Linux-Misc Digest #93, Volume #19 Fri, 19 Feb 99 04:13:10 EST
Contents:
Re: Netscape fonts (Peter Granroth)
Re: Web based Telnet client? (Bob Hauck)
Re: TIMER - FUNCTION under LINUX (Martin McGreal)
Re: Logging Telnet Sessions to a Text File (Martin McGreal)
Re: Data for NOT using MS-Exchange. (Marc Hering)
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (W Gerald Hicks)
Re: floating point accuracy on Linux? (Georg Schwarz)
Re: floating point accuracy on Linux? (Georg Schwarz)
Kernel upgrade tampered internet connection? (Miikka Laakko)
Re: kernel 2.2.1-ac5, pcmcia hell ("Richard Latimer")
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (Richard Steiner)
Re: Can Applixware open Micorsoft Word formatted files (i.e. .doc ("Robert C.
Paulsen, Jr.")
Re: compiling problems after transition to 2.0.36 (Gerd Roethig)
Re: SuSE 5.3 -> SuSE 6.0 broke IPForwarding or routing (David Steuber)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Peter Granroth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Netscape fonts
Date: 17 Feb 1999 00:07:35 +0100
Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Install xfstt and find a source for TTF fonts. It is easy to set up
> > the true-type font server and then you have a lot of choices for your
> > Netscape fonts. I took the fonts from my CorelDraw CD and a few other
> > places. As a matter of fact, if you dual-boot Win() and Linux, you can
> > simply link the /usr/ttfont directory to your windows/fonts directory:
> > works great!
>
> how do you change the sizes of the TTFs in netscape? i just get the
> `choice' of size 0.
enter the size you want in the little box beneath the menu button?
(should work, altough i don't have xfstt installed, so I can't verify
it)
--
==================================
+ Peter Granroth +
+ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] +
+ http://193.10.242.45 +
==================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Web based Telnet client?
Date: 19 Feb 1999 06:27:25 GMT
In article <ryZy2.336$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Rob Dover" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here is the problem. I am on one side of a firewall (which I
> have no control over) that does not allow any telnet sessions
> to cross over. I administer a Linux box that lives outside the
> firewall.
You could run a telnet server on some port besides 23. A port
that the firewall will let through. In /etc/inetd.conf:
bogon stream tcp nowait root /usr/sbin/tcpd in.telnetd
In /etc/services:
bogon 8000/tcp
This will run a telnetd on port 8000. I take no responsibility
for this if you get in trouble with the local security folk. And
it would be more secure to do this with ssh, but that's a whole
other story.
--
Bob Hauck, Software Engineer - Will program for food.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 11:17:34 -0600
From: Martin McGreal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: TIMER - FUNCTION under LINUX
You should take a look at /usr/include/time.h it may help you. Most of the
functions have corresponding man pages.
Martin
Mark Grosberg wrote:
> Dieter Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi all,
>
> > for a program running under LINUX I need several timers which should be finer
> > than 1s. Which timer function is best to use? Can I only set one timer at one
> > time or is it possible to have several timers running at the same time?
>
> You can use the select() system call and have it wait no no file
> descriptors, but you can give it a timeout in seconds+milliseconds.
>
> Also, this seems to be portable across most U**X platforms.
>
> L8r,
> Mark G.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 12:15:07 -0600
From: Martin McGreal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Logging Telnet Sessions to a Text File
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Is it possible to log a telnet session to a text file? I'm trying to
> diagnose some Cisco switches and need to send some screen dumps. I read the
> man pages on telnet and noticed the tracefile option, but I could not get it
> to work.
>
> Thanks,
>
> James
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
You can also try the 'script' command.
Martin
------------------------------
From: Marc Hering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: Data for NOT using MS-Exchange.
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 07:53:09 GMT
Another reason that you can use is that by using a *nix box, such as Linux, you
do not have to have multiple logins on the windows clients that are logging in.
if you are in a college enviroment then using unix is DEFINATLY the way to go
as you can easily have everyone check their email through a telnet window
(pine),,and if the "powers that be" (sounds like it should be 'the morons that
be":)) insist on using exhange so they can use their exchange clients then you
have another weapon in that any "exchange client" is capable of connecting to
any IMAP compliant mail server (Linux has an IMAP protocol that ships with most
distributiuons) so they can still use their outlook mail programs to check
their email!:)
Hope this helps :)
Marc
Stephen Carville wrote:
> George Farris wrote:
> >
> > I work for a local Collge that has about 1400 PC's and many
> > students and staff. I've been advocating Linux for a while
> > and we actually do have a few Linux servers and are going to
> > offer an intro course in the Fall.
> >
> > The problem is, the powers that be are thinking of going to an
> > Exchange server for email and I'm looking for all the ammunition
> > I can get (besides cost) for NOT using Exchange. I want to write
> > a formal response with an alternative solution using Linux. At
> > the very least, I would like to see the mail system stay on the
> > VAX where it currenty is.
> >
> > Any and all pointers, data, experience, URL's is greatly
> > appriciated.
>
> All I can offer is my employer's experience with Exchange. It suffer at
> least one major episode of unavailability a month -- Usually more. These
> episodes last from 30 minutes to several hours. The big shots won't give
> it up. The situation becasme so bad that three months ago we installed a
> Linux box (SUSE) and sendmail to act as forwarding agent for our corporate
> mail. Now when Exchange goes down, the Linux box just keeps chugging along
> and queuing the mail until Exchange can handle it again.
>
> If you install Exchange you had better be able to pay some big bucks for
> someone who knows the right spells to keep it working. I suggest you raise
> black chickens and learn both ancient Greek and Medieval Latin. Modern
> Profane is often heard from Exchange admins as well...
>
> --
> Stephen Carville
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Management: The art of hiring intelligent, skilled individuals and then
> ignoring their advice.
------------------------------
From: W Gerald Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?)
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 07:29:53 GMT
Richard Steiner wrote:
>
> Here in comp.os.linux.misc, W Gerald Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> spake unto us, saying:
>
> >Although I too like the operating system that Linus named after
> >himself but was mostly developed by others, it's unusable for many
> >commercial ventures because of the viral nature of the GPL.
>
> GPL'd source can certainly be used for commercial purposes -- just not
> for PROPRIETARY purposes. If binaries derived from GPL'd software are
> released, the source code must also be made available.
Right. And a great deal of commercial software is not of use outside
the narrow domain it serves. Often, the potential burden of making
this source available will serve to push companies into more proprietary
positions. This is not good for free software *or* GPL'd software.
>
> Commercial != proprietary. There is a considerable overlap, yes, but
> let's not misrepresent the issues here.
Exactly. Let's not. GPL'd software is a good thing, but it's not free.
You don't know how many people I've had to stop from producing
proprietary
works based on GPL'd software. Most seem to disregard the license and
do
it anyway. They need to be made aware of the potential harm they can do
to themselves and the companies they work for.
A sad knee-jerk reaction we've seen has been total ban of GPL'd
software,
even for legal uses. Expect Microsoft to use this FUD tactic with CEOs
and CIOs as they become more desperate.
>
> >I've been involved with OSS since the '70s. So has John Dyson and quite
> >a few other people who have been vilified and demonized by Linus and more
> >notably Eric Raymond.
>
> I'm uncertain how relevant penis length comparisons are here. <??>
Rich... you snipped the context off the end of that phrase. What I
meant
was that free software didn't start with Linux (although it has been
very
successful with it) and that many of us have dedicated our entire lives
to the cause of making computing more widely available.
Understand, I don't think there is evil intent by most GPL advocates but
rather a lot of ignorance about the details of the licenses.
>
> I've seen folks like Brett Glass (a BSD advocate who used to write for
> InfoWorld) nail people to the wall and write them off as "GPL fanatics"
> because they went so far as to say that programmers should have a choice
> to use whichever license they want to use, even if that choice includes
> the GPL. His reputation on IWE has been completely shot to hell since
> he got the One True Anti-GPL Faith.
>
> Such extremism, however well-intended, is completely uncalled for on
> either side, IMhO.
Too much Yin demands equal Yang. Sorry.
>
> Now John Dyson is crossposting his various comments about how all the
> poor commercial programmers out there aren't allowed to exploit GPL'd
> code for their own proprietary interests.
No. I don't see John's activism this way at all.
Most programmers don't really enjoy any proprietary interests, their
employers do. They're usually underpaid, overworked and given
ridiculous
schedules to meet. The temptation to use GPL'd software, even snippets,
is great and many do.
The message must get out that this is illegal and can severely damage
ones
reputation and future opportunities.
I see John as spreading this message. Linus could help, but won't.
>
> Well, I'm a commercial programmer. And I frankly don't care how people
> choose to license their code -- it's *THEIR* code, I'm responsible enough
> to respect their wishes, I'm glad that I can use GPL'd source in certain
> contexts, and I'll damn well write my own code if I have to in order to
> stay legal. Or I'll grab snippits of BSD code. :-) I don't care.
>
> Why is it that some people seem to have a problem with this???
I don't have a problem with this. I have a problem with the confusion
that more novice programmers have WRT the use of GPL'd software for
derived works.
I don't believe that this is being communicated adequately and when some
people raise valid concerns they are personally attacked and disregarded
as bigots. IMHO, that is very irresponsible behaviour.
> >Linus: to dismiss this as a non-issue is irresponsible to the many people
> >who, for some reason or another, look up to you and trust your judgement.
> >
> >But then again, politics seem to be your strong suit and this is a
> >classical tactic among sophists.
>
> Nice ad Hominem. He didn't dismiss it as a non-issue, he said that
> John could use whatever license he wished. This seems reasonable.
One to follow Linus's ad hominem of labeling John a bigot.
Perhaps you find my statement uncomfortable, but I believe it
to be truthful.
Read it how you like, Linus is so tied up with his works under
GPL that he consistently dismisses concerns about GPL as an
unimportant non-issue.
>
> Can you keep this bullshit to the advocacy forums, please?
Nice to see you've been appointed netcop. I'll go where I like.
Jerry Hicks
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> --
> -Rich Steiner >>>---> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>---> Bloomington, MN
> OS/2 + Linux (Slackware+RedHat+SuSE) + FreeBSD + Solaris + BeOS +
> WinNT4 + Win95 + PC/GEOS + MacOS + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven!
> A lack of leadership is no substitute for inaction.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Georg Schwarz)
Subject: Re: floating point accuracy on Linux?
Date: 18 Feb 1999 12:05:27 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Komar) writes:
>I don't know. You'll probably have to look at the specs for the
>387 FPU to find out.
if it was just truncated and not rounded, it would probably be wiser not
to use 80 bit FPU precision at all.
>: for pgf77, there is a -pc 64 option, which actually speeds up things a
>: bit. Also, at least for the calculation I have posted here, it correctly
>: gets 0.0 with that option vs. the "incorrect" output when using the
>: default -pc 80.
>I'm glad you put "incorrect" in quotes, because both results are
>actually correct. If "b" had actually been initialized to
>"2.0000000000000000000e-01" rather than "2.0000000000000001110e-01",
>then both 80 and 64 bit modes would have given the same answer.
>Because "b" isn't exactly "0.2" in 80-bit mode, you don't get
>the expected answer of "0.0". I'd put most of the blame on the
>compiler here, but only half-heartedly, because it's hard to
>deal with 80-bit numbers in a language that only supports 32
>and 64-bit numbers. I think that's why Johan Kullstam advised
>to stay away from x86 machines.
as an alternative, couldn't one simply switch the FPU to 64 bit only?
--
Georg Schwarz ([EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], PGP 2.6ui)
Institut f�r Theoretische Physik +49 30 314-24254 FAX -21130 IRC kuroi
Technische Universit�t Berlin http://home.pages.de/~schwarz/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Georg Schwarz)
Subject: Re: floating point accuracy on Linux?
Date: 18 Feb 1999 12:09:28 GMT
Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>what happens is this. the x87 has a 8 register stack internally. all
>the registers are (normally) 80 bits. sometimes, during a calculation
>with many terms, you want to juggle more than 8 quantities. to make
>room, one (or more) of the registers are saved to memory and reloaded
>again when you need it. the save is done in double-precision (ie 64
>bits). the precision is lost during the save.
OK, how is that saving being done? When conmverting down from 80 to 64
bits, is the number being rounded or are the extra bits just being
truncated?
--
Georg Schwarz ([EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], PGP 2.6ui)
Institut f�r Theoretische Physik +49 30 314-24254 FAX -21130 IRC kuroi
Technische Universit�t Berlin http://home.pages.de/~schwarz/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Miikka Laakko)
Subject: Kernel upgrade tampered internet connection?
Date: 19 Feb 1999 07:59:25 GMT
--
--
miiHKali
******************************************************************************
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** http://www.student.oulu.fi/~milaakko *
******************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: "Richard Latimer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: kernel 2.2.1-ac5, pcmcia hell
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 23:57:13 -0800
Tim Kelley wrote in message
>Now whenever I try to load any of the base pcmcia modules
>(pcmcia_core, ds, i82365) I get
>
>insmod: error in loading shared libraries
>: undefined symbols: __bzero
>
Try another version of modutils. I experienced the same problem
with what I think were the -22 version I downloaded from the RedHat
update directory. When I fell back to a version -3 I got somewhere
else, that version of depmod worked and the pcmcia modules
loaded OK.
Now I am having problems with 'no dependency information' for
my sound and ppp modules. As a fresh dependency file is being
created, or at least touched, on boot, I am assuming this
message is a spurious error.
Next I'm going to try the tarball from kernel.org. Maybe homebrew
will cure my problems.
Another user advises me that the updates for 2.2.1 cause problems
it you need to boot 2.0.36. These utilities just aren't smart enough.
They should either be backward compatible or refuse to run on the
wrong version. The kernel runs like a Timex, but the stuff that goes
with it is a mess. We are caught between a rock and a hard place.
Microsoft demands monolithic control. If you don't let them con-
figure everything their way, just so, your system is unstable.
Linux is just the opposite: a giant legacy system over which no one
has any control other than the kernel. It is more difficult than
Windows to get to a stable state.
By the way, when you get depmod working take a look at the
time on the file it creates. The time on my dependency files seems
to be wrong. Also I have noticed that the init scripts are not
creating the link to module-info as they should.
richard
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Steiner)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 08:13:11 GMT
Here in comp.os.linux.misc, W Gerald Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
spake unto us, saying:
>Richard Steiner wrote:
>
>> >I've been involved with OSS since the '70s. So has John Dyson and
>> >quite a few other people who have been vilified and demonized by Linus
>> >and more notably Eric Raymond.
>>
>> I'm uncertain how relevant penis length comparisons are here. <??>
>
>Rich... you snipped the context off the end of that phrase. What I
>meant was that free software didn't start with Linux (although it has
>been very successful with it) and that many of us have dedicated our
>entire lives to the cause of making computing more widely available.
I understand that, but simple longevity doesn't necessarily mean that
one's position is more correct than another's. I simply question the
relevance. Besides, using one's weight to impress one's opinions upon
others isn't particularly nice.
>Understand, I don't think there is evil intent by most GPL advocates
>but rather a lot of ignorance about the details of the licenses.
I think that assumption is made, yes, and I suspect in some cases it
holds true, but I think someone like John comes across as being heavy
on the "you young folks just don't understand" refrain. That's the
(vague, admittedly) impression I get reading his positions regarding
the GPL, anyway.
Whatever trips his trigger, but he sounds like he's being more than a
little on the condescending side.
>> I've seen folks like Brett Glass (a BSD advocate who used to write for
>> InfoWorld) nail people to the wall and write them off as "GPL fanatics"
>> because they went so far as to say that programmers should have a choice
>> to use whichever license they want to use, even if that choice includes
>> the GPL. His reputation on IWE has been completely shot to hell since
>> he got the One True Anti-GPL Faith.
>>
>> Such extremism, however well-intended, is completely uncalled for on
>> either side, IMhO.
>
>Too much Yin demands equal Yang. Sorry.
Uh-uh. I strongly disagree. Not the way he's been doing it. Go read
the crap he's been posting there. Using a scattergun to shoot at all
who question his hitherto-largely-unjustified conclusions is no way to
advocate a position.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Right?
>> Now John Dyson is crossposting his various comments about how all the
>> poor commercial programmers out there aren't allowed to exploit GPL'd
>> code for their own proprietary interests.
>
>No. I don't see John's activism this way at all.
I guess our viewpoints differ substantially.
>Most programmers don't really enjoy any proprietary interests, their
>employers do. They're usually underpaid, overworked and given
>ridiculous schedules to meet. The temptation to use GPL'd software,
>even snippets, is great and many do.
I don't understand this temptation. I'd rather write my own, or use
something which I know about internally already. Introducing software
from outside is a risky (and time-consuming) venture, at least if you
are to incorporate and document it properly.
I write code because it's fun to do so, even for my employer. If it
isn't fun for others, or if they can't cut it, perhaps they shouldn't
be writing code.
>The message must get out that this is illegal and can severely damage
>ones reputation and future opportunities.
Yes, that is an important message. I think it's obvious from reading
the license, but it's possible it isn't to someone. <shrug>
>I see John as spreading this message. Linus could help, but won't.
Yet John seems to be focusing on the FSF, and not the ramifications of
the GPL as a legal document. Why is the FSF relevant in this context?
>I don't believe that this is being communicated adequately and when some
>people raise valid concerns they are personally attacked and disregarded
>as bigots. IMHO, that is very irresponsible behaviour.
Seems to me that John was making attacks as well, and that those were
largely responsible for the flak he received in turn. And the things
that were said were so mild that his "your attacking me" accusations
come across as petty.
This is Usenet. Learn to deal with it.
>> Nice ad Hominem. He didn't dismiss it as a non-issue, he said that
>> John could use whatever license he wished. This seems reasonable.
>
>One to follow Linus's ad hominem of labeling John a bigot.
>
>Perhaps you find my statement uncomfortable, but I believe it
>to be truthful.
I can see how being called a bigot could be considered an attack, but
I'm not certain that it isn't warranted. I need to think about it a
bit more. Brett's rantings have admittedly made me somewhat sensitive
to overgeneralized anti-GPL statements (even though I'm not really a
pro-GPL poerson per se), and I might be acting somewhat unfairly here.
>Read it how you like, Linus is so tied up with his works under
>GPL that he consistently dismisses concerns about GPL as an
>unimportant non-issue.
To him it might be. It certainly is to me.
>> Can you keep this bullshit to the advocacy forums, please?
>
>Nice to see you've been appointed netcop. I'll go where I like.
Do as you will, but remember that Usenet exists and works well because
accepted conventions regarding topicality are generally followed.
Follow-ups redirected to places where these threads are less tiresome.
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>---> Bloomington, MN
OS/2 + Linux (Slackware+RedHat+SuSE) + FreeBSD + Solaris + BeOS +
WinNT4 + Win95 + PC/GEOS + MacOS + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven!
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then
------------------------------
From: "Robert C. Paulsen, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Can Applixware open Micorsoft Word formatted files (i.e. .doc
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 07:12:29 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> What about StarOffice?
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
StarOffice works on MS Office documents, at least word and excel, and at
least for those created by the 1995 version of word and excel.
--
Robert Paulsen http://paulsen.home.texas.net
If my return address contains "ZAP." please remove it. Sorry for the
inconvenience but the unsolicited email is getting out of control.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gerd Roethig)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: compiling problems after transition to 2.0.36
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 12:49:56 GMT
Hello,
On Thu, 18 Feb 1999 05:54:42 -0500 "A.G." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Slackware 3.5. upgraded 2.0.34 -> 2.0.36. Can't compile things that were
>compiling ok when 2.0.34 sources were installed.
>
>Compiler reports problems with some headers, AFAI understand.
>
>I posted compiler's outputs on the web (text format) to conserve bandwidth:
>
>http://members.xoom.com/genkin/bash.txt
>http://members.xoom.com/genkin/modules.txt
That seems like the file /usr/include/linux/fcntl.h is somehow
corrupted. This is either a problem of having unpacked a defective
kernel source tree or not having one of the required packages (see
/usr/src/linux/Documentation/Changes) installed.
IMHO, your options are:
- Check /usr/include/linux/fcntl.h with an editor. Maybe there's
really something to fix.
- Get a new kernel source archive (not only a patch but the whole
archive), rm -r /usr/src/linux and unpack that archive freshly.
- Check /usr/src/linux/Documentation/Changes for the software packages
required and look if you have installed the appropriate versions.
Hope this helps a little bit,
best regards
Gerd
------------------------------
From: David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: SuSE 5.3 -> SuSE 6.0 broke IPForwarding or routing
Date: 18 Feb 1999 23:48:17 -0500
Tim Lines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
-> I don't know SuSe at all ( Ya know, I think there's a song here: "If I knew
-> SuSe like you know SuSe...". I'm sorry. It's been a long day. ) but I do know
-> a bit about routing and IPMasq (at least the 2.0.x version) and one thing I
-> don't see is anything about your ipfwadm rules.
You have mentioned a file I have never even heard of.
I also noticed the other day that Netscape won't run because of a
missing .so file. Sorry, I don't remember which one.
I am thinking of backing up over the network to my laptop and simply
doing a fresh install. Then I'll restore my files and rebuild my
kernel.
It is rather anoying that SuSE 6.0 had this trouble. Assuming the
fault wasn't mine after all. I won't let it stop me from recommending
SuSE to people. The distro has a huge amount of stuff with it. It is
a nice alternative to Red Hat since I am not knowlegeable enough about
Linux to go with Debian or Slackware.
--
David Steuber
http://www.david-steuber.com
s/trashcan/david/ to reply by mail
Where was it you said you wanted to go today? Sorry, you can't get
there from here.
------------------------------
** 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.misc) 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-Misc Digest
******************************
