Linux-Advocacy Digest #196, Volume #33 Fri, 30 Mar 01 13:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Poor Linux (Wodger)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (T. Max Devlin)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> ("Paul 'Z' Ewande�")
Re: Linux needs a standard, user proof distro ("spicerun")
Re: Here is the response from Microsoft regarding Linux and Piracy: ("Z")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Communism
Re: ATA standards ("Darren Winsper")
Re: Linus for a 386???? (DeAnn)
Re: ATTN: Outlook Express Users and Virus's
Re: Some OS security thoughts (Bob Hauck)
Re: Earn some money with Linux (Bob Hauck)
Re: Communism (Mathew)
Re: Software registration (Bob Hauck)
Re: [Fwd: Piracy???? (KMM187962C0KM)] (Chad Everett)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is better (Craig
Kelley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Wodger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 02:37:04 +1000
The robustness of FreeBSD amazed me one day when I launched a graphical
newsreader with an obvious big memory leak problem. My machine only had
64M of physical RAM at the time but luckily I *plenty* of swapdisk
space. The app ran for a while but nothing much was happening so I
opened top in an xterm and lo and behold it was chewing up 500M of
virtual memory. FreeBSD was not snappy, a few seconds to get an xterm
up and kill the offending process, but there was no thrashing. I'd like
to see a microsoft product attempt that. Now I have 320M of RAM + 768M
swap space and I have to admit I feel a kind of evil. Ha ha ha ha ha
(evil laughter)!
IanP
Glitch wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> >
> >> 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...
>
> actually that problem does happen to me when opening pics with the
> Gimp(usually with more than 2 pics but it depends on their size),
> or when i minimize NS6 or switch windows, the hard drive goes crazy for a
> few seconds.
>
> >
> >> 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.
>
> well Linux does that too im sure however CPU usage sure does skyrocket
> and the hard drive gets a workout when it swaps.
>
> >>
> >> Chalk it up to dynamic process resource reallocation under 2000!
> >
> > That's something Unix users have enjoyed for years.
> >
--
"Dear someone you've never heard of,
how is so-and-so. Blah blah.
Yours truly, some bozo." - Homer Simpson
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 16:32:55 GMT
Said Paul 'Z' Ewande� in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 30 Mar 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
><SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
>
>> >But the issue wasn't *sometime* does, the issue was that it couldn't,
>> >without any qualifier. Since you and I agree that it sometime does,there's
>> >nothing much to add.
>>
>> The issue was that it does. The issue of whether it always does is only
>> brought up as an argument from ignorance, by the people who apologize
>> for the monopoly.
>
>I think that you are using a threaded news reader. So you won't have any
>difficulty at all to find the Michael Versters' [self described credible
>Linux advocate] post containing:
>
>"losedos can not format a disk and do something else at the same time. "
There is argument on the issues, and then there is quibbling about
phrasing.
>A sentence like that make me thinks that "losedos"* [yay ! creative naming !
>how mature !] is unable to multitask while formatting, with no qualifier
>whatsoever. That's what put the "people who apologise for the monopoly" in
>motion.
So? Is it my fault they are incapable of understanding a rhetorical
point, and so defensive that they freak out should anyone slight their
glorious Windows?
>Thus you are wrong on this account. It's "freedom fighter" that implied that
>Windows can never format an chew gum at the same time.
>
>*Of course, I am assuming that when he wrote "losedos" he was struggling to
>write Windows. :)
We all struggle with it.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Paul 'Z' Ewande�" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 19:16:43 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> >"losedos can not format a disk and do something else at the same time. "
>
> There is argument on the issues, and then there is quibbling about
> phrasing.
Sorry. The phrasing above clearly implies an absolute since there is no
qualifier whatosever.
> >A sentence like that make me thinks that "losedos"* [yay ! creative
naming !
> >how mature !] is unable to multitask while formatting, with no qualifier
> >whatsoever. That's what put the "people who apologise for the monopoly"
in
> >motion.
>
> So? Is it my fault they are incapable of understanding a rhetorical
No. We are AFAICT in an advocacy forum. People are not to expect to make
blanket statements without being challenged.
> point, and so defensive that they freak out should anyone slight their
If a windows advocate had posted "Lienux [yay ! creative naming ! how mature
!] cannot format a floppy do something else at the same time", the Linux
advocate would have understood the rhetorical point and wouldn't have
freaked out and come crying for blood. Riiiiight. *You* believe that, I sure
won't..
> glorious Windows?
BTW, the sentence above coming from someone with an avowed penchant for
ranting makes the irony meter peg, once again.
<SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> T. Max Devlin
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: "spicerun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux needs a standard, user proof distro
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 10:21:43 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Warren Bell"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been using Linux for about three years and currently run Mandrake
> 7.2. Althought it installed fairly easy (for me anyway, I've been
> installing since RH 4) there's still A LOT of manually editing text
> files because linuxconf or drakconf didn't work right, typing in a term
> window to do things as root, and general tinkering that the untechnical
> user could not do. So Linux the way it is now is not ready for the
> average person, and not ready to REALLY compete with windows. Now I
> know there's KDE and Gnome. I was saying, and still think, there should
> be a standerd UI that is common. If the user want's to experiment with
> different UI's they can but there would be a standard that would make
> Linux seem more grounded or established.
Actually, there is a default standard. It's called X-windows and it runs
under all of these Window-Managers/Desktops. And, yes you can get
Metro-X, Berlin, or others as a replacement for X-Windows, but they even
comply to X-windows standards to stay compatible). This makes it possible
to run Gnome and KDE Programs under each other's Desktop and Window
Managers (with a few exceptions)...and the only requirement is that you
have the specific WM/Desktop libraries installed for that system. Most
distros do this for you automatically...So, yes, you can run that KDE
program under Gnome and vica-versa. And, since Open-motif libraries and
Lesstif are available, you can run Motif programs as well if you install
the Open-motif or Lesstif libraries (Netscape is a motif-based
program...it run anyways since the motif library is statically bound into
it). But note, ALL of these Window Managers and Desktops have the
'X-windows' look and fell for the reason of X running underneath.
Now, as far as talking about a 'default' Window Manager/Desktop for users
to look at before they make decision....At least 3 of the major distros I
know are doing this already. Redhat defaults to Gnome, where Suse and
Mandrake default to KDE. Why must all the distros have to promote only 1
of these? If most users stick with one distribution or another, I doubt
they will ever see the other WM/Desktop unless they try it out
themselves.
------------------------------
From: "Z" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Here is the response from Microsoft regarding Linux and Piracy:
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 17:00:40 GMT
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Or perhaps the still have the same employment policy as they did 15 years
> ago, and that is, "employing people with the same type of thinking and
goals
> as Bill Gates", and if that is true, the person who sent the email made
two
> short planks look like a computer.
What? you sent them a braindead question in the sole purpose to troll, and
then you are getting surprised over the answer you received?
...typical cheap ms-bashing..please try to find something new to wine
about....
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 12:06:10 -0500
On 30 Mar 2001, Nick Condon wrote:
> Austin Ziegler wrote:
>> On 30 Mar 2001, Nick Condon wrote:
>>> Austin Ziegler wrote:
>>>>> You think that people are mainly motivated by money. Not even the
>>>>> economists believe that anymore. You think that without royalty
>>>>> payments, people won't write software. The four most critical pieces
>>>>> of infrastructure that make the Internet work are The four most
>>>>> critical pieces of infrastructure that make the Internet work are
>>>>> BIND [Berkeley Internet Name Daemon], Perl, Sendmail, and Apache.
>>>>> Everyone of them is free software.
>>>> And not one of these are "end-user" software. Without the client
>>>> software, there's nothing there.
>>> Thank you, you make my point for me. The client software doesn't make
>>> any royalties either.
>> And you ignore the points that you can't refute -- but I didn't make
>> your point for you. There *is* client software that does make royalties
>> for the copyright holder -- Poco, The Bat, Outlook, etc. Based on the
>> number of people who use such software, I'd suggest that you haven't a
>> clue
> Try and stay focussed on the point I'm making, rather than dribbling your
> stream of consciousness onto Usenet.
I wasn't aware that you actually had a point, since you used easily
falsifiable arguments that have been shown to be false.
> The point I'm responding, in nutshell:
> [abolishing copyright will] drastically reduce the amount of intellectual
> work being done.
This is both true and untrue.
> This my counterargument, in nutshell:
> Royalties are not necessary to motivate developers to write software.
No, they aren't, but then again, you're again confusing the idea of
royalties with spreading the cost. If you bothered to look at the
reality of the situation instead of trying to keep things to a level
which isn't being discussed by anyone except you, you'd find that
developers *do* have to have either (a) time, or (b) money to develop.
Because there is a possibility of making money from the work involved,
there are more developers. If developers didn't have the opportunity to
sell their product for money (which is precisely what you're arguing),
then they'd have to have other jobs, which reduces their time available
for development.
You also, by and large, reduce the affordability and range of software
to bespoke software -- the situation we were at many years ago. You'll
lose useful programs like Quicken (no, gnucash isn't good enough, and
frankly it's a newcomer that wouldn't have been started or made
available if it hadn't been for the unqualified successes of Quicken
and MS Money) in favour of programs that are developed -- and KEPT --
by companies who need their software for thier purposes alone. You
might have a few "infrastructure" programs for interoperability, but
without the opportunity to make money from individual sales of software
(instead of having one big customer who pays for it all), you're not
going to see nearly as much variety in software.
This isn't doomsaying; this is looking back to what has been in the
industry in the past -- and just how long it's taken OSS advocates to
even think about consumer-level software. Frankly, most of them
wouldn't have bothered if they didn't have good targets in their
sights.
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 17:09:26 GMT
>>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
Aaron> cHip wrote:
>>
>> Being a guy who has researched this a lot I'd like to comment on a few
>> things.
>>
>> First of all, anyone who mentions Russian Communism, Chinese Communism,
>> North Korean Communism, etc. as communism---sorry but you're wrong.
>> Those are NOT communism, they are totalitarian governments. Basically
>> they're dictaror governments (layman term, really authoritarian). Anyone
>> who critisizes communism for anything there just doesn't get it.
>>
Aaron> Ah yes, the usual "that isn't *real* communism" lie.
Aaron> So...tell us, Mr Wise guy...why are there not *ANY* "real communist"
Aaron> countries in existance....and why is every country which calls itself
Aaron> Communist also a police state?
Aaron> Accuracy counts, so be precise.
Communism is a utopian idea which is completely incompatible with
human nature. Hence any attempt to implement it will end in either
capitulation or tyranny. Generally the latter, as anyone driven to
take power is not likely to give it up.
--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)
------------------------------
From: "Darren Winsper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ATA standards
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 18:14:56 +0100
In article <9a0133$5c9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Brian Langenberger"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> LaTeX's style of "write what you mean, not how it should look" is what
> HTML was meant to be. It just mutated into something else...
...and then (mostly) back again with HTML 4. If you make proper use of
CSS, you can remove virtually all layout-specific code from HTML.
> Replacing HTML completely is likely impossible at this point; there's
> just too much of it in existance (far more than Gopher's pages could
> ever hope to have). What the web *could* use is a page layout language
> to live alongside HTML - sortof a Postscript-lite. Such a language
> could give all those graphical designers something to work in (with
> nice, shiny happy layout tools) that would guarantee everything on the
> page will go exactly where they want it. And, so long as it's still
> text-based, CGI scripts could still generate them on-the-fly.
>
> Perhaps it could be the HTLL, or HyperText Layout Language...
>
> And if it succeeds, maybe it'll get the graphics folk someplace to play
> without having to mutate HTML anymore.
I don't see what you could gain by using something like that instead of
HTML+CSS. Most of the layout-specific crap in HTML is due to legacies
from the good old IE/NS <=3 days.
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano)
ICQ #8899775 - AIM: Ikibawa - MSNIM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hofstadters law: "Everything takes longer than you expect, even when
you take into account Hofstadters law."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (DeAnn)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,linux.redhat.misc,alt.linux,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linus for a 386????
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 17:13:27 GMT
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 11:09:37 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (BoogerT)
wrote:
>I have a 386 with a 41 meg harddrive and 8 megs of RAM. What would be a good
>linux distro for this machine which would allow me to access the Internet,
>too? If there is one, where would I get it and do documents come with it?
>Thanks in advance,
Both Slackware and Debian come with a small basic installation (~20 MB
and ~10MB, respectively) that you can install from the disk images on
the cdrom. That is, cdroms with the distribution contain disk images
for ~10-20 floppies from which a basic install can be made. Then you
can add more packages as your needs and resources indicate. Whether
docs come with it depends on the vendor you buy from. Both
distributions have man pages and howtos and the like on the cdrom, but
you would not have room to install much in 41 MB of drive space.
With only 8 MB RAM, you probably want to either stay in console mode
or use a very small windows manager (and only a few small X-windows
apps). You could access the internet in console mode with a text-only
browser like lynx (I think, haven't done this). But GUI browsers tend
to be very memory and disk intensive. I am not sure which, if any,
would work for you.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: ATTN: Outlook Express Users and Virus's
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 17:18:29 GMT
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 16:59:49 +1200, Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Very important news regarding outlook express:
>
>
>http://www.satirewire.com/news/0103/outlook.shtml
>
Take it to a newsgroup that gives a flying fuck.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Some OS security thoughts
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 17:20:02 GMT
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 07:37:31 GMT, Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> If it were easy, it would have been done already. It is far easier to
>> discourage people from mailing scripts around willy-nilly, and probably
>> in the long run that's a better approach anyway.
>
>I'll just tell my colleagues to just stop working. Hell, there's no point
>mailing this code around willy-nilly, we're too damn likely to get work
>done.
I'm sorry that the inability to run scripts directly from your mail
program is impacting your productivity. But it isn't my fault. I'm
just trying to explain why Unix mailers don't do that and why the
practice has caused problems for users of other systems.
> How else am I supposed to send things around? Allow blind NFS access?
Set up a web or ftp server. Send a link in an email message. Set up
access restrictions on the server in whatever way is appropriate.
> the scripts that come with a typical Linux distribution I'd have
> thousands of pages of text: far more than anyone can read and sort
> through in any reasonable length of time, much less analyze for
> potential security errors,
The thousands of pages of scripts that come with Linux did not get
mailed to you by some random person who may or may not actually be the
person listed in the "From" address. And you can be relatively assured
that they weren't mailed out by a virus or tampered with. Not 100%
assured, but to a reliablity much greater than the reliability of
determining the sender of an email.
> Setting up a protected environment may be tricky, but the whole point
> of these computer things is to make life easier for the user, not for
> the inept programmer.
Sure, but some things are "hard" in the sense of nobody knowing how to
solve them at all or in a way that will satisfy a reasonably large set
of users. Java applets are a case in point...they can't do very much
and so are reasonably secure, but are "useless" according to a lot of
people. ActiveX can do anything, but is clearly a security disaster.
You are arguing for some kind of middle ground, which will be different
for every user. This leads to very complex configuration and more user
unhappiness however things turn out.
The points I was trying to make were:
1. It is tricky to get right and the user will be the first to blame
the vendor if it is wrong in a way that allows a security compromise.
The vendor would be assuming responsibility. Does, say, the University
of Washington (makers of Pine, as an example) want to take that on?
2. It is tricky to get right and the user will be the first to blame the
vendor if it is wrong in a way that prevents him from running a script
that is "crucial to his productivity", thereby forcing him to "waste
hours" saving to a file, etc, etc.
3. While _you_ may operate in an environment where scripts are
routinely mailed around, _most_ users don't. Further, the experience of
Microsoft users should provoke caution in taking steps to make that
environment a commonplace.
> [the warning should say] "Hey! This script you're trying to run is
> trying to delete your files!" It sure seems to me that would be a
> whole lot more useful that what I might get today:
That is itself an interesting challenge. It is easy enough to detect
that it is trying to do something prohibited ("it is trying to access a
disk file!") but _far_ more difficult to determine if that is really
malicious ("it is trying to delete all your files!"). The latter task
requires some sort of AI, which doesn't seem to work very well yet
unless the domain is pretty limited.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Earn some money with Linux
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 17:23:25 GMT
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 14:02:46 GMT, Benjamin Lvovsky
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you mean I can I sell compiled with say G++ executables without
> providing the source code? I thought GPL and other licences do not
> allow that.
You can't modify g++ and sell that without providing source code. But
you can certainly compile your own code with g++ and keep it
proprietary. The GNU toolset is widely used in embedded systems, to
give one example of using g++ for proprietary projects.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
From: Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 03:22:10 +1000
On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, Chad Everett wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 01:03:09 +1000, Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Gunner =A9 wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 01:59:15 -0500, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>=20
> >> >
> >> >> Cuba has dedicated itself to the principle that, within its means, =
it
> >> >> will try not to kill any human beings due to lack of food, shelter,
> >> >> medical care, poor sanitation, etc.
> >>=20
> >> But they got real good at shooting down Cessnas......
> >
> >I wonder what Cuba would be like if Batista and the Mafia still ruled.
> >
>=20
> It would be a lot like Las Vegas, Nevada
I heard the Mob is not so much in control of Vegas now.
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Software registration
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 17:30:14 GMT
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 00:08:14 -0500, Flacco
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So if everyone registers Microsoft software as:
>>
>> USER: William Gates
>> Company: Screw-you.com
>Am I the only one who does this as a matter of course for any "mandatory"
>registration?
Nope.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Piracy???? (KMM187962C0KM)]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 17:37:54 GMT
On 30 Mar 2001 05:51:33 GMT, Marada C. Shradrakaii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> We suggest that you contact Linux.
>>>
>
>>What a dumb answer.
>>You are *soooooo* retarded.
>>
>
>I've heard it before.
>
I contacted Linux and it told me this was Microsoft's problem.
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is better
Date: 30 Mar 2001 11:09:45 -0700
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > http://perl.oreilly.com/news/importance_0498.html
>
> What I've noticed about Perl is that it is seems extremely hard to write
> readable code.
That's like saying that it's hard to write readable english.
It may be true, but the fault is not with the language -- it lies with
the programmer. Perl has all sorts of quickies that are (mostly)
familiar to bourne shell programmers, but it also provides very
verbose syntax for industrial use.
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
