Linux-Hardware Digest #602, Volume #10 Sat, 26 Jun 99 23:13:26 EDT
Contents:
Re: Intermittant problem with Zoom modem model 2919 (Gary I Kahn)
Re: Laser printers (Gary I Kahn)
Re: Windows easy to install? BULLSHIT! (Alex Lam)
Ethernet adapter (diniz)
Re: Windows easy to install? BULLSHIT! (Alex Lam)
Re: More or fewer drives better for RAID (Justin B Willoughby)
Re: More or fewer drives better for RAID ("Tony Platt")
Re: Windows easy to install? BULLSHIT! (Alex Lam)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gary I Kahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Intermittant problem with Zoom modem model 2919
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 22:01:35 -0400
> I have a zoom faxmodem model 2919. Which
> according to what I have seen on the net, should
> work in Linux.
If the modem is still within the return-allowed period, I
recommend returning it.
I have the modem, and I don't have the connect problems. My init
string is
AT &F E0 S7=60 B0B15 M0 %C0
It's based on the Windows init string, as well as on docs
provided by Lucent. The last two commands are my own.
The reason that I recommend returning it is that it apparently
has a design defect. Compressible data streams, such as the
CDROM image for a RedHat 6.0 CD [which begins with 32K of NUL
characters, a rather extreme example] cause data transfers to
stall or very long periods or totally hang. The problem occurs
under all kernel versions and PPP versions tested. It's been
reproduced on at least 4 linux users' systems, that I know of. I
found a workaround: either turn off hardware compression using
the %C0 command, or use the setserial command to tell linux that
the modem's UART is a 16450. Calling the modem's UART a 16450
chip causes linux to not support the 16-byte FIFO buffer feature
of the 16550-compatible UART that Zoom claims that the modem
contains.
The stalls and hangs with compressible data streams don't occur
under Windows, implying to me that the Windows serial driver has
turned off FIFO support.
Using the %C0 command causes a drop in performance.
I used the ATI11 command to check on the modem's performance. I
found that using the %C0 command resulted in about 0.5% of
incoming data packets to be lost (and retransmitted). When I
left compression on (via the %C1 default) and called the modem's
UART a 16450, then 6%-10% of incoming data packets had to be
retransmitted. Each workaround got rid of my long-term (and
sometimes permanent) download stalls.
When my Model 2919 modem was about 5 months old, I discussed
(with Zoom) the possibility of trading in my internal modem for
an external model. Zoom eventually agreed on such a trade, if I
gave them $30 extra. I was willing, but they apparently never
really intended for the deal to go through. After a number of
delaying actions on their part, I now feel that they negotiated
in bad faith. I've bought my last Zoom product.
Gary Kahn
------------------------------
From: Gary I Kahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Laser printers
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 22:09:41 -0400
> I've been looking round for a low-end laser printer that will work fine
> with Linux.
I have an OkiPage 6e, and it works fine under linux. It doesn't
have Postscript built in, but the printer can emulate an HP
LaserJet 4 in hardware. Ghostscript can format Postscript files
for output to the LaserJet 4, so I'm happy.
The printer cost approximately US$250 when I bought it late in
1998.
Gary Kahn
------------------------------
From: Alex Lam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Windows easy to install? BULLSHIT!
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 19:34:13 -0700
Brian Hartman wrote:
>
> Alex Lam wrote:
>
> > Brian Hartman wrote:
> > >
> > > "Martin A. Boegelund" wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <7imhtp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > "Roberto Leibman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > Daniele,
> > > > > Are you more familiar with Linux or Windows? I've been working with
> > > > Windows
> > > > > for many years now and have installed it in many strange hardware,
> > > > it's just
> > > > > a matter of knowing what its tricks are, as I'm sure its true of
> > > > linux and
> > > > > any os. If you have access to another computer, I suggest you get the
> > > > latest
> > > > > drivers for your laptop directly from compaq BEFORE you install
> > > > anything
> > > > > else, so that you have them ready when required, remember that
> > > > manufacturers
> > > > > seem to put a lot more custom stuff on their laptops than on other
> > > > > computers, and that NO OS testing team can test every possible
> > > > combination.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > He _had_ trouble installing Windows, no doubt about that. He uses this
> > > > experience to show that a common reason for choosing Windows over other
> > > > OSs because of easy installation, does not hold in the real world.
> > > >
> > > > And now you tell him to get drivers for this and that over the net?!?
> > > > Well, one often heard reason for _not_ liking Linux, is that you might
> > > > have to get special patches and other software for your specific
> > > > hardware-configuration over the net. This argument is often used by MS-
> > > > advocates...
> > > >
> > > > I'd say you just proved his point!
> > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Roberto Leibman
> > > > > Talaria Research, Inc.
> > > > > http://www.talaria.com
> > > > > Cxi tioj opinioj ne necese estas la opinioj de la administrantaro
> > > >
> > > > [snipped]
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > ------------------
> > > > Mr Sparkle - Aka Martin A. Boegelund
> > > >
> > > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > > > Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
> > >
> > > Working with Linux is *much* more difficult than working with Windows for
> > > an install. For one thing, Windows plug and play (while it's hardly
> > > stellar) is much further along than Linux, so you don't have to manually
> > > configure as much hardware. Secondly, in a Windows environment, you don't
> > > have to worry about mounting and unmounting. Your drives are just
> > > there. Thirdly, hardware support for Linux is way behind that for
> > > Windows. Couple this with the fact that people buy hardware thinking
> > > it'll be easy to set up, only to find when they switch to Linux that it's
> > > designed for Windows. Linux requires a great deal more initial planning
> > > before you set it up, whereas most of the problems with Windows happen
> > > *after* you install it.
> >
> > Excuse me...
> >
> > Windoze easy to install?
> >
> > Heck. I've been using Windoze since 3.0, then NT since 3.5, and Linux
> > since kernel 1.x. Yes, Linux WAS difficult to install. But now, with all
> > the advanced installers from some distributions, installation is a snap.
> >
>
> Installation might be a snap from some distributions, but not from what I've
> seen. And it's hardly as straightforward as Windows.
>
I found otherwise.
> >
> > It took me all but 35 or 40 minutes to do a full installation with
> > SuSELinux, with all the basic services all configured and running
> > properly, and connected to the net with xDSL.
> >
> > Shitzzzzz. Windoze takes almost that much time on the zillions reboots
> > it needs, plus you need to say your prays with the "plug 'n' pray"
> > craps.
> >
>
> Windows only needs 2 or three reboots for the whole process (about the same as
> Linux). As far as plug and play, it's more advanced than Linux's and
> recognizes more devices more easily.
>
Come on. Have you try to install 98?
And any Windoze need a reboot anytime you change anything...
> >
> > And the only real multi-tasking Windoze can do is to boot and crash at
> > the same time.
> >
>
> I won't argue there.
>
> >
> > And Dr. Watson from NT. What a joke! It just keep sending you through
> > a loop without really identifying the problem. And the Help file from
> > Win 98 - keep telling you the same thing, and going round and round in
> > circle, then, tell you to call your system admin. Do you call that help?
> > What if that poor soul is a home user?
> >
> > At least, the error message from Linux does clearly identify the
> > problem, yes, you need to know how to interpute the message, but at
> > least it gives you a precise diagnosis, and you can actually take this
> > message and ask someone who knows how to interpute it to solve the
> > problem, like posting on usenet.
> >
>
> I'll agree with you on the Windows help, but the Linux help is much more
> cryptic. At least with the Windows help, you know when it's not the answer
> you're looking for. You spend most of your time diagnosing an error message
> with Linux (if you can even find where to get it).
>
I"VE CALLED m$ supports many times over the years, a lot of time, even
M$ supports could not solve the problem.
IMO. NT 4.0 is alphaware, 95/98 is vaporwear.
Alex Lam.
> >
> > Or you can call M$ support and they keep you on hold for an hour or so
> > while your long distance phone bill is ticking, and still not getting
> > your problem resolved.
> >
> > Just my $0.000000002 from a long time M$ user, now almost completed his
> > system migration to Linux.
> > Alex Lam.
> >
*** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Remove all the upper case Xs from my email address if reply by e mail.
**************************************************
------------------------------
From: diniz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Ethernet adapter
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 22:07:58 -0300
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I would like to know if the Encore board model ESL-816V work with linux
RedHat.
Thanks
------------------------------
From: Alex Lam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Windows easy to install? BULLSHIT!
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 19:29:09 -0700
Brian Hartman wrote:
>
> Alex Lam wrote:
>
> > Brian Hartman wrote:
> > >
> > > Alex Lam wrote:
> > >
> > (snipped)
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Heck. You should consider yourself lucky... on my Win98 box, it decided
> > > > that I have added new hardware, and decided to update all the things for
> > > > me without having me to click "OK", then, it went into its own freeze
> > > > and rebooted, after that, my LAN was as dead as the chicken I had for
> > > > dinner the night before, and when I click on shut down, it'll just hangs
> > > > there for hours... the only way to shut off was to turn the power
> > > > off.....
> > > >
> > >
> > > This is one reason I won't run 95/98 on my machine. The more complex the
>tasks, the more
> > > likely you are to experience problems. '98 is really just an updated 95, and
>was never
> > > designed (although you'd never know it from the ads) as a real workhorse. MS
>wants you to
> > > buy NT for that.
> > >
> > Don't forget I have NT as well (4.0 with sp-3, installed sp-4, but it
> > was causing too much problem, so
> > I nuked sp-4). NT a work horse? You must be pulling my leg... It'll
> > crash even if you try to delete a few
> > hundred MB of files at a time. (yes, I was deleting about 1 gig of audio
> > data after I transferred those data to CD-R, NT just bellied up, could
> > not even handle that simple task. (I got 192 MB of RAM in that box and a
> > 200MB swap space.)
>
> Well, I think I said it was "designed" as a workhorse, not necessarily that it *is*
>one.
What the *design team* have had in mind does not translate directly to
what the team *can*
actually achieve. Remember Murphy's Law?
>And
> deleting stuff has nothing to do with the processor or anything like that. It's
>highly
> unlikely that an OS problem caused the crash. At worst, during the delete your hard
>drive
> probably hiccuped, and NT got stuck. I've had problems in NT with my hard drive,
>and it turns
> out my drive has a few bad sectors, apparently in bad places.
I regularly run scan disk to check for bad sector. Non were found.
>Still, my NT installation stayed
> up even in situations which I would expect to crash it (my cooling fan konking out
>and my
> machine way hotter than it should have been, for example).
I have three fans inside the case, one on top of the heatsink over the
cpu, one 9cm aux. fans blowing cool air
in from the front panel, another 8 cm fan blowing on the video card,
ethernet card, etc, while the fan in the power supply is sucking hot air
out from the top of the case. And my room is air conditioned anytime the
weather gets over 85 degree F.
> And I've deleted as much as 1 GB
> at a time (nuking an entire hard drive at once so I could free that Windows space
>for Linux,
> for example) without a problem. Then again, I never installed SP4. Maybe there are
>some
> vulnerabilities there. But the fact remains, NT is much more stable than 98, and
>less likely
> to cause major problems. In the 3 years I've been running NT (or thereabouts) I've
>had to
> reinstall maybe 3 times.
>
Agree, NT is *slightly* more stable than Win 95/98, but still nothing to
brag about when compares to Linux, *BSD, Unix.
> >
> >
> > NT means *N*ew *T*roubles. That's it! Want more horror stories?
> >
> > (snipped)
> >
> > > > Try to use Windoze 98 for some really cpu and memory intensive stuff.
> > > > It'll sure freezes up.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Again, Win98 isn't really designed for really intensive stuff. It's simply not
>robust
> > > enough. The guy who bought the laptop obiviously didn't see the folly of
>installing 98 on
> > > the same machine he had Linux on. It's just not built to handle the same kind
>of tasks.
> > >
> > Yeah, if you want to do anything more than playing Doom, forget Win 98.
> > It's a piece of bloated junk. DOS gone VFAT (Very Fat.)
>
> It'll run most productivity apps (aka office suites) fine, but it can't handle very
>much more
> than that with any grace.
>
Sorry, I don't do Office Suit stuff.
Alex Lam.
> >
> >
> > Alex Lam.
--
*** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Remove all the upper case Xs from my email address if reply by e mail.
**************************************************
**************************************************
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Justin B Willoughby)
Subject: Re: More or fewer drives better for RAID
Date: 27 Jun 1999 02:37:38 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Justin B Willoughby)
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) writes:
> Hello,
>
> I am about to build a server for my website. I need plenty of disk
> space. I want to implement the best disk array I can within budget.
>
> I am planning on getting the DPT SmartRAID V Decade PM1554U2 SCSI RAID
> controller.
>
> I was planning on getting 3 36.4gb Quantum Atlas IV hard drives.
> Would getting 6 18gb drives be better?
>
> What kind of performance impact would this have?
>
> With three drives I was planning on doing raid 5.
> With 6 drives I could two sets of three mirrored?
>
> Would on be better than the other? I am only learning about RAID now.
>
I don't have a lot to comment on but RAID (Level 5 for example) I would
consider to be quite a bit better over just mirroring drives. With
mirroring you lose a lot of disk space, ie half. So if you mirror 6 18GB
drives you are only going to have a total of 54GB to use. I don't know
exctaly how much more space you would get with RAID5 but I know it would
be better then mirroring.
- Justin
--
_/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ RULES!!!!!!! * LINUX RULES *
_/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ Justin Willoughby
_/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/ http://www.nmc.edu/~willouj/
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ ------ Jesus Is Lord ------
------------------------------
From: "Tony Platt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: More or fewer drives better for RAID
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 12:58:24 +1000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message <7l3kqe$8ug$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Hello,
>
>I am about to build a server for my website. I need plenty of disk
>space. I want to implement the best disk array I can within budget.
>
>I am planning on getting the DPT SmartRAID V Decade PM1554U2 SCSI RAID
>controller.
>
>I was planning on getting 3 36.4gb Quantum Atlas IV hard drives.
>Would getting 6 18gb drives be better?
Depends how much space you want to use.
More drives is better for speed and you dont loose as much space for the
parity striping
3 x 36.4gig drives = 109.2gig
Raid 5 accross 3 drives = 72.8gig TOTAL useable
you loose 1/3 (one third) the space on each of the 3 drives in raid 5 with
only 3 disks
So you are actually loosing one of your nice 36.4gig disks instantly
6 x 18gig drives = 108gig
you loose 1/6th (one sixth) the space on each drive in raid 5 with only 6
disks
So you are not loosing as much as before
more drives in raid 5 is also faster.
12 x 9gig drives = 108gig
only loosing 1/12th (one twelth) the space on each of the 12 drives in raid
5 with 12 disks
or in a mirror
6 x 18gig drives = 108gig
Mirror 3 drives = 54gig loss instantly
50% loss or half your disks.
Like I said, how much space do you want to loose today????
>What kind of performance impact would this have?
>
>With three drives I was planning on doing raid 5.
>With 6 drives I could two sets of three mirrored?
3 sets of two mirrored
or
one set of 3 mirrored
but not two sets of three mirrored ( that would need 12 disks )
>Would on be better than the other? I am only learning about RAID now.
What data are you holding ????
how much is that data worth to you??
ie how much time and effort + $$$ would it cost you if you lost the lot ???
>Any assistance greatly appreciated.
>
>Jimmie Houch
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: Alex Lam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Windows easy to install? BULLSHIT!
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 19:48:09 -0700
Brian Hartman wrote:
>
> Alex Lam wrote:
>
> > Brian Hartman wrote:
> > >
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, 23 Jun 1999 01:12:11 -0400, Brian Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> On Mon, 21 Jun 1999 12:08:07 -0400, Brian Hartman
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> On Sat, 19 Jun 1999 18:56:06 -0700, Jack Coates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> > > > >> >> >[deletia]
> > > > >> [deletia]
> > > > >> >> GOD DAMN! Are you telling us you have to be a bloody
> > > > >> >> MCSE to deal with Windows problems. Arguement's done
> > > > >> >> right there...
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Windows cabal conceeds.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> [deletia]
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> [deletia]
> > > > >> > If you look at sales, Windows outsells Linux by a wide margin. (I
>think we
> > > > >> >can all concede that.) The fact that a specific company that sells Unix
>boxes
> > > > >> >was mentioned lends credence to the point that you have to look pretty
>hard to
> > > > >> >find an off the shelf Unix box. In most situations, if a user is going to
>be
> > > > >>
> > > > >> No. One must merely exercise some care when one is selecting
> > > > >> hardware. This is much like the burden to avoid the like of
> > > > >> ATI and their 'poor drivers'. The net effect is still the same.
> > > > >> The so called Windows advantage can evaporate at any time if
> > > > >> you're unlucky.
> > > > >
> > > > >In the first place, you need to be a *lot* more unlucky to find a company
>with a bad
> > > > >Windows driver. And for the record, I didn't claim that ATI made "poor
>drivers" in
> > > >
> > > > Someone likes making that excuse for ATI.
> > > >
> > > > [deletia]
> > > >
> > > > 'Luck' simply isn't good enough. It doesn't matter if the
> > > > odds are better. The potential for disaster is still there.
> > > > The consumer can, and should demand better than that and
> > > > allow to flourish those vendors that can actually deliver.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I agree with you there. If I had been the person with the bad ATI drivers, I
>probably
> > > would have taken the card back and gotten another one.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > For 'ease', consumer-I-wanna-plug-it-in-like-a-toaster
> > > > kinda ease, a kludge clone just won't do. They're built
> > > > to be cheap and flexible, not reliable and easy.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Well, if you buy an off-the-shelf computer (say a Dell or a Compaq or such, you
>definitely
> > > get a lot more ease of use than something you patch together yourself. That's
>for sure.
> > > Hey, we're two for two in agreement so far. :)
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The ease of Windows is more myth and lots of conditioning
> > > > than reality. It's time to dump both MS OSes and PC Clones.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I can agree with you so far as day-to-day operation of the PC goes. One of the
>reasons I
> > > started the Linux migration was all the headaches dealing with Windows crashes,
>sluggish
> > > performance, etc. I still say that for just installing, if you put a neophyte
>in front of
> > > both a Linux and an NT box, they'll be a lot less confused and hassled going
>through an NT
> > > install. (The same goes for 95, but I've never installed 98, so I can't speak
>to it
> > > directly.) Of course, part of the simplicity lies in the fact that a lot of
>decisions are
> > > taken away from the user. That can be a bad thing, and lead to other hassles,
>so it's not
> > > necessarily good, just simpler. The best system would provide simple
>explanations for
> > > complex things that are going on. (I would have appreciated Help menus along
>with the
> > > installation of Red Hat, for example.)
> >
> > >
> >
> > Redhat distro of Linux is JUNK. RH is following M$'s footsteps.
> > Especially with 5.2. I suspect they rushed 5.2 out so they can make
> > their book looks good for the IPO. Then rush 6.0 out for some quick bug
> > fixes for 5.2, and messed 6.0 up as well in all the rush-rush
> > situations.
> >
>
> I don't really have much of a problem with the way Red Hat runs now. The one
>thing I found
> curious is that while certain workarounds exist for hardware (pbm2ppa for printing
>with
> Winprinters, for example) those tools have not made it into the distribution.
>(Maybe someone
> can tell me if any distribution comes with such tools.) I've had my system hang
>mysteriously a
> few times, but that problem seems to have gone away.
>
I have all but one freeze with SuSE. It was caused by Netscape from some
bad Java on a web site.
No, Redhat will never get my money or support. It's too buggy. SuSE has
much better hardware support
and detection.
> >
> > SuSE distro of Linux is much better in the ease of installation, better
> > developed and planned. Everything works right out of the box. Can Redhat
> > and Windoze say that?
> >
>
> I'm not sure. I think everything that's documented to work out of the box actually
>does.
> I think what's lacking is the documentation to get it all together. (I'm at a
>disadvantage,
> though, because my Red Hat CD didn't come with a manual, so I had to rely on the
>online howtos.)
>
> >
> > But I've found FreeBSD really have docuements that are up to date,
> > readable and easy to understand,
> > and actually you can find what you want to know from it. Linux's
> > docuement is kind of chaotic in its currennt stage, but still, Windoze
> > is in the same boat. If you want to know some finer details in Windows,
> > you need to read a couple of 1,000+ pages books. Same like Linux, or
> > Unix.
> >
>
> I think the difference is that the fixes available for Windows problems are more
>widely
> documented, and hardware companies generally post such documentation on their sites,
>and put
> fixes on them, too. Since hardware companies don't yet have a financial benefit
>from supporting
> Linux, that kind of effort isn't put forth, in general. Because it's such a huge
>market,
> companies go out of their way to post fixes for Windows, put information out, etc.
>
I don't buy that. I don't think M$ cares about the users at all, other
than getting their checks/credit cards numbers in.
Those hardware companies got to think differently now. Or they'll lose
out a big chunk of business. Actually,
it won't costs them anything, if they're just willing to release the
detail info to write the drivers and fixes. Some Linux programmers will
do it.
> >
> > To sum it up. As one of my friend said (he LOVES Windoze, because he's a
> > system consultant and admin.): "Windoze is great, the more problem, the
> > better for me, the more problems Windoze have, the more money I'll
> > make..."
> >
>
> I suspect there's a difference in the *kinds* of questions he fields from customers.
> In
> Windows, it's, "How do I fix this or that?" and in Linux it's most likely "How do I
>*do* this
> or that." :)
>
The *big* different is you pay lots of money to M$ to get a worthless
product.
And you pay very little, or nothing to get a superior product when
getting Linux.
With Windoze. It's like paying the price for a Porsche, but get a lemon
Sterling instead. (remember the Sterling?)
Alex Lam.
> >
> > Alex Lam.
> >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > It helps the car, in terms of end user complexity and engineering,
> > > > that a car is not expected to suddenly become wood chipper at some |||
> > > > arbitrary point as it's rolling down the road. / | \
> > > >
> > > > Seeking sane PPP Docs? Try http://penguin.lvcm.com
> >
> > --
> > *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
> > Remove all the upper case Xs from my email address if reply by e mail.
> > **************************************************
> > *If you receive any spam from my domain name. It's forged.
> > I DO NOT send spam e mail. But I've found out that my
> > domain has been forged many times.
> > **************************************************
--
*** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Remove all the upper case Xs from my email address if reply by e mail.
**************************************************
*If you receive any spam from my domain name. It's forged.
I DO NOT send spam e mail. But I've found out that my
domain has been forged many times.
**************************************************
------------------------------
** 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.hardware) 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-Hardware Digest
******************************
