Linux-Development-Sys Digest #947, Volume #6 Sat, 10 Jul 99 15:14:01 EDT
Contents:
Borland posts Linux Development Survey! (Cbuilder67)
Re: System Developer(s) Wanted (Christopher B. Browne)
Kernel info (Stefano)
Re: Kernel info (Peter Samuelson)
Re: MICROSOFT LINUX DISTRIBUTION ("ELSID Software Systems LTD.")
Re: MICROSOFT LINUX DISTRIBUTION (Bryan)
Re: MICROSOFT LINUX DISTRIBUTION (Bryan)
Memory swapper abstraction (RFD) (Sean Walton)
Re: help:why program can be run inside gdb but can not in command line (Ron House)
Re: Filesize larger than 2 GB on Intel machines an Linux 2.0.36 (Byron A Jeff)
Re: what is i_next_alloc_goal ? (Andi Kleen)
Re: Memory swapper abstraction (RFD) (Kaz Kylheku)
Re: Memory Managemenr Bug (Sean Walton)
Re: MICROSOFT LINUX DISTRIBUTION (John Jacques)
Re: MICROSOFT LINUX DISTRIBUTION ("Cliff")
Re: MICROSOFT LINUX DISTRIBUTION (Frank Sweetser)
linux for single user ("Amr Mohamed")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cbuilder67)
Subject: Borland posts Linux Development Survey!
Date: 10 Jul 1999 07:52:48 GMT
Yes!!!
http://www.borland.com/linux
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher B. Browne)
Subject: Re: System Developer(s) Wanted
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 07:37:59 GMT
On Fri, 9 Jul 1999 21:51:06 -0700, JP S-C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>> On the other hand, considerable numbers of experienced kernel
>> developers have been hired up by Red Hat Software and
>> (whatever-they-call-the-company-formerly-known-as) VA Research,
>> reportedly at inflated Silicon Valley rates...
>>
>> --
>> "The only ``intuitive'' interface is the nipple. After that, it's all
>> learned."
>> -- Bruce Ediger, [EMAIL PROTECTED] on X interfaces.
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
>
>--Does that mean there are not many available programmers? R you?
There is probably a demand indistinguishable-from-infinite for programmers
with ten years of experience with extensive understanding of kernel
programming that are willing to accept "not necessarily huge amounts of
money" for their time.
The supply of such folk tend to diminish when "inflated SV rates" start to
get involved.
You start having to offer considerably more money in order to attract
interest.
--
"Why use Windows, since there is a door?"
-- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Andre Fachat
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: Stefano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Kernel info
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 12:03:19 +0200
Hi all,
When i compiled kernel what can i do to start it (i've compiled kernel
2.2.5 on x86 RH distribution).
Thanks
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Samuelson)
Subject: Re: Kernel info
Date: 10 Jul 1999 07:01:00 -0500
Reply-To: Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[Stefano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> When i compiled kernel what can i do to start it (i've compiled
> kernel 2.2.5 on x86 RH distribution).
Well, not being an x86 RH customer, I don't know if they've got any
machinery in there to automate it, but essentially you have to get
Linux loaded by your boot loader. That means copying the kernel into a
reasonable place to boot it from, pointing your boot loader at that
place, and rebooting. Oh, and don't forget to compile and install your
modules. Oh, and if you compiled a module related to your boot media
(a SCSI adapter, most commonly), I think Red Hat has some procedure
called mkinitrd you'll also need to use.
Most people, for the boot loader, use LILO, so read up on that. The
docs are out there.
--
Peter Samuelson
<sampo.creighton.edu!psamuels>
------------------------------
From: "ELSID Software Systems LTD." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MICROSOFT LINUX DISTRIBUTION
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 09:51:29 -0400
All they have to do is bring out a is bring out a Linux like os that
interfaces
with all the current Linux loadable module specifications as well at
their own, call it
MSLINUX++ and the pointy haired managers will all insist that
their Linux people be MSLINUX++ ceritfied.
This will give them the commercial market and true Linux goes back to the
hobbiest.
------------------------------
From: Bryan <Bryan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MICROSOFT LINUX DISTRIBUTION
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 14:05:00 GMT
Scott Lanning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Bryan (Bryan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: : : Are they taking over LINUX?
: :
: : they can't - NO ONE OWNS LINUX (except linus, and that's only
: : for the parts of the kernel he wrote).
: :
: : you can't "take over" what is not outright purchasable.
: You don't have to buy something to own it. Linux is GPL'ed,
: okay, but Microsoft could produce a GPL'ed Linux, "enhance"
: it, then their bastardized form of Linux becomes standard.
: Sure, Linux continues to be developed as usual, but then the
: popular market follows the Microsoft version. I mean, if they
: sell a Linux version, produce a bunch of things like Excel,
: Word, etc., for Linux...then, it's just like VHS versus
: that other format that nobody remembers.
but won't they have to release source if they modify a GPL'd product?
: "Windows was designed to keep the idiots away from Unix so we could
: hack in peace. Let's not break that." --Tom Christiansen
damned good .sig, man! ;-)
--
Bryan, http://www.Grateful.Net - Linux/Web-based Network Management
->->-> to email me, you must hunt the WUMPUS and kill it.
------------------------------
From: Bryan <Bryan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MICROSOFT LINUX DISTRIBUTION
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 14:10:27 GMT
ELSID Software Systems LTD. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: All they have to do is bring out a is bring out a Linux like os that
: interfaces
: with all the current Linux loadable module specifications as well at
: their own, call it
: MSLINUX++ and the pointy haired managers will all insist that
: their Linux people be MSLINUX++ ceritfied.
: This will give them the commercial market and true Linux goes back to the
: hobbiest.
but again, what makes linux great is the reliability inherent in having
SOURCE. microsof~1 will NOT - ever - release source. therefore:
- I don't think they legally -could- release a binary-only kernel
or the apps - since most/all are GPL'd. they're free to release
binary-only brand new apps ... but who cares?
- no one who already hates microsof~1 will use this since there's a 'real'
alternative (ie, the real non-MS linux kernel+apps)
- windows users are already happy using windows - they'll never see a valid
reason to switch over
--
Bryan, http://www.Grateful.Net - Linux/Web-based Network Management
->->-> to email me, you must hunt the WUMPUS and kill it.
------------------------------
From: Sean Walton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Memory swapper abstraction (RFD)
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 12:58:23 -0400
[Let's see if I can this posting to stick (I keep getting my messages
dropped!).]
I have an idea that may be interesting to distributed programmers. How
about an abstract memory swapper. Currently, Linux swaps on a local
disk or on a remote server (with dedicated swap space). If we were to
allow processes to chose where they will swap certain blocks, these
blocks may be placed remotely and even shared. The locking/scheduling
would simply be an "I got it!" algorithm. Several programs (locally or
remotely) can share the same block and pass it around like a hot
potato. Additionally, programs may themselves migrate to other, less
utilized nodes (assuming the context goes with it).
Of course, this is over simplified, but I think it may have some
merit--especially to the Beowoft project.
Any thoughts?
-Sean Walton
KB7RFA
------------------------------
From: Ron House <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: help:why program can be run inside gdb but can not in command line
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 15:52:20 +0000
Daniel R. Grayson wrote:
>
> y chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Hello , there ,
> > I had a program and i can run it inside gdb
> > without any problem.
> > However, When i run it in command line,
> > it seg fault.
> > Does anyone have same experience and
> > tell me how to fix it?
> > Thanks!
>
> This can happen if gdb doesn't present exactly the same environment to the
> program.
(gdb)
Yes. Try this: Start the program on its own, run it to the first prompt,
then while it waits for input, attach an xxgdb session to it and watch
the rest from the separate xxgdb window.
--
Ron House [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The evils of each age always seem self-evidently right at the time.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Byron A Jeff)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Filesize larger than 2 GB on Intel machines an Linux 2.0.36
Date: 10 Jul 1999 13:13:15 -0400
In article <tVRg3.10785$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-On 07 Jul 1999 21:50:05 +0200, Andreas Jaeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
->>>>>> Christopher B Browne writes:
->Christopher> The *killer* part isn't a kernel patch; it's the (probably nonexistent
->Christopher> at this point) GLIBC patch that is needed to support big files.
->
->glibc 2.1 has the full LFS interface. It just needs (on ix86) kernel
->support and some changes. But you can already
-
-I stand corrected, and am glad to see such developments in 2.1; this
-nonetheless leaves the issue that applications must be coded to use
-LFS.
But since it's such a small subset of applications anyway, this shouldn't be
a big deal right?
BAJ
------------------------------
From: Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: what is i_next_alloc_goal ?
Date: 10 Jul 1999 14:46:15 +0200
"Soohyung Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi, everyone !
>
> There are two fields 'i_next_alloc_goal' and 'i_next_alloc_block' in
> 'ext2_inode_info' structure.
> What is the purpose of these two fields.
> I guess that it is for sequential allocation.
> But I don't know the exact meaning and purpose of these.
> Could anyone kindly tell me what these are .
ext2 tries to avoid fragmentation and get good performance with small by block
pre allocation on write. If you write a block it assumes you want to write more
and tries to pre-allocate some successive blocks, otherwise multiple parallel
writers would fragment. The "next_goal" is the next successive block that should
be allocated if possible; the next_alloc_block is the next already allocated
block.
For more information see fs/ext2/inode.c and fs/ext2/balloc.c
BSD UFS tries to reach the same goal with big blocks (4K and 8K) and using
block fragments to avoid the big overhead for small files. ext2 gets similar
performance with 1K The ext2 preallocation approach has the advantage that it
works for even bigger clusters (32k-64k).
If you can afford the overhead for small files (=dont't use it on a
file-per-message news spool) it it is best to use 4K blocks for new filesystems.
It first gives a _dramatic_ speedup to the fsck, and the new writing through
the page cache code in 2.3 works a lot more efficient with MMU PAGE_SIZEd
blocks.
-Andi
--
This is like TV. I don't like TV.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kaz Kylheku)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Memory swapper abstraction (RFD)
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 17:31:54 GMT
On Sat, 10 Jul 1999 12:58:23 -0400, Sean Walton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>[Let's see if I can this posting to stick (I keep getting my messages
>dropped!).]
>
>I have an idea that may be interesting to distributed programmers. How
>about an abstract memory swapper. Currently, Linux swaps on a local
>disk or on a remote server (with dedicated swap space). If we were to
>allow processes to chose where they will swap certain blocks, these
>blocks may be placed remotely and even shared. The locking/scheduling
>would simply be an "I got it!" algorithm. Several programs (locally or
>remotely) can share the same block and pass it around like a hot
>potato. Additionally, programs may themselves migrate to other, less
>utilized nodes (assuming the context goes with it).
What you are describing is known as Distributed Shared Memory.
You might want to brush up on the existing research concerning DSM.
------------------------------
From: Sean Walton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Memory Managemenr Bug
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 13:23:12 -0400
There should be a FAQ on this: it is a common *and*avoidable* programming
problem. Linux uses a "lazy allocation" scheme: a program can allocate as
much memory as is wants, but the actual physical allocation does not occur
until written to. So, it's actually possible to allocate 2GB (4GB on some
patched systems) where only 128MB of VM is really available.
Is this a defect? No, it was literally designed this way. [BTW, your
system may not be locked up at all--it's possibly just thrashing.] There
has been many, many discussions regarding this, and many have asserted that
it is a major, fundamental defect in Linux. Torvalds says that it is
supposed to work that way. That's that.
Here are some rationales:
-Many programs simply allocate a bunch of space and never use it. You
may say that this is poor programming, but consider memory management, it's
actually quite system-friendly: fragmentation doesn't happen as readily.
-Memory is a resource that should appear inexhaustable. No program
should have to worry about "heap overflow" errors on *nix systems.
-Any program that tries to allocate the world deserves to die (of
course, should it kill the OS or other apps?). Why are you trying to
allocate all of memory/swap? If you really want to allocate the world, go
buy the RAM/disk-space and load it up. Or, you can query the system what
resources are available and allocate based on that info.
-There is a tool to limit the amount of memory/resources that a program
can allocate ("ulimit"? someone help me here). I believe that it is
currently set to a maximum; you can tune it down.
-There is a problem though. With the newer kernels (2.0 and later),
swap can now be a growing file instead of a type-83 swap partition. So, how
much space is really available?
Here's a set of heuristics:
1. Allocate what you need when you need it (let the system worry about
the fragmentation).
2. If you know that you will need several blocks all at once, refer to
#1 or allocate a single large block and carve it up yourself.
3. Free up unused blocks.
4. Don't allocate the world.
-Sean Walton
Intelligent Algorithmic Solutions
KB7RFA
Stefan Proels wrote:
> Hi,
>
> seems like I ran into a kernel or glibc bug. The program below locks up
> the system. It tries to allocate all memory (this test case is the
> result
> of a bug in a program of mine...) in the first phase and then memset()s
> it
> in the second phase. When the swap space is exhausted the system locks
> up.
> It does not lock up when each chunk of memory is memset()ed immediately
> after allocation (it receives a SIGSEGV then). Interestingly the program
> allocates nearly 2G in the first phase while I only have 128M RAM and
> about 256M swap. It does not show this behavior on a SPARC Solaris 2.6
> machine where it won't allocate more than there is. I guess on Linux it
> doesn't actually allocate a frame until it is accessed.
>
> Here are some details about my System:
>
> SuSE 6.1, glibc 2.0, kernel 2.2.7
> 128MB RAM
> Two 128484k swap partitions
>
> Is this problem known (and possibly even fixed in newer releases of the
> kernel and/or glibc)? The bug is somewhat serious since it allows an
> ordinary user to crash the system. Here is the program:
>
> #include <stdlib.h>
> #include <stdio.h>
>
> #define CHUNKSIZE (1024*1024)
>
> struct Chunk {
> struct Chunk *next;
> char mem[CHUNKSIZE];
> };
>
> int main(int argc, char **argv) {
> struct Chunk *last = (struct Chunk *)0;
> struct Chunk *chunk;
> int size = 0;
>
> for (;;) {
> chunk = malloc(sizeof(struct Chunk));
> if (!chunk)
> break;
> chunk->next = last;
> last = chunk;
> size += CHUNKSIZE;
> }
>
> printf("allocated %d byte\n", size);
>
> for (chunk = last; chunk; chunk = chunk->next) {
> memset(chunk->mem, 0, CHUNKSIZE);
> }
>
> return 0;
> }
------------------------------
From: John Jacques <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MICROSOFT LINUX DISTRIBUTION
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 13:56:49 -0400
Samuel Brown wrote:
> I had a someone tell me that Microsoft will sell their own linux
> distribution. Is this true?
>
> They said it would have IE 5 and EXPLORER as the window manager
> and the setup program would be really simple.
> It will have word and excel 2000 also.
> Are they taking over LINUX?
Isn't Netware buying out debian linux? I have a linux magazine, (I have
to find where I placed it), that said Netware cannot depend on M$ (runs
on top of dos) anymore after this year and is converting their OS to
work with linux ( I think it said debian?). If this is happening why
can't M$ buy out a version of linux and do the same thing Netware is
doing with it?
Also, the world thinks M$ is the greatest computer people in the world,
so, what is stopping them from looking at all the various linux sources
and create a whole new version for themselves. They can say they created
the whole thing, after all they created dos and windows.
Slackeware 4.0 is the just as easy to install as windozes 98, but
setting up sound and video cards needs to be automated as in win98
before the general public will switch over from win-to-linux. Also, the
setup should include third party libraries and such on the same CD. The
setup should also have a "SIMPLE" install that includes a floppy&CD-ROM
combo. Where the user pops the floppy in, turns the computer on, inserts
the cd-rom, then sits back and watches the progress indicator move along
on the screen. The normal person is still afraid of menus, making their
own decisions, and anything they have to type on the command line. The
new generation of computer users probably never heard of DOS or using a
computer without a mouse and GUI.
I've talked a few people into switching from windoze98 to slackware 4.0,
but after they install it on their new computers, half of the hardware
isn't supported, so, they go back to windoze and it's auto-detection of
hardware.
------------------------------
From: "Cliff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MICROSOFT LINUX DISTRIBUTION
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 16:41:06 GMT
Frank Sweetser wrote in message ...
>
>personally, i think it's more a case of microsoft simply trying to maintain
>an absolute monopoly, and simply destroying what they can't control. it's
>too bad, 'cause if they really wanted to MS could live quite peacefully
>along side linux...
>
Hence the DOJ case. But the thing that most all MS bashers miss, and MS
knows implicitly is, that from the user's perspective all computers are
embedded. What I mean is: the average user doesn't know nor care who or
what created their application all the user wants is to balance a check
book, send an email, surf the web, etc. MS makes it real easy for users to
use MS products, _not_ to use any other product. If I'm right about this
then your first assertion is correct. They'll kill Linux if they can figure
how. I don't think you'll ever see them "live quite peacefully along side"
any product that has the potential to unhinge their Vulcan death grip on the
average user.
Given this, then it behooves the Linux developer's community to spread
the gospel. How about this: Lets start a campaign to enlist ISP's to
provide an easy mechanism for switching to Linux. If the ISP makes a
distribution available via anonymous FTP then some users might take
advantage of the "free operating system" download. The LDC should then put
some effort into a _Windows_ program that; determines all hardware on the
user's system, sets up an RH kickstart (or similar) install using that
knowledge, and walks the user through repartitioning the drive, followed by
the FTP install. If the program makes it possible (and easy) to dual boot
the existing Windoze, then the user gets a win-win situation. Selling the
inherent stability and security of Linux, which incidentally improves the
ISP's environment, could be the determining factor is mass market
acceptance.
All comments welcome. Please post to the group instead of emailing.
--
-Cliff
Views expressed are my own and not necessarily those of my employer
Concordia Net, Inc. When replying via email please use; cwheat at concordia
dot net not
root@localhost
------------------------------
From: Frank Sweetser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MICROSOFT LINUX DISTRIBUTION
Date: 10 Jul 1999 14:03:37 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Lanning) writes:
> Frank Sweetser ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> : [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Lanning) writes:
> : > it, then their bastardized form of Linux becomes standard.
> :
> : wrong. dead wrong.
>
> Do you mean their techniques are wrong or my assessment is
> wrong? If the latter, why? That is how they work, I think.
calling something a standard does not make it truly a standard.
> They introduce Word format documents which are incompatible
> with everything else, then everybody has to have Microsoft Word.
> Companies often ask for Word formatted resumes, for instance. They
> introduce I.E. extensions to HTML, the agreed on standard, then
> the following HTML versions adapt to the extensions. They use
> formats which break my newsreader and mailer and expect me to
> adapt to it. They always do that. They twist the existing
> standard till it becomes incompatible, but then they have the
> market and everyone's afraid to use less popular tools. I think
> that's what you meant by FUD. Do you claim that FUD doesn't work?
> It seems to have swayed alot of religious people.
well, the whole religious big is a whole 'nother beef of mine, that doesn't
belong here =) but, that can indeed potentially be an attack -
decommodotizing(sp?) protocols, as esr put it in response to the haloween
docs. they can sometimes get away with it in places where they have a
signifigant share, like the web browser market. with linux, though, they
would be laughed right out of the standards game...
> : > sell a Linux version, produce a bunch of things like Excel,
> : > Word, etc., for Linux...then, it's just like VHS versus
> : > that other format that nobody remembers.
>
> : while an "MSLinux" might be worshipped by the masses who
> : already worship windows, more than likely it would be ignored
> : by the developers and power users who have made linux what
> : it is today.
>
> I think you're arguing my point.. Kinda.. Okay, I see what you
> mean. Bryan was arguing that no one can take over Linux and
> meant that MS isn't going to, say, prevent Linux from determining
> what goes into the Linux kernel. Okay, I'm sure that's right.
> I guess what I was arguing, which I see is a bit different,
> sorry about that, is that MS can prevent Linux from controlling
> the operating system market share. And I suppose there are many
> different levels of OS market to consider, like the popular
> market for desktops versus the server market or "production"
> machines, etc.
yep. there's nothing that could stop them from trying. howver, i think
that a signifigant portion of the market that has made linux as refined and
popular as it is today (developers, students, and yes, quite a few anti-MS
bigots) wouldn't touch it with a 50' pole.
also, don't forget - MS doesn't exactly have a proven track record of
quality software, in particular on unix platforms, which they don't seem to
be very good at. i suspect that an MSLinux would quickly begin to bloat
with lots of binary only stuff, half-working features, and mysterious
files. this would be made worse by the fact that any changes made to
existing components would have to be released under the GPL, so they'd have
to start over from scratch for a lot of stuff...
> Consider the last--production machines. What if an MSLinux
> evolved to fit this market? I think companies prefer to buy
> a product from a single entity rather than Linux developers
> who aren't held accountable (though, as someone has pointed
> out, MS is hardly accountable for their OS and nobody could
> sue them if you read their license).
yup. no one ever got fired for buying IBM - oops, i mean MS. ;-)
also, for those looking to buy tech support/a scapegoat, there's plenty of
outfits out there - redhat and caldera are getting into the game, plus
linuxcare seems pretty promising too.
> : > You really think so? I don't really think they have that
> : > much to worry about.
>
> : personally, i think it's more a case of microsoft simply
> : trying to maintain an absolute monopoly, and simply destroying
> : what they can't control. it's too bad, 'cause if they really
> : wanted to MS could live quite peacefully along side linux...
>
> I dunno, that penguin's pretty mean sometimes. :)
>
> Actually, I don't really care if Microsoft dominates the
> market. Like the quote that sometimes appears in my .sig,
> it would leave us to hack linux in peace.
hear hear =)
--
Frank Sweetser rasmusin at wpi.edu fsweetser at blee.net | PGP key available
paramount.ind.wpi.edu RedHat 5.2 kernel 2.2.5 i586 | at public servers
It's appositival, if it's there. And it doesn't have to be there.
And it's really obvious that it's there when it's there.
-- Larry Wall in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: "Amr Mohamed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: linux for single user
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 11:12:17 -0700
Hi Everyone,
Does anyone know if there is a commercial verision of Linux for single user,
single device system without all other complecated components?. This version
is meant to be installed on hand held devices.
Thx
Amr
------------------------------
** 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 (and comp.os.linux.development.system) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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-Development-System Digest
******************************
