
> > Microsoft claims that it can run for days
> > without crashing! Anyone have any real
> > world experience with Windows XP?
> > Is it really reliable?
> >
> > I already have 5 PC's at home all running
> > Linux. I don't see why I need a new OS.
XP is the old stuff with another GUI. M$ is clearly running out of new
ideas - or they have no more companies with new ideas to take over - or
both...
--
=========================================================
This signature was added automatically by Linux:
.
But you who live on dreams, you are better pleased with the sophistical
reasoning and frauds of talkers about great and uncertain matters than
those who speak of certain and natural matters, not of such lofty
nature.
-- Leonardo Da Vinci, "The Codex on the Flight of Birds"
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
