Linux-Advocacy Digest #351, Volume #34 Wed, 9 May 01 03:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (Chad Everett)
Re: ChromeLinuxT/ WebServer ("Harison Phinizy")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT (spam)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (Greg Cox)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (Greg Cox)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Linux Users...Why? (Donn Miller)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux Users...Why? (Terry Porter)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 9 May 2001 00:40:33 -0500
On 9 May 2001 00:43:02 -0500, Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Your car has unique ID numbers etched into 100 locations, all recorded in a
>corporate database and shared with the police and other dealers - you don't
>have a choice. That doesn't bother you? Seen any black helicopters lately?
>
But I own my vehicle outright. It's all mine and it won't refuse to run if
I make improvements to it.
------------------------------
From: "Harison Phinizy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ChromeLinuxT/ WebServer
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 06:00:08 GMT
I see, thanks for the clarification...
"kosh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9da8vm$fu7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Look at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html it is a pretty simple license
> to read.
>
> It makes no such requirement about software. I can write software for
linux
> and release it under any license I want. However if I use gpl code to
write
> my software then I have to gpl my work or ask the author for some special
> deal. Using GPL tools has no affect on the license of the stuff you make.
>
> Harison Phinizy wrote:
>
> > If something is made for Linux doesn't it fall under the GPL...
Therefore,
> > it must be made available for free (at least the source) then how does
> > this software avoid doing such?
> >
> > Just curious...
> >
> >
> >
>
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 06:20:46 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> So you agree a library can be derivative of a program, even if it isn't
> >> considered part of the program?
> >
> >Not in the general case where the library correctly contains things not
> >duplicated in the main program. If you write a program containing the
> >functions first, then extract code from it into a library, the duplicated
> >material would be derivative of the earlier copy. However, the point
> >of having an interface definition is to separate the things on either
> >side so that they are not derivative and need nothing else in common.
>
> And you don't see how this metaphysical manipulation ("extract the code
> from it into a library") shows that you are going far beyond the
> copyright law in your application of copyright to software?
No, I am pointing out the difference between something clearly covered
by copyright and something not even mentioned. A library extracted
from a prior version (library or not) would be covered as a copy of
another work. A program calling the interface has a copy of nothing.
> If a library author wants to present an API for anyone to use, he will
> use the LGPL.
Really? Does Microsoft want people to use their API? Did they LGPL
the libraries?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 06:20:46 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 07 May 2001 01:20:22
> >
> >It is unreasonable because it has nothing to do with copyright law, yet
> >claims to be.
>
> If you do not understand how it rests, very securely and completely, on
> copyright law, then you simply do not understand it. That does not make
> it unreasonable, simply because you do not understand it. It isn't
> truly incomprehensible, and therefore unreasonable, unless nobody else
> understand it, either. Your troll point would require you to insist
> that "nobody" understands it, but I do, and there are obviously enough
> other people who do that they have not gone to court over the matter.
OK, I will insist that nobody understands how copyright law covers
something that is not copied and in fact depends on how many
implementations of something that isn't copied might exist. There
are plenty of other reasons to avoid a court battle.
> You can question whether it does, in fact, rest on copyright law. Your
> claim that it is unreasonable "because it has nothing to do with
> copyright law, yet claims to" is simply your private prejudice, though,
> not a reasonable opinion on the legal issue.
It is unlike anything mentioned in the law or covered by any case I
have heard of.
> >> It does not prevent you from
> >> using the code in any way, it only prevents you from making a profit on
> >> it through profiteering.
> >
> >How was profiteering involved in the RIPEM situation? The FSF simply
> >made it more difficult for someone else to provide unrestricted code.
>
> RIPEM simply tried to use a loophole.
They tried to provide unrestricted code complimentary to the GPL library
users have already been given the right to use. That is hardly a loophole.
> Their efforts to "get around" the
> GPL did not rise to the level of fraud, simply because it was not a
> profit-making endeavor. The FSF simply protected their intellectual
> property rights. They had no reason to pursue the authors after they
> created RIPEM to comply with the license.
They had no reason in the first place. After forcing the extra work
of writing an alternative library they had no chance of making a case.
> >> How is it a threat for them to point out in
> >> advance that they refuse to grant license to commercial exploitation of
> >> their code. Its THEIR code!
> >
> >No, it is not their code. They are claiming rights over other people's
> >code that simply references the API to a GPL'd work.
>
> No, they are claiming rights over other people's code that simply
> references *the library on the other side of the API*.
But they are not distributing that library. Everyone agrees that including
that library would be covered by copyright. Where is the copying
when the end user obtains his own copy separately? How is that
different that someone writing to the Win32 API and distributing
programs that obviously need Windows to run?
> The library is
> GPL; the API is unprotected. You are free to "use" the API, for your
> personal use. You can use it for commercial use, too, BUT YOU CAN'T USE
> THE GPL LIBRARY on the other side.
Why can't I? I've picked up my own copy. The license says I can use
it. The FSF is saying that they own a work by someone else simply
because it might call their library. Yet they have given everyone the
right to use that library.
> You don't seem to realize that this is a rather critical point: the only
> time the FSF claims a program is derivative of a library IS WHEN IT IS
> DERIVATIVE OF THE LIBRARY, not the API.
I understand the claim. I just do not see how it relates to copyright law.
The provider of the program is not providing this library. Their code
calls it like every windows program calls the windows api - like
virtually every program calls and depends on the operating system
and standard libraries of the host machine, yet is not controlled by
those copyrights.
> If only a GPL library exists
> for that API, then obviously that is the library you are using when you
> use the API, and so YOU are trying to claim rights over someone else's
> work!
No, you are requiring the user of the program to separately obtain the
right to use the other component(s) just like they must obtain the host
operating system. You aren't providing the library and you aren't
copying or deriving anything.
> If other libraries exist for the API, but your program is
> bug-compatible with the GPL library, then the same case applies.
Copyright law has no concept of functionality.
> I've never questioned that this is a novel application of copyright law.
> But your assumption that it is invalid simply because it is novel
> indicates that you aren't concerned at all with the legality of
> copyright claims, but only in using the law to further your own private
> ends.
Odd. The FSF is the one trying to twist the law into something it
doesn't say and you don't bother to question their end, which is
specifically to take away your choices. If I have a 'private end'
it is simply to keep others from taking my choices away. I'm
happy with the proliferation of things that came from the unrestricted
BSD code base and feel that restrictions are bad for everyone involved.
> >> You now are expecting to be able to STEAL
> >> it from them and claim their defense is unreasonable threats?
> >
> >No, they have given the right to use their own code to anyone who
> >wants it. Now they claim that they own other people's work just
> >because it calls the API to the GPL'd library that the end user already
> >has and has the right to use any way they want.
>
> Again, you commit an unseen abstraction error with your use of the term
> "use". It might seem as if the FSF's position is the same as Microsoft
> claiming to own all patents written in Word, for instance. This isn't
> the case, though. The issue is not the end users right to "use" the
> library productively which is at question.
Yes it is. Nothing else is involved. It is exactly the same as using the
system libraries that every program needs to run on its specific platform.
> It is the developer's right
> to "use" the library IN production. The GPL binds both groups with the
> same restrictions on "use"; but the meaning of the term changes between
> them. This means the developer has a lesser ability to "use" the work
> of others, and the consumer has a greater ability to "use" the work of
> others, just as intended.
That makes no sense at all. You need to talk about copying and distribution
to relate to copyright law. The developer does not have the right to
distribute GPL'd libraries as part of non-GPL'd code. The user
does have the right to get them separately and after doing so, to use
them.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: spam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 23:28:46 -0700
On Tue, 8 May 2001 23:38:09 -0500, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> >
>> > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 7 May 2001
>> > > [...]
>> > > >COM existed before SOM as well.
>> > > >
>> > > >SOM was first introduced with OS/2 2.0, which came out in early 1992,
>> > just
>> > > >weeks before COM was officially launched in Windows 3.1. They were
>> > > >contemporaries, created independantly at about the same time.
>> > >
>> > > Which is it? First you say that COM 'existed before SOM', and then
>you
>> > > say they were 'created at about the same time'. What besides the
>donuts
>> > > at the sock puppet briefings leads you to believe that MS didn't do
>what
>> > > they typically do, and just "steal IBM's ideas", implementing their
>own
>> > > technology more as vaporware than anything else, to scare off the
>> > > competition? You know, like the way they stole pen computing from Go?
>> >
>> > I can no longer find the reference, but the basic workings of COM were
>> > developed in 1988, however, they didn't at the time know what to do with
>it.
>> > In 1990, when they began work on Windows 3.1, that work was put to use
>to
>> > make OLE 2. In other words, COM existed before OLE 2, it had to, since
>OLE
>> > was based on COM.
>>
>> Why did they develop COM if they didn't know what to do with it??
>> I have the Windows Software Development kit and docs. Copyrighted
>> 1987-1992.
>> No where do I find any mention of COM.
>
>As I said, it was released until they released OLE 2 in 1992 (the same time
>IBM released SOM).
SOM was released with OS/2 2.0 in early 1992 (Team OS/2's FAQ says
late 1991 but I and other web pages don't remember it that way).
According to Charlie Kindel's forward in Don Box's "Essential COM",
COM was released with OLE 2 in May 1993. According to Pritchard's
"COM and Corba Side by Side" Corba 1 was released in 1991, though I
have no idea in what shape or form it was in. Obviously, all
compainies involved had started work on thier technologies years
before the relase date and released betas to the development
community.
>
>COM was not originally marketed as a stand-alone technology, it was only
>marketed as OLE 2. In 1994, they actually formally released COM as a
>seperate technology (then called Common Object Model, later changed to
>Component Object Model).
According to Kindel it was never called common object model.
----
Glenn Davies
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 06:27:05 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> If an API is "like a contract", then it is simply the documentation of
> >> the agreement. Not "the agreement" itself.
> >
> >The API is the agreement - by definition. If you don't understand
> >that, there is no point in arguing about what it is.
>
> If I am required to understand anything "by definition", then it is not
> worth understanding. It is something to be memorized, not understood.
It is specifically what must be used for the components to work together.
> Certainly the point would not be worth arguing about with someone who
> has simply memorized it and considers the concept thus inviolate, but
> whether an API "is" the agreement is not as easily hand-waved as you
> would like it to be, Les.
You can call the documentation or description the API, but there is
a portion that is required in a precise form for the program to work.
That is the part included in the calling program.
> That being said, I agree with your definition; it does match my
> understanding. An API is every bit as ephemeral as "an agreement",
> regardless of how well documented, or how often implemented, it is.
It is the least ephemeral thing in the program. It must be used in
a specific way while the things on either side are permitted to
change.
> Thus, if there is only one library which presents an API, you have no
> option but to agree to that author's terms, or write another library for
> that API.
No, the end user must obtain that library and the right to use it.
> Claiming you have the right to use the library, simply
> because you have the right to "use the API" (enter into an agreement
> with any library author), is bogus. That would be as if I could walk
> into a store and steal anything I want, claiming that since I'd be able
> to take it if I paid for it, they can't prevent me from taking it.
No, it is as if you could download and use a GPL'd library any way
you want. Oops - that's what the license says you can do...
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Greg Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 06:27:30 GMT
In article <9d84g7$r4u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> 3
> "Stefan Ohlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Mon, 7 May 2001 18:29:54 +0200, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > >"Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >>Sure I've seen the occasional box running DOS in a closet with a unix
> > >>print
> > >>server client running on it here and there but... that hardly means
> MS-DOS
> > >>is alive and well.
> > >Windows has the killer applications that DOS didn't, what killer
> > >applications does XP have that you can't run on 9x?
> > >Since it's going to be a long time before stuff that is written to XP
> will
> > >not be able to run on 9x, I would say you are in for a long wait.
> > >
> > How about Windows Media Player 8?
>
> Don't make me laugh. Unless it went through a *thourough* overhaul, there
> isn't a *chance* of WMP8 being worth a dime.
> WMP7 is a bloody resource hog, slow, unresponsive, slow, and did I mention
> slow?
> Start playing a CD, try changing tracks... On my system, PIII-500+448MB, the
> easiest way to do it is to teminate WMP7, and start all over again! And I
> won't start talking about how it does MP3...
> I got WinampLite, which does everything I want it to, does it fast,
> efficently, and reponsively.
> Practically *anything* is better than WMP.
>
Just for grins I fired up WMP7 running under Win2k on my PII-450 with
256MB memory. According to the task manager it sucks up less than 5
percent of the cpu and uses 3.5 MB of system memory when minimized.
When not minimized it uses about 20 percent of the CPU and 5.5MB of
memory. It changes tracks just fine for me...
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Greg Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 06:32:07 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> On 9 May 2001 00:43:02 -0500, Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >Your car has unique ID numbers etched into 100 locations, all recorded in a
> >corporate database and shared with the police and other dealers - you don't
> >have a choice. That doesn't bother you? Seen any black helicopters lately?
> >
>
> But I own my vehicle outright. It's all mine and it won't refuse to run if
> I make improvements to it.
>
No, but the manufacturer of your vehicle might cancel your warrenty if
they don't like what you did to "improve" it.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 06:38:27 GMT
"Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3af8d97b$0$41639$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> No - a monopoly is NOT illegal. Period. YOU look it up and find out that
I'm
> right. I state that as a fact - prove me wrong.
Right - it is what Microsoft did with the power of their monopoly that
was proven illegal.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 02:39:44 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Users...Why?
Brent R wrote:
> It has never ceased to astound me that people would do away with their
> favorite apps just for a moderate increase in OS quality. That's one
> thing I've never really understood about this movement I guess.
>
> To me, I like Linux but Windows has so many great apps that I cannot do
> without it.
For me, the reason for me using FreeBSD and Linux is that they are free
unices that I can run on my PC at home. Plus, there are the side
benefits as well, as the filesystem of both is better than FAT
(inodes+data blocks -vs- doubly-linked list data chains of FAT,
fragmentation, horrible!). I first started using unix systems in '93.
They weren't BSD or Linux, but it's what I'm used to running, so I just
stuck with BSD and Linux (mostly BSD). Well, actually they were
BSD-based, because they were ultrix and sunos 1.xx; they just weren't
FreeBSD.
====== 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: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 06:34:05 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >Not too simple, just untrue in the programming case. Code calling
> >functions
> >from another library is not a derivative of that library any more than a
> >playlist
> >is a derivative of the songs mentioned. [...]
>
> Okay, I can live with that. Code calling functions from a library are
> not a derivative of the library. That doesn't prevent the program from
> being derivative of the library, according to the FSF's position. You
> disagree with that position, and you have made the position very
> comprehensible. I certainly consider it a reasonable position, when you
> state it like that. I still consider it mistaken, based on a
> metaphysical concept of copyright which denies the reality of the
> conflict between software and copyright which makes it a defensible (and
> thus legally correct) position. Just because no literal copying is
> going on does not prevent infringement from occurring.
You are free to believe anything you like but if you want someone to
agree it would help to find any evidence that copyright law covers
any case where nothing is copied, or any other case where a program
using a library automatically becomes a derivative of that library
even though it did not include it in the distribution. Considering
that nearly every program requires at least the host system libraries
it would seem that the case would have come up a long time ago
if the system vendor had a chance of controlling competing application
vendors or getting royalties from them.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 01:45:13 -0500
"spam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 8 May 2001 23:38:09 -0500, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > > Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 7 May 2001
> >> > > [...]
> >> > > >COM existed before SOM as well.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >SOM was first introduced with OS/2 2.0, which came out in early
1992,
> >> > just
> >> > > >weeks before COM was officially launched in Windows 3.1. They
were
> >> > > >contemporaries, created independantly at about the same time.
> >> > >
> >> > > Which is it? First you say that COM 'existed before SOM', and then
> >you
> >> > > say they were 'created at about the same time'. What besides the
> >donuts
> >> > > at the sock puppet briefings leads you to believe that MS didn't do
> >what
> >> > > they typically do, and just "steal IBM's ideas", implementing their
> >own
> >> > > technology more as vaporware than anything else, to scare off the
> >> > > competition? You know, like the way they stole pen computing from
Go?
> >> >
> >> > I can no longer find the reference, but the basic workings of COM
were
> >> > developed in 1988, however, they didn't at the time know what to do
with
> >it.
> >> > In 1990, when they began work on Windows 3.1, that work was put to
use
> >to
> >> > make OLE 2. In other words, COM existed before OLE 2, it had to,
since
> >OLE
> >> > was based on COM.
> >>
> >> Why did they develop COM if they didn't know what to do with it??
> >> I have the Windows Software Development kit and docs. Copyrighted
> >> 1987-1992.
> >> No where do I find any mention of COM.
> >
> >As I said, it was released until they released OLE 2 in 1992 (the same
time
> >IBM released SOM).
>
> SOM was released with OS/2 2.0 in early 1992 (Team OS/2's FAQ says
> late 1991 but I and other web pages don't remember it that way).
> According to Charlie Kindel's forward in Don Box's "Essential COM",
> COM was released with OLE 2 in May 1993.
I'm not sure which edition you are reading, by mine says 1992. It must have
been a typo. OLE2 was released in May 1992 when Windows 3.1 was released.
> According to Pritchard's
> "COM and Corba Side by Side" Corba 1 was released in 1991, though I
> have no idea in what shape or form it was in. Obviously, all
> compainies involved had started work on thier technologies years
> before the relase date and released betas to the development
> community.
>
> >
> >COM was not originally marketed as a stand-alone technology, it was only
> >marketed as OLE 2. In 1994, they actually formally released COM as a
> >seperate technology (then called Common Object Model, later changed to
> >Component Object Model).
>
> According to Kindel it was never called common object model.
I have a MS reference document that says Common object model.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux Users...Why?
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 09 May 2001 06:51:12 GMT
On Wed, 09 May 2001 03:53:37 GMT, Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It has never ceased to astound me that people would do away with their
> favorite apps just for a moderate increase in OS quality. That's one
> thing I've never really understood about this movement I guess.
I can inderstand why some may do that, but I actually switched from
Windows to Linux *because* of the Linux apps that were available.
To get the same things under Windows, I would have needed to spend
$10,000 plus.
>
> To me, I like Linux but Windows has so many great apps that I cannot do
> without it.
>
> --
> - Brent
>
> http://rotten168.home.att.net
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
