Linux-Misc Digest #168, Volume #19 Thu, 25 Feb 99 00:13:13 EST
Contents:
Re: Red Hat's sick sense of humor (support) (Christopher Browne)
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (Christopher Browne)
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (Christopher Browne)
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (Christopher Browne)
Re: ROOT FTP Access (Charles Mulks)
Re: Multilink PPP in Linux with 2 x V90 = 105,333 bps? (Doodle)
Re: KDE is a Memory Hog. (David Kirkpatrick)
Re: Need some interpolation function. ("Fred T. Krogh")
Help with Yamaha onboard sound on Intel Seattle2 440BX (RLopez6836)
Re: Best version of Netscape 4.5 (Peter Eades)
Re: Multilink PPP in Linux with 2 x V90 = 105,333 bps? (Patrick Lanphier)
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (Sam E. Trenholme)
Re: Hard disk duplication?? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Can someone recomend Intel computer with preinstalled Linux OS+ full accessories
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Red Hat's sick sense of humor (support)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 02:55:14 GMT
On Wed, 24 Feb 1999 10:00:51 +0000, Jason Clifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Feb 1999, Christopher Browne wrote:
>
>> When you consider that RHS has to cover various costs for boxes, CD
>> burning, and printing, and then, in order for other vendors to make
>> something on a $30 sale, probably sell the "boxed set" to them for more
>> like $15, this leaves very little money left over to actually provide
>> service.
>>
>> I don't think it's far off the mark to consider that the amount of
>> "service" that you're buying on that $30 box is going to represent about
>> $5.
>>
>> How much service can you realistically expect to get for $5?
>
>That Red Hat choose to offer a level of support without adequately funding
>it from sales is their problem. If they really can't afford to provide the
>support at the prices they charge, they should either up the prices or
>drop the support.
>
>By offering the support as part of the sale they enter into a contract to
>provide it.
>
>Companies who do not actually provide the support that they claim to offer
>actually cause a lot of problems further down the supply chain.
>
>We have on several occassions had to accept returns of non-faulty Linux
>distributions (not Red Hat) because the user could not obtain the support
>that was advertised as part of the deal. In the UK that is a breach of
>contract.
>
>As a result of these occassions I am seriously having to consider whether
>selling Linux software from such companies is worthwhile.
>
>Red Hat, SuSE, Caldera and others should take note of this. They could
>well lose their reseller channels if they don't provide the support as
>promised. I, and other Linux resellers, cannot afford to accept the costs
>of providing such support when we don't make money off of the sales.
I don't disagree with this.
For Red Hat Software to promise other than "just-about-automated email"
support outside the USA with the "boxed sets" is extremely foolish, as
the cost of actually deploying support substantially more insightful
than "Read this HOWTO" is highly likely to exceed their expected
revenues on a given "box."
--
"What's wrong with 3rd party tools? Especially if they are free? What
the **** do you think UNIX is anyway? It's a big honkin' party of 3rd
party free tools." -- Bob Cassidy ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
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: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 02:55:28 GMT
On 24 Feb 99 16:55:51 GMT, Matthias Buelow
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Joseph Malicki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>And that's why I GPL what I write. Because I don't WANT some little-guy
>>startup making a fortune off my code without my permission, while I make
>>nothing. BSD is good because it lets other people STEAL your code, while
>>the GPL doesn't. While I won't argue that reference code for standards
>>should be BSD licensed, the BSD license lets those "little-guy startups"
>>steal all the work of a smaller guy without compensating him.
>
>You poor naive boy. What would you do if Microsoft (for example)
>took your code, removed your copyright and re-released it as their own?
>Do you really think the GPL will you protect you more from that than
>any other license (that kind of thing is usually prohibited in everything,
>including the BSD-style copyright, excluding true public domain stuff).
>Now.. if they ever considered your stuff to be worth inclusion in
>Windoze2000, and if you ever learned of that, what would you do?
>Sue them? :)
This is America. :-) (I'm not American, and you're not in the USA, so
don't misread this as a projection onto everyone everywhere...)
Lawyers take on cases based on "contingency fees."
Microsoft has fairly deep pockets.
Add it up :-).
--
"What's wrong with 3rd party tools? Especially if they are free? What
the **** do you think UNIX is anyway? It's a big honkin' party of 3rd
party free tools." -- Bob Cassidy ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
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: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 02:55:17 GMT
On 24 Feb 1999 19:14:44 GMT, Patrick M. Hausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc brian moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 24 Feb 1999 17:59:48 GMT,
>> Patrick M. Hausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> > I still don't see how Walnut Creek helps the programmers any more than
>>> > Red Hat does.
>>>
>>> They don't. But with the BSD license the developers are on the same
>>> competetive edge as Walnut Creek, while with GPL they can't compete
>>> wit Red Hat.
>
>> But I don't want to be a CD distributor and spend days on the phone
>> trying to convince IngramMicro to carry my products, or worry about
>> the balance between a big-and-impressive-looking-box versus a cheaper
>> and easier to stock small box and other marketing bullshit.
>
>> THAT is what Red Hat does, and they do it quite well. That is also what
>> Walnut Creek does, and they, too, do it quite well.
>
>> Why in God's name would a programmer want to do that?
>
>I don't want to do that. I want to sell my Palm-Tricorder [tm] in any
>way I desire - remember my example?
>With GPL I have to hand my work - built upon others' work, no doubt -
>over to Red Hat and the like to redistribute them on CD along with
>instructions how to turn your standard Palm pilot into a Palm-Tricorder.
>Thus, I can't start a business selling these things. Or Whistle Interjets
>[tm] - or GNAT-boxes - or X-Terminals - or ...
Precisely *what* requires that you hand your work over to Red Hat?
- They didn't write the licenses.
- They didn't write 97% of the software.
- They probably could *CARE LESS* about your Palm-Tricorder.
- Note that you should not name Red Hat Software without also naming
Walnut Creek, as any "evils" are equally applicable.
Precisely *what* stops you from selling GNAT-boxes? The fact that the
simplest way of satisfying the GPL is to toss a $2 CD that includes
relevant sources in the box that the GNAT|InterJet|Tricorder comes in?
If you've burned a single ASIC in the process, this nicely
"proprietarizes" the product, even if the source code to the software is
all available, by the way...
>Would all the dedicated printer boxes in the world support the lpd
>protocol with a GPL'ed lpd? Would Windows NT and MacOS support lpd
>if lpd were GPL'ed? Of course not. And the world _is_ a better place
>even though they keep "their" lpds binary only, because now we can
>network all these OSes and printers together, thus enhancing the
>"state of the art".
Precisely *why* is it advantageous to not distribute sources?
Trade secrets seem to prevent the release of names, but there are
reportedly printer manufacturers that embed Ghostscript in their
systems, so the notion that it is impossible to do such things is
clearly not the case.
>Side note: yes, I do know that many printer boxes still feature awful bugs
>that were present in early lpds and which the manufacturers haven't fixed
>yet - so much about "enhancing state of the art" ;-) Still, with GPL, we
>would have no interoperating print servers at all.
Obviously not. And we wouldn't have web servers, or C compilers, or C++
compilers.
Obviously we *do* have such things, which suggests that your
argumentation might have a tiny flaw somewhere.
--
It is interesting to note that before the advent of Microsoft Windows,
`GPF' was better known for its usage in plumbing: "Gallons Per Flush"
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dean Edmonds)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 02:55:25 GMT
On 24 Feb 1999 20:57:43 GMT, brian moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 24 Feb 1999 19:14:44 GMT,
> Patrick M. Hausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> With GPL I have to hand my work - built upon others' work, no doubt -
>> over to Red Hat and the like to redistribute them on CD along with
>> instructions how to turn your standard Palm pilot into a Palm-Tricorder.
>> Thus, I can't start a business selling these things. Or Whistle Interjets
>> [tm] - or GNAT-boxes - or X-Terminals - or ...
>
>Again, "I want to be able to use other people's code, but won't extend
>the courtesy back of letting them use mine."
>
>Note the problems The Open Group had with X last year: enough people
>were using their code without returning anything (not code, not money,
>not even a "thank you") that they changed the license to forbid that so
>that they could survive. Fortunately enough of a ruckus was raised, and
>presumably enough support promised back (TOG didn't change their mind
>out of the goodness of their hearts) that they reversed that.
>
>If you don't want to share your code with others, don't expect them to
>be thrilled with sharing their code with you.
The TOG situation is actually illustrative of the notion that
"freeriders" can be a problem with BSD style licenses every bit as much
as with GPL style licenses. (In other words, if the software is "free,"
by any of the recognized definitions, whether John Dyson thinks that the
license is "free" or not...)
It also illustrates some of the valid portion of John's complaint about
the GPL, which is that it discourages proprietary uses of software that
*could* be used to raise money.
Unfortunately, for his point, the TOG situation illustrates that a BSD
license doesn't eliminate this problem.
If it is necessary, for continued development of X, for TOG to be
sponsored financially, then it is necessary for money to be extracted
from the user community in some fashion.
I would contend that this needs to take place on a voluntary basis, as
the alternatives get ugly. In other words, users of Linux (and OpenBSD,
and FreeBSD, and NetBSD) that make significant use of X should feel
*morally* obligated to contribute something to its development.
I figure that one of the better ways of accomplishing this is to send
donations to The XFree86 Project <http://www.xfree86.org/donations.html>,
and have done so. <http://www.xfree86.org/sponsors.html>
I would think it appropriate, if TOG needs more direct funding, for
this to assortedly happen via:
a) The XFree86 Project perhaps pursuing membership,
b) Major Linux vendors that do substantial X-related work (e.g. - Red
Hat, SuSE) or even others that thus far have merely been "users"
(Caldera, PHT),
c) Vendors of other OSes, such as Walnut Creek and the likes.
>> With the BSD license I don't have to do that. I can keep selling
>> whichever embedded product I created based upon *insert BSD copyrighted
>> software* as a binary only or even a "hardware-only" distribution.
>
>And you can get rich selling the works of others.
>
>Nifty, though it reeks of immoral to me.
Evidently a different set of ethics.
The BSD folk are *happy with this arrangement,* much as FSF folks are
*happy with a different arrangement.*
What really annoys me is when these flame threads spring up in that some
people are evidently unwilling to accept the notion of there being
somewhat different ethos.
I don't attack Dyson for having a different ethic on the matter; what I
disapprove of is his need to make questionable analogies in support of
one ethic and against another one when it appears that without the
stupid arguing they could co-exist quite nicely.
As with the KDE -versus- GNOME flaming, *my* conclusions are:
a) I think the world is big enough to encompass communities surrounding
both.
b) The last stories about them have not been written.
c) Leave well enough alone for another year, see what happens, and
watch the clashes with reality establish which "wins" and which
"loses."
d) Also as with KDE/GNOME, it seems likely that both systems will
continue to be viable a year from now.
--
<a href="http://www.netizen.com.au/">[EMAIL PROTECTED]</a>
Millihelen, adj:
The amount of beauty required to launch one ship.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charles Mulks)
Subject: Re: ROOT FTP Access
Date: 25 Feb 1999 02:19:37 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>Hi,
>
> We are trying to figure out a way to allow the root user access to
>FTP. Is there anyway to configure this? If so how?
>
> This works fine on UNIX, but this seems to be a limitation on LINUX.
>
>Thanks,
>Andy
>
>
just comment out 'root' in /etc/ftpusers
(root -> #root)
(well - it works w/RH5.2, at least)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Doodle)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.questions,comp.os.linux.x,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Multilink PPP in Linux with 2 x V90 = 105,333 bps?
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 03:23:30 GMT
Hi all,
Thanks for all your suggestions etc. Much appreciated.
At the moment I can get Win98 to multilink my two V.90 modems to get a
10k/sec connection with my ISP. It works great but I want to move over
to Linux and this is one thing that's stopping.
My ISP is using some beta patch made available to them by 3com. This
patch on their end supports Win98's Multilink PPP connections. I want
to know if anybody has managed to get Linux to make use of two V.90
modems to get faster downloads.
So far it's been pretty difficult with this EQL thing. I'm a newbie
and want to use Linux. :-)
Thanks and regards,
Doodle
------------------------------
From: David Kirkpatrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE is a Memory Hog.
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 22:20:08 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Roberto,
In reference to your comments below. I'm getting to know
there is kwm and and the window manager. Does WindowMaker
replace xdm also i.e are there two parts an X display control and
a window manager? The only way I use WindowManager is to get it
started (in RH 5.2) by putting WindowManager in .wm_style and
startx'ing. How would I get it to replace xdm??
david
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Frank Hale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > but for me I will keep using WindowMaker as it is
> > > MUCH faster.
> > >
> >
> > Couldn't agree more. Window Maker kicks the crap out of KDE in terms of
> > speed.
> >
> > KDE has become just as bloated as any MS product out there. I mean take
> > a look at the ftp site. You have to download over 10 megs of junk to get
> > any use out of it. I will stick with WindowMaker, much smaller and about
> > 10x as fast.
>
> You are comparing apples and planes.
>
> In those 10 Mb you get a file manager, a web browser, a terminal emulator
> (actually 2), find tool, panel/app/launcher/taskbar, pager, window manager,
> and half a dozen other programs, as well as general use widget libraries,
> session management tools, configuration management, and several other
> things I can't recall right now.
>
> When you download windowmaker you get a window manager, no wonder the package
> is smaller!
>
> Then, maybe windowmaker is faster than kwm (just a tiny piece of KDE).
> But latest windowmaker works as a drop-in kwm replacement, so, how
> is KDE slower, if you can use windowmaker as part of it?
>
> Your comparison doesn't make a lot of sense.
>
> --
> Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Fred T. Krogh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Need some interpolation function.
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 19:03:24 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
G. Georgiev wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I need some relatively smooth interpolation function with which to
> generate a line from empiric two-dimensional data - a cubic spline
> interpolation function will be perfect. There should be probably a library
> already written for similar purposes, does someone heard for something
> similar?
>
> The hard way is to write it myself, if nothing found I will
> probably have to do it.
>
> george.
You can probably find source for what you want at:
http:www.netlib.org
Fred
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (RLopez6836)
Subject: Help with Yamaha onboard sound on Intel Seattle2 440BX
Date: 25 Feb 1999 03:58:49 GMT
I have a Micron P2 350 with an Intel Seattle2 440BX with a Yamaha YMF 740b-v
9844 EAGQ onboard sound. I run RedHat 5.2 with a 2.2.1 kernel. I configured
sound as a module and have tried all the drivers I can find but I read that the
generic OPL3x was the way to go. When I use it with sndconfig I get the error
message "/lib/modules/2.2.1/misc/sb.o:init_module: device or resource busy" at
the end when I try to play a sample. I used the dma and IRQ values from
windows(I dual boot out of neccesity). dmesg says "OPL3 not detected ff".I have
also gotten the message "too many dma values max 1" when I tried to use other
drivers. I read the HOWTO files at Metalab but they do not mention my sound
situation. Am I just not supported? Any ideas? I am at my wits end! I would
appreciate any advice.
Thanks,
Mark
------------------------------
From: Peter Eades <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: linux.news,linux.redhat.misc,alt.os.linux,aus.computers.linux
Subject: Re: Best version of Netscape 4.5
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 09:20:01 +1000
US restrictions are only on the exporting of encryption software. Much
of this software has therefor been developed out side of the US. If you
want full on 128 bit encryption you should look at criptozilla hacked in
Australia. As the law is US law owning this software outside of the US
is not something that the US government can legislate against.
Netscape is also open source software with a licence that complies to
the requirements of the free software foundation. It can therefor for be
hacked, cracked and otherwise back engineered. This is the whole point
of free software, cheesh have you guys been paying attention for the
last 2 years, see me after class:-)
Pete
George Durbridge wrote:
>
> Jason,
>
> I've not looked at Netscape licensing terms, but a) do they actually
> incorporate the US restrictions, or do those simply apply as a matter of
> US domestic law, wherever that runs, and b) isn't Netscape 4.5 open
> source ?
>
> George
>
> Jason Stokes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> : In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Paul Taylor
> : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : >The beauty of Fortify is that is contains no encryption algorithms, so
> : >doesn't have the export restrictions of the 128-bit version (which you
> : >probably shouldn't have in France. :)
>
> : The law probably disagrees with you. According to the README file, it
> : contains the "information" on how to modify Netscape's internal
> : encryption algorithms to use 128 bit long keys, and gives Netscape this
> : functionality by performing a binary patch on the Netscape executable.
> : This is extremely legally iffy: in fact, it is, in my opinion, quite
> : clearly illegal: consider the following:
>
> : US export controls on cryptographic software.
>
> : Recently passed US laws banning reverse engineering of software.
>
> : International copyright law which protects the license given to you
> : with Netscape which forbids you from modifying or reverse engineering
> : the software.
>
> : --
> : Jason Stokes: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> :
>
> --
> /* George Durbridge Melbourne, Victoria, Australia */
> /* tel (03) 9280 3390 fax (03) 9280 3288 */
------------------------------
From: Patrick Lanphier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.questions,comp.os.linux.x,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Multilink PPP in Linux with 2 x V90 = 105,333 bps?
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 04:17:05 +0000
1) Please refer to the following site if you didn't know http://mp.ins-coin.de. Get
on the list.
2) Also it is possible to use free software from Babylon (www.spellcast.com),
however, it does not
yet work with the 2.2 kernel.
3) Micha says by March 5, 1999 which is soon a MP driver will be completed for Linux.
We should
all thank Micha.
Patrick Lanphier
Advanced Information Technologies
The Pennsylvania State University
Doodle wrote:
>
> Hi there,
>
> I know Win95/98 has support for Multilink PPP to 'channel bond' two
> V90 modems to gain something like 10k/sec connection speeds. Can I use
> two V90s in Linux to get 10k/sec connection speeds?
>
> If so, can somebody be a nice chappy and guide me through this
> process? <vbg> TIA.
>
> Doodle
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sam E. Trenholme)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?)
Date: 24 Feb 1999 20:23:25 -0800
>You are totally wrong: Linus didn't write an OS. He wrote parts of
>a very primative kernel. It caught on, and was a regressive rewrite
>of existing technology. So what?
This is not a flame, but a simple question.
Why do you think more people talk about Linux than FreeBSD?
"The Cathedral and the Bazaar" is probably the best answer to this
quesiton that I have seen.
And, yes John, I know who you are, and I remember seeing you at that
O'Reilly OpenSource conference last year arguing with RMS on stage.
- Sam
--
Email address here: http://www.samiam.org/ssi/mailme.shtml
Music I write here: http://www.mp3.com/sam http://www.samiam.org/mp3
Mp3 reviews here: http://www.samiam.org/music
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.help,linux.redhat.install,linux.redhat.misc
Subject: Re: Hard disk duplication??
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 04:08:41 GMT
On Tue, 23 Feb 1999 13:27:39 +0200, "Dion Burger"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Is there a way to duplicate a hardisk image after the linux installation.
>I need to set up multiple linux boxes (assume identical hardware). This will
>save me hours of installation and configuration time.
>
>Cheers
>Dion
>
I have been using Ghost in the lab I currently manage and it works
pretty well. I think it would be faster to create customized install
scripts if possible (definitely can with slackware) which will allow
you to install everything configured the way you want it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,pl.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Can someone recomend Intel computer with preinstalled Linux OS+ full
accessories
Date: 25 Feb 1999 04:15:43 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc Expert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
> can someone recommend an Intel computer with preinstalled LinuxOS +
> fax/modem + CD/DVD + TVCard + remote mouse, remote keyboard
> J.
Check out www.varesearch.com
The machine are a bit pricey, the the components used look *very* solid.
They'll load up your preferred distro and even set up WinNT/98 in a
multiboot.
For a price, they'll build almost anything you'd like.
Simeon
I have no affiliation with varesearch.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
