Linux-Advocacy Digest #219, Volume #34 Sat, 5 May 01 15:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing? (Salvador Peralta)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT ("JVercherIII")
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT ("JVercherIII")
Re: Why is Microsoft opening more Windows source code? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT ("JVercherIII")
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Article: Linus Torvalds Replies to Mundie's Attack on Open Source (Nils
Zonneveld)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing?
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 11:51:06 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mikkel Elmholdt quoth:
...
> Because I don't see much Linux advocacy here, that's why. Most
> posters here seem to believe that bashing Microsoft is equivalent to
> advocating Linux.
...
> But still not being totally converted, I go to a seemingly Linux
> advocacy group to find some compelling arguments for using Linux.
> And what do I find? A load of
> drivel, outright BS, and mindnumbing MS bashing! That frankly
> irritates me. You are convincing anyone new with this party line.
...
The fact that you only bother to respond to the "MS bashing" style
posts casts doubt ( in my mind ) regarding your claim about coming
here to "find compelling arguments for using linux".
If there were a grain of truth to your statement, you would not waste
your time complaining about the juvenile posting habits of some of
the people here, but would instead focus on the posts where there is
some real advocacy going on. Or you would simply start your own
threads where you can ask for people to respond with the kind of
answers you are looking for.
But that isn't what you do, is it, Mikkel? What you do is get
yourself involved in a large portion of the Anti-MS comments and
hunker down into a nice little flamewar. That's basically ALL you've
been doing.
I've got no problem with that. Do as you like. But please don't do
it under the guise of trying to satisy a need for anything other than
conflict and flames.
It's just too transparent.
--
Salvador Peralta -o)
Programmer/Analyst, Webmaster / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 18:43:12 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 04 May 2001
> >> So does Windows. Remove "Command.com" from a Windows 1.0, 2.0, 3.1,
3.11,
> >> 95, or 98 system, and tell us what happens.
> >
> >Command.com is a shell. It's like /bin/sh in Unix. This
> >doesn't mean Unix "runs on" /bin/sh.
>
> Yet despite this, Windows 'runs on' command.com. Just boot up Win98 in
> DOS mode, and then type 'win' at the prompt. You'll see what I mean.
I think you need to study up a bit. Command.com is
a shell and it lets you start other software- including
Windows.
Just as with /bin/sh, you can crank up X-Windows,
your favorite window manager, etc.
If anything Windows software is less dependant
on command.com than Unix software is on /bin/sh.
It's not very reasonble to say that Windows
"runs on" command.com. It distorts the
real relationship.
> >Windows still uses DOS for a few things- for instance,
> >I believe it still thunks down into DOS to access the
> >current date/time.
>
> "DOS", whatever abstraction you care to use that label for, is entirely
> a part of Windows, the very basis of Win3 and Win9x, the *operating
> system* in use.
In a marketing sense this is very true, but technically
there's a very stark distinction- real mode vs. protected
mode, in essense.
> MS likes to play games trying to change the label,
> attributing 'operating system' capabilities to "Windows", instead of to
> DOS, as is technically correct. They're far more interested in
> marketing than technical validity, though.
Yes, they are.
Technically, though, most of the stuff OSes
traditionally do, Windows does without invoking
DOS.
This is because DOS sucks so hard. :D
There *are* places when DOS code still
executes, but not very many.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 13:32:09 -0500
"Charles Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <Ny7I6.22197$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > >
> > > > I guess it depends on what you mean by "secure". If someone doesn't
> > know
> > > > the decode algorithm, 4-bit encryption could be quite secure
> > >
> > > What crap. If you don't understand something don't make pathetic
> > > attempts to show that you do. ANY 4-bit encryption algorithm could be
> > > cracked by brute force in less time than it took you to write such
> > > rubbish. The best known encryption algorithms are known and open to
> > > peer review. If you invent a new encryption algorithm but won't make
> > > it open to peer review then it just will not be accepted. Security
> > > through obscurity just doesn't cut it at any time.
> >
> > What's crap is your understanding.
> >
> > You can only brute force it if you know the decode algorithm. You can
> > guess, and analyze and do lots of things, but it could be things like
XORing
> > the data against a pets name, while rotating 3 bits and compressing it
using
> > 10 different compression algorithms. The number of possible
combinations of
> > decode algorithms is limitless.
> >
> You aren't required to know the algorithm to crack encryption. You don't
> care about the algorithm, you care about recovering the message. So the
> attack has to create an algorithm that decodes the message. It doesn't
> matter if the algorithm is the "correct" algorithm or not. In fact,
> doing things such as you suggest often make a code easier to crack. When
> you apply multiple compression algorithms, or multiple xor, the attacker
> doesn't have to know how many times you compressed, he just has to find
> one scheme to go from encrypted message to plain text.
Ahh, but that's just it. Such a scheme typically needs to have a "rosetta
stone" or some way to identify at least one character or word in the data.
Suppose the encrypted data isn't plain text at all, but something that is
based on a random character set chosen for the day it was encrypted? You
need a point of reference, and without having that, you might as well have
monkeys banging on keyboards.
Typically, when trying to break encryption without knowing the algorithm,
you either look for common algorithms, or you look for patterns that match
known language patterns. If you disguise the language patterns by making
sure that even the same phrase doesn't create the same series of bytes, then
you remove the ability to deduce a new algorithm.
> > Yes, if you had the software that encoded the data, you could probably
> > reverse engineer it and figure it out, but if you only have encrypted
data
> > and know that a key is 4 bits, then you could spend eternity looking for
the
> > right algorithm.
>
> There are only 16 possible 4 bit keys. NSA would probably spend about 16
> microseconds decrypting your message, no matter how you applied the key.
I doubt it.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 18:45:37 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 04 May 2001
> >It's not for nothing that MS has spend the last
> >fifteen years trying to kill DOS.
>
> Certainly not. Its for monopoly profits. The public won't accept MS
> doubling the price of the OS; they insist that the price remain
> comparable to what DOS (or WinDOS) has always been. By killing DOS,
> Microsoft has the chance to force every single customer to pay ten times
> more for their OS! And given the scams they've worked up, it looks like
> they're hoping they'll be forced to pay it over and over again, too.
What on earth makes you think that killing DOS
will change anything related to this?
MS isn't stupid. They aren't going to shoot themselves
in the foot. *Far* better to sell Windows cheap and Office
at a premium that to make Windows so expensive that
low-end OEMs start to look elsewhere.
------------------------------
From: "JVercherIII" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 18:46:29 GMT
No it is an extension - it uses OOP. I write in Visual C++, Java (a little),
and VB... I know what I'm talking about... The basic concept is that you are
using a standardized interface in all your components. (You are basically
using certain standardized methods/properties in your classes as defined by
them. Part of which - their method definitions - allows the com component to
give information to the calling program about the rest of it's abilities -
methods, properties, etc and make them available to the program. ) This had
been done before but not nearly on the same scale. Microsoft basically said
"hey this is what our standard is, get behind it" and made development tools
that supported it. COM is a case of something good coming out of Microsoft
because of their size and power. If some other company had said "follow our
standard" like they did, they would have been ignored... In this case, it
actually did help innovation because of the standardization... Everyone's
programs could speak to each other because they were all using the same
interface.
I agree it did help innovation. Still not that original though. I have no
doubt Microsoft has come up with some original ideas, but the vast majority
of it's wealth was made on the backs of other people... That's pretty much
undeniable. (IE MS-DOS, Windows, Internet Explorer - which btw I love - I
hate Netscape - but when it came out it never could have competed
originally, it was crap... It's gotten better with time though.)
Again I'm not trying to attack Microsoft totally. I think that there has
been a lot of positive developments due to Microsoft, mainly making
improvements on things. As I said though some of the stuff they do is a
little underhanded sometimes.
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9d1gjt$93l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "JVercherIII" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:AbXI6.364$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > COM was a good idea, granted. MTS is a nice application, I'll grant that
> > too. But for the most part, Microsoft copy's other people's ideas. COM
in
> > itself isn't overly original anyway, just an extensive of the object
> > oriented programming concept. It simply pairs a specific interface with
an
> > object so that as long as that interface is known the object can be
> > accessed. Again, the underlying ideas behind COM that allow it to work
> were
> > developed by others. It is a good idea but not necessary originated by
> > Microsoft. A good implementation of other people's ideas, once again...
> This
> > is another example of copy and extend business practice, which is
> > Microsoft's main strategy. (In other words rather than come up with
> > specifically new technology expand and improve upon existing
technology.)
>
> COM is not an extention of OOP, they can be easily confused, but there is
a
> difference between writing compotent oriented programming and OOP.
> ObjectWatch had a good article several months ago, I would suggest you
would
> look it up.
> And if it's so simple, how come no one came with the idea before?
> MTS was what EJB is today.
>
> "They never have come up with an original idea." -- I just picked up
several
> subjects where they did. I'm sure that there are more.
>
> BTW, ObjectWatch worth a good reading anyway.
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 13:40:23 -0500
"Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <_lJI6.3589$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad Myers"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:1yHI6.22397$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> 4-19-2001
> >> http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2001-052.html
> >>
> >> "A vulnerability in iptables "RELATED" connection tracking has been
> >> discovered. When using iptables to allow FTP "RELATED" connections
> >> through the firewall, carefully constructed PORT commands can open
> >> arbitrary holes in the firewall."
> >>
> >> 4-25-2001
> >> http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2001-059.html
> >>
> >> "kdesu created a world-readable temporary file to exchange
> >> authentication information and delete it shortly after. This can be
> >> abused by a local user to gain access to the X server and can result in
> >> a compromise of the account kdesu accesses."
> >>
> >> 4-25-2001
> >> http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2001-058.html
> >>
> >> "If any swap files were created during installation of Red Hat Linux
> >> 7.1 (they were created during updates if the user requested it), they
> >> were world-readable, meaning every user could read data in the swap
> >> file(s), possibly including passwords."
> >
> >
> > After reading Adam Warner's diatribe in "What about customer security?"
> > and how he said that Microsoft's code was crap, then reading this little
> > tid-bit, the Linux code must look like a 3rd grader wrote it!
> >
> > Geez... even "M$" is smart enough not to allow anyone to read the page
> > file.
> >
> > -c
> >
> >
> Ah, Chad the security expert! Even Erik was gracious enough to admit that
> this was only an example, but I'll tell you what's wrong with this
> comparison: of the 4 RH exploits mentioned, only 50% are remote exploits,
> the other 2 are local exploits. Of the Microsoft examples mentioned,
> *ALL* were remote exploits. Get it now Chad? Evidently MS is smart enough
> to lock down the page file, but with all their billions still think
> connecting an insecure machine to the Internet is a good idea.
An exploit is an exploit. Someone that allows security to lapse in one area
over the other is simply shifting priorities. This shows that Red Hat and
Linux in general tend to be more focused on remote exploits, to the
detriment of local exploits. Which means, that all it it takes is to get a
local account, any local account to gain root access.
A common technique some people use is to set up a web site you must create
an account for. Often, people will create the same account and password
they use on their local machine. Suddenly, you have an account and password
for the machine they logged in from, you gain root. Not a big deal.
------------------------------
From: "JVercherIII" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 18:56:17 GMT
BTW if you want to read about the type of stuff that makes COM possible do
some reading on IDL. (Interface Definition Language)... And maybe on C++ and
OOP if you are not a programmer...
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9d1gjt$93l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "JVercherIII" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:AbXI6.364$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > COM was a good idea, granted. MTS is a nice application, I'll grant that
> > too. But for the most part, Microsoft copy's other people's ideas. COM
in
> > itself isn't overly original anyway, just an extensive of the object
> > oriented programming concept. It simply pairs a specific interface with
an
> > object so that as long as that interface is known the object can be
> > accessed. Again, the underlying ideas behind COM that allow it to work
> were
> > developed by others. It is a good idea but not necessary originated by
> > Microsoft. A good implementation of other people's ideas, once again...
> This
> > is another example of copy and extend business practice, which is
> > Microsoft's main strategy. (In other words rather than come up with
> > specifically new technology expand and improve upon existing
technology.)
>
> COM is not an extention of OOP, they can be easily confused, but there is
a
> difference between writing compotent oriented programming and OOP.
> ObjectWatch had a good article several months ago, I would suggest you
would
> look it up.
> And if it's so simple, how come no one came with the idea before?
> MTS was what EJB is today.
>
> "They never have come up with an original idea." -- I just picked up
several
> subjects where they did. I'm sure that there are more.
>
> BTW, ObjectWatch worth a good reading anyway.
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why is Microsoft opening more Windows source code?
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 13:46:51 -0500
"Ray Chason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >"Ray Chason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> >message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> George Peter Staplin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Not everybody benefits from the GPL. Some large corporations have
> >> >strict rules that guard against the use of any GPL'd software.
> >>
> >> Alas, FUD reigns supreme in the feeble minds of PHBs.
> >
> >No, actually, in the minds of Lawyers. I've seen first hand how the
company
> >lawyers reacted when they read the GPL after they found out a developer
had
> >incorporated some GPL'd code into the project. The proverbial shit hit
the
> >fan, and no less than 10 people were fired over it.
>
> S/he plainly should not have included GPL'd code in a proprietary
> product; the whole point of the GPL is that this isn't kosher.
> That'll teach'm to RTFL.
The problem is that the FSF and the Linux community in general keep using
the ambiguous term "free software", despite the fact that the FSF and the
Linux community know for a fact how confusing this term can be. All the
screams of "Free as in speech, not Free as in beer" are pointless.
Most of the people i've talked to about the GPL, many of whom were planning
to release code under the GPL really had no idea what the full implications
of it are. They simply think that it's no-cost or public domain software.
> >Right after, an edict was issued that *NO* code that originated outside
the
> >company could be used in any product, no matter what its license.
>
> This was a paranoid overreaction; plenty of free/open source software
> exists that is LGPL'd, or uses different licenses; code that is meant
> to promote a standard, such as libpng, probably should use the BSD
> license or something like it.
It may be paranoid, and an overreaction, but the issue has never happened
again. That's all they care about.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 13:49:49 -0500
"JVercherIII" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9UXI6.404$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> No it is an extension - it uses OOP. I write in Visual C++, Java (a
little),
> and VB... I know what I'm talking about... The basic concept is that you
are
Just because you use VC and Java doesn't mean you know what you are talking
about, and in this case you don't know what you're talking about.
COM is not an extension to OOP. There's no such thing as "extending" OOP.
Either it is, or it isn't.
For instance, COM is perfectly useable from C without a single object in
sight. Component based programming and Object based programming are
related, but not even close to being the same thing.
------------------------------
From: "JVercherIII" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 19:02:15 GMT
BTW if you think COM is very original, follow this link to learn about
CORBA. (See dates involved.) Don't know that much about it myself but seems
like something interesting to learn. (I'm learning java right now and seem
to be hearing that term a lot...)
http://cgi.omg.org/corba/whatiscorba.html
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9d1gjt$93l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "JVercherIII" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:AbXI6.364$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > COM was a good idea, granted. MTS is a nice application, I'll grant that
> > too. But for the most part, Microsoft copy's other people's ideas. COM
in
> > itself isn't overly original anyway, just an extensive of the object
> > oriented programming concept. It simply pairs a specific interface with
an
> > object so that as long as that interface is known the object can be
> > accessed. Again, the underlying ideas behind COM that allow it to work
> were
> > developed by others. It is a good idea but not necessary originated by
> > Microsoft. A good implementation of other people's ideas, once again...
> This
> > is another example of copy and extend business practice, which is
> > Microsoft's main strategy. (In other words rather than come up with
> > specifically new technology expand and improve upon existing
technology.)
>
> COM is not an extention of OOP, they can be easily confused, but there is
a
> difference between writing compotent oriented programming and OOP.
> ObjectWatch had a good article several months ago, I would suggest you
would
> look it up.
> And if it's so simple, how come no one came with the idea before?
> MTS was what EJB is today.
>
> "They never have come up with an original idea." -- I just picked up
several
> subjects where they did. I'm sure that there are more.
>
> BTW, ObjectWatch worth a good reading anyway.
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 13:52:28 -0500
CORBA came after COM. COM originated at MS in 1987, but wasn't actually put
into a product until OLE 1, which MS released in April of 1992 in the form
of Windows 3.1.
"JVercherIII" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:X6YI6.421$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> BTW if you think COM is very original, follow this link to learn about
> CORBA. (See dates involved.) Don't know that much about it myself but
seems
> like something interesting to learn. (I'm learning java right now and seem
> to be hearing that term a lot...)
>
> http://cgi.omg.org/corba/whatiscorba.html
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9d1gjt$93l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "JVercherIII" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:AbXI6.364$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > COM was a good idea, granted. MTS is a nice application, I'll grant
that
> > > too. But for the most part, Microsoft copy's other people's ideas. COM
> in
> > > itself isn't overly original anyway, just an extensive of the object
> > > oriented programming concept. It simply pairs a specific interface
with
> an
> > > object so that as long as that interface is known the object can be
> > > accessed. Again, the underlying ideas behind COM that allow it to work
> > were
> > > developed by others. It is a good idea but not necessary originated by
> > > Microsoft. A good implementation of other people's ideas, once
again...
> > This
> > > is another example of copy and extend business practice, which is
> > > Microsoft's main strategy. (In other words rather than come up with
> > > specifically new technology expand and improve upon existing
> technology.)
> >
> > COM is not an extention of OOP, they can be easily confused, but there
is
> a
> > difference between writing compotent oriented programming and OOP.
> > ObjectWatch had a good article several months ago, I would suggest you
> would
> > look it up.
> > And if it's so simple, how come no one came with the idea before?
> > MTS was what EJB is today.
> >
> > "They never have come up with an original idea." -- I just picked up
> several
> > subjects where they did. I'm sure that there are more.
> >
> > BTW, ObjectWatch worth a good reading anyway.
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: Nils Zonneveld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Article: Linus Torvalds Replies to Mundie's Attack on Open Source
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 21:04:34 +0200
Ian Pulsford wrote:
>
> Dave Martel wrote:
>
>
> > "What's ours is ours. What's yours is ours."
>
> Are you talking about M$ or the GPL?
>
Both, probably. Microsoft "embraces and extends", GPL "infects" your
software. One is Copyright the other copyleft.
Nils
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
