Linux-Misc Digest #177, Volume #19 Thu, 25 Feb 99 16:13:14 EST
Contents:
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (Marco Anglesio)
Re: Glk: portable fancy text I/O lib (text adventures, etc) (Andrew Plotkin)
Re: Linux box's ethernet address (John Strange)
Will ORACLE8.05 install without kernel recompile ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: ICQ for Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Can Linux use 36-bit Xeon addressing? ("Richard Payne")
Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class. (Bryan J. Maloney)
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (NF Stevens)
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (NF Stevens)
Re: ICQ for Linux ("jas shultz")
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (Marco Anglesio)
Reverse IP-Masquerading ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (Marco Anglesio)
Re: xosview with linux-2.2.2 (Steve Gage)
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (Ken)
Re: Linux box's ethernet address (Bill Unruh)
Re: Spreadsheets and presentation software? (Harold HISE)
Re: Problem making a Custom RedHat 5.2 CD (Jussi Torhonen)
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (Marco Anglesio)
Apache "handler" question (Allin Cottrell)
Re: Firewall with 1 IP (Aris CRuz)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco Anglesio)
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 18:57:50 GMT
On 23 Feb 1999 22:15:40 GMT, John S. Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Part of the reason that I am a netnews a**hole is simply the success
>associated with such. GPL is a dasterdly deed to the software business,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Well, of course. It keeps software companies from receiving free labour
from the community. Is this a good thing? Is this a bad thing. Obviously
we disagree. As the saying goes, I prefer to be kissed before I get
fucked.
m.
--
,--------------------------------------------------------------------------.
> | We've been doing anal probing <
> Marco Anglesio | for years now, and all we've <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | discovered is that one in ten <
> http://www.the-wire.com/~mpa | doesn't seem to mind. <
> | --Dave Foley, of Kids in the Hall <
`--------------------------------------------------------------------------'
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Plotkin)
Subject: Re: Glk: portable fancy text I/O lib (text adventures, etc)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 18:57:27 GMT
Andrew Plotkin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Glk is a cross-platform programming interface for information display and
> user input.
And, like a moron, I forget to put in the pointer.
<http://www.eblong.com/zarf/glk/>
Specification, source, and sample programs are there.
My apologies for dragging this out into two postings. *Now* followups to
comp.os.linux.development.apps.
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the
borogoves..."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Strange)
Subject: Re: Linux box's ethernet address
Date: 25 Feb 1999 18:26:24 GMT
try
ping localhost
ping host_name_here
grep -i host_name /etc/hosts
nslookup host_name_here
AME ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: I have a cobalt box running linux. How can I get / know its ethernet
: address?
: Thanks
: Ayman Elsaedi
--
While Alcatel may claim ownership of all my ideas (on or off the job),
Alcatel does not claim any responsibility for them. Warranty expired when u
opened this article and I will not be responsible for its contents or use.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Will ORACLE8.05 install without kernel recompile
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 18:38:44 GMT
Hi mates!
Fighting with recompiling kernels on Linux laptops is a real hessle.
Does anybody know if ORACLE8.05 will install and run (not in big volumes, just
for demo purpuses) on REDHAT Linux 5.2 (kernel 2.036) without kernel
recompile and relink??
I would appreciate your comments.
Cheers
Shay Tochner
International Systems Support Specialist
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: ICQ for Linux
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 19:43:11 +0100
I can't see any reason why the versions should be incompatible.
jas shultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does the linux ver of ICQ (i.e. licq, micq, etc.) work with other ver's?
> Such as, a person running a WinNT ver of ICQ is logged on, if I run licq,
> will I be able to tell if he's online?
--
Anders Gulden Olstad @ Brinkley | * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
RedHat 5.2 Linux kernel 2.0.36 | "Penguins are generally nice creatures"
------------------------------
From: "Richard Payne" <payner at timken dot com>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Can Linux use 36-bit Xeon addressing?
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 14:10:43 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message <7b3ob2$teu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
>
>In article <TDXA2.443$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Eugene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I don't think so. Linux is 32 bit on x86 architechture. But it has full
>> support of 3 64-bit architectures, PPC, SPARC, and Alpha. 64-bit memory
>> space.... woooww!!!
>
>Yes, I know Linux runs on some 64 bit machines, but: 1) Is this support
>indeed full, or is it just on paper? 2) Does this mean there is access to a
>PHYSICAL 64 bit address space? On the OS comparison chart in www.linux.org,
>it says that Linux supports up to 2GB memory. In fact, the only OS I saw
>there which supports >4GB is DigitalUnix. I am not familiar with the
>architecture of the various RISC chips above. Do they indeed offer 64 bit
>physical addressing, and not just 64 bit data registers?
Linux on an Alpha is true 64-bit. However there is currently a limitation in
the
kernel that it can only support 2 Gig (If you try to boot with > than 2 Gig
on Alpha
the machine will lockup). Once this limitation is fixed (which I expect is
more
a function of the fact that very few people have that amount of RAM kicking
around
then a technology problem) then you'll be able to address the maximum amount
of the Alpha chip.
I know at one point there was a SPARC based machines that was booted with
5Gig in it. However I believe that there were some changes made to the
kernel
to accommodate this.
--
Rich Payne
(Speaking for myself, not my employer)
payner at timken dot com
Looking for Alpha-Linux info?
http://www.alphalinux.org
, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bryan J. Maloney)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class.
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 14:11:44 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Craig Kelley
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ryan Cumming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > How about 10 honest reasons why you think windows98 is better than linux?
> I can agree with 1-4 more or less.
>
> > 1. Better GUI
> > 2. More software
> > 3. More Hardware support
> > 4. Better gaming platform
Well, 1-3 are my primary concerns when looking at potentially changing to
Linux...
--
To women contemplating marriage: The question you should ask is not
"How much do I love him?" The real question is "How much can I
tolerate him?"
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/bjm10/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NF Stevens)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 19:15:29 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John S. Dyson) wrote:
[snip]
>I didn't say that GPL is bad because it allows marketeers to profit from
>free software. I said that GPL is bad because it supports the marketeers
>at the expense (and not to the economic advantage) of the programmers who
>produce and incrementally create the works.
You may continue to say this till you are blue in the face. However
no matter how many times you say it, it will not become true.
The ability of marketeers to benefit from freely distributable
software is totally independent from any considerations of
whether one can create proprietory derived works from that
software. People who distribute GPL software do not do
so at the expense of any programmer; just as people who
distribute BSD licenses software do not do so at the expense
of any programmer.
I will agree that GPL does not allow people to profit by
creating derived proprietory works based on GPL software.
That is obvious; that is one of the purposes of the GPL.
However it has nothing to do with the marketeers; the
code is GPL'd because the original programmer decided
that it would be. Maybe marketeers are an easier target
but they're to blame.
Norman
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NF Stevens)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 19:15:33 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John S. Dyson) wrote:
[snip]
>Red Hat is a parasite because it distributes mostly only GPLed works.
Walnut Creek is not a parasite because it distrubutes mostly only BSD
works.
Great logic John.
Norman
------------------------------
From: "jas shultz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ICQ for Linux
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 10:50:57 -0700
Does the linux ver of ICQ (i.e. licq, micq, etc.) work with other ver's?
Such as, a person running a WinNT ver of ICQ is logged on, if I run licq,
will I be able to tell if he's online?
Jas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>I'm not sure if there's a native version of ICQ - yet. But you should be
>able to find a java version on the ICQ homepage.
>
>You'll need to install the JDK (Java Development Kit) in order to run java
>applications, though. You'll find a Linux version of JDK on
>http://www.blackdown.org
>
>sabunimjw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Does anyone know where I can get ICQ for linux?
>> Thanks
>--
>Anders Gulden Olstad @ Brinkley | * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>RedHat 5.2 Linux kernel 2.0.36 | "Penguins are generally nice creatures"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco Anglesio)
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 19:19:23 GMT
On 23 Feb 1999 23:25:53 GMT, John S. Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Red Hat is a parasite because it distributes mostly only GPLed works.
Mostly only. To a logician (which you are not), mostly (greater than half)
only (exclusively, or 100%) would mean only, and it's most definitely not
only.
You have missed, by focussing on the GPL'ed code which Red Hat
distributes, the most popular mail user agent (pine), perl, tcl/tk, the X
Window System, the BSD code in the Linux kernel, all the proprietary
works, such as BRU, included in the base redhat distribution, all the
additional tools that RedHat distributes, few of which are GPL'ed.
In other words, tunnel vision hurts.
m.
--
,--------------------------------------------------------------------------.
> | I don't know who or what put the <
> Marco Anglesio | question, I don't know when it was <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | put. I don't even remember answering. <
> http://www.the-wire.com/~mpa | But at some moment, I did answer yes. <
> | --Dag Hammarskjold <
`--------------------------------------------------------------------------'
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Reverse IP-Masquerading
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 18:49:24 GMT
Hi All,
I have read the HowTo's and the past posts and found nothing on what I want
to know. I am running RedHat 5.2, but I have a winmodem,(cant afford a new
one right now) so I cannot get on the net as is. I was wondering if there is
any way that I can connect to a win98 machine and use the modem from that
machine?? maybe through a serial connection or something?? A friend of mine
has a gateway laptop that I want to try and connect to. If this is not
possible at all, is there a way to connect our machines and me be able to
access the files from her machine. So like maybe i could download files to
her harddisk and then connect our machines and get them somehow? how would
this be done? anyone?
Thanks,
Mandy
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco Anglesio)
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 19:53:28 GMT
On 24 Feb 1999 18:10:47 GMT, John S. Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It isn't *BAD* that the CDROM manufacturers profit, but it is *BAD*
> that under discriminatory licenses like GPL, (however subtile the
> discrimination is), that only the CDROM (support firms, etc) manufacturers
> are the ones that end up in control.
The distributors? Interesting notion, but, in the modern world, specious
at best.
A CD-ROM manufacturer distributes without copyright to said works (except,
in Red Hat's case, on the book that goes with their commercial CD-ROM -
they own copyright to the book). You can duplicate the work as many times
as you want; you can install the software as many times as you want
(except for the commercial stuff that Red Hat includes, of course). You're
paying them for collating the software and delivering it to you, but
you're not paying very much because it's not very much work.
Debian takes this to an extreme, giving a gold CD-ROM gratis to any
company wishing to sell their distribution. Any individual could request
the same. It's especially not very much work for Debian.
Publishing Linux CD-ROMs isn't like any other publishing venture in that
you relinquish control of the work as soon as it is exchanged for money.
m.
--
,--------------------------------------------------------------------------.
> Marco Anglesio | Listen: we are on Earth to fart around. <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Don't let anyone tell you any different. <
> http://www.the-wire.com/~mpa | --Kurt Vonnegut <
`--------------------------------------------------------------------------'
------------------------------
From: Steve Gage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: xosview with linux-2.2.2
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 19:56:20 +0000
Standard User wrote:
>
> Torsten Blank wrote:
>
> > xosview (version 1.7.0 and version 1.6.1) doesn't work with the kernel
> > 2.2.2. It hangs, even before a window appears. Does someone know the
> > reason?
> >
>
> Hallo !
> I have the same problem with version 1.6.0 !
> Applying "strace xosview" I found out, that the
> program open /proc/stat and then ... nothing !
> I don't know how to work-around the problem.
1.6.1 works fine for me. Are you sure you did all the recommended
upgrades (see CHANGES)? Like procinfo, for example.
- Steve
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 12:12:57 -0800
From: Ken <[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?)
david parsons wrote:
-- snip --
> Because AT&T didn't attempt to sue Linus Torvalds for copyright
> violations.
>
>
I disagree. While AT&T's suit probably had a huge affect on BSD for
a little while, I believe it was short lived. I don't know how long
_Free_BSD has been available since then, but it's been at least two
years, which is eternity. FreeBSD could easily be as popular as
Linux... all you need to do is 1) take a lesson in marketing, 2) have
Greg Lehey write an updated book (hint - mice on the serial port are
_not_ the most common race of mice any more, for example), 3) write
an "easier" (note that I didn't say "better") install program.
All this, of course, assumes that "popularity" is a good thing. I'm
starting to think that maybe it's a bad thing, because I'm starting
to see that different goups tend to resent each other's "popularity."
How much do you think Linuxers and FreeBSDers could learn from each
other if they quit wasting their time fighting over which is better,
or which license is better, or who copied who, or "mommy, he's on my
side of the seat!!!"?
Ken
____
> david parsons \bi/ For want of a nail, &tc.
> \/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh)
Subject: Re: Linux box's ethernet address
Date: 25 Feb 1999 19:59:33 GMT
In <7b3lrk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (AME) writes:
>I have a cobalt box running linux. How can I get / know its ethernet
>address?
Possibilities:
a) It has none.
b) You assigned it one on setup -- look in your notes (or see option c).
c) You connected to some remote system using ppp and it assigned you
one. Look at the output of ifconfig -- the ppp0 link
------------------------------
From: Harold HISE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Spreadsheets and presentation software?
Date: 25 Feb 1999 20:31:25 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can get Applixware for under $100.00 it includes spreadsheet, wp,
presentations and more. www.linuxmall.com
Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
> My joy at finding that WP8 was ported to Linux has deflated somewhat upon
> reading the fine print. It's ONLY WP8, not the full WP8 package. That
> means, if I switch to Linux, I would also have to find a separate
> spreadsheet and presentation software.
>
> So, what is out there? I want something with ALL the functionality of
> Quattro Pro 8 AND Corel Presentations 8, at a total price COMBINED with
> that of the WordPerfect 8 that would not exceed the academic pricing
> available for the WP8 suite plus manuals. Otherwise, why shouldn't I just
> stick to Win95 and get the applications that I want?
>
> --
> To women contemplating marriage: The question you should ask is not
> "How much do I love him?" The real question is "How much can I
> tolerate him?"
> http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/bjm10/
------------------------------
From: Jussi Torhonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Problem making a Custom RedHat 5.2 CD
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 22:36:15 +0200
On Thu, 25 Feb 1999, jdn wrote:
> I have an HP CD-Writer Plus 7200i CD-RW drive and want to use it to make a
> custom RedHat 5.2 CD that I can install off of (I've been using RedHat 5.1,
> which I bought, since October, I think).
Check my page http://iki.fi/jt/cd
It tells you almost everything possible about making a homebrew bootable
RedHat Linux 5.2 GPL CD-ROM.
Jussi
--
===================================================================
Jussi Torhonen # E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tietosavo Oyj # Corporate website: http://www.tietosavo.fi
P.O.Box 1582 # Personal homepage: http://www.iki.fi/jt
FIN-70461 KUOPIO # Tel: +358-17-193231 GSM +358-50-5946209
FINLAND # Fax: +358-17-193355 73's de OH7DC
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco Anglesio)
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 18:52:59 GMT
On 23 Feb 1999 22:46:54 GMT, John S. Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco Anglesio) writes:
>>
>> What's the incentive to redistribute derivative works in BSD-style
>> licenses? (For that matter, what's the incentive to distribute them in the
>> first place, knowing full well that someone may use them, extend them,
>> charge for them, make a buck, and not share).
>>
>Net support mechanisms. BSD is problematical for bootstrapping code
>into the realworld, but GPL condemns the code to bootstrap mode forever.
The point is (and you seem to have missed it), why would a developer put
together BSD'ed rather than GPL'ed code out there. It is precisely that
time of bootstrapping code into the real world environment that poses a
problem for the original developer (and hence original copyright holder).
>If a GPLed work has been in the net community, and other authors have
>added to it, then ownership is diffuse. I doubt that Linus could
Not necessarily so. GNU works, for example, are diffusely authored but
copyright is held in full by the FSF. Any work can be released under the
GPL but only worked on by one person. Any developer could ask that
improvements be signed over to him for inclusion in the main source tree.
The GPL has nothing to do with this, really; you're dealing with apples,
the licensing structure, and oranges, the development model, by bringing
this up.
>Yep, you apparently agree with marketeering winning over innovation. One
Wow, that's a leap of logic. And another strawman. Perhaps you could forgo
telling me (and many other people in this discussion) what we are, and
tell me what your argument is.
>key to my argument is that GPL supports the continued explotation of
>programmers by the marketeers.
I don't see how. If anything, the GPL promotes empowerment of the
programmer by requiring commercial development to occur with his or her
consent.
On the exploitation side, you give away code for nothing if you release it
as GPL'ed, and you give away code for nothing if you release it as BSD'ed.
Forgive me if I can't tell the difference between nothing on one hand and
nothing on the other.
Is BillG a marketeer? :-). By name:
>Linus and RMS are marketeers (capitalizing on name recognition.)
By the same token, John, you're also a marketeer, since you're quite
well-known for your work on FreeBSD.
m.
--
,--------------------------------------------------------------------------.
> Marco Anglesio | Listen: we are on Earth to fart around. <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Don't let anyone tell you any different. <
> http://www.the-wire.com/~mpa | --Kurt Vonnegut <
`--------------------------------------------------------------------------'
------------------------------
From: Allin Cottrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Apache "handler" question
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 15:37:19 -0500
I recently set up mSQL, which I run in conjunction with the Apache
webserver (1.3.3). To handle pages including mSQL scripting I have
in Apache's srm.conf these lines
Action w3-msql /cgi-bin/w3-msql
AddHandler w3-msql msql
The lines work OK (i.e. the scripts do get parsed correctly), yet
Apache's error log fills with entries
[warn] [...] handler "w3-msql" not found for:
/usr/local/apache/share/htdocs/classes.msql
Any ideas on what's happening here?
--
Allin Cottrell
Department of Economics
Wake Forest University, NC
------------------------------
From: Aris CRuz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Firewall with 1 IP
Date: 25 Feb 1999 18:32:01 GMT
It is possible to have just one ip and more than one web server, the only
problem is that they will use different ip ports. The util you would use
is ipfwadm (for 2.0.X kernels) or ipchains (for 2.1.X or 2.2.X kernels).
Sorry to say, I am still trying to finish that project my self, so I can't
give you definate answers. But for more info, look @
http://www.ox.compsoc.org.uk/~steve/portforwarding.html
vartekquest wrote:
>
>
>
> - My ISP has asigned me 1 static IP.
> - I have a LAN, and 3 NT Web servers on it that I want to make
available to
> Inet with 192.168.X.X IPs.
>
> - I want to put a Linux RedHat 5.2 based firewall before the LAN.
>
> Would it be possible with just 1 IP, maybe with IP Masquerading or
should I
> ask for a Class C Network?
>
> Answers will be welcome by private e-mail.
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your
Own
================== Posted via SearchLinux ==================
http://www.searchlinux.com
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
