Linux-Misc Digest #119, Volume #27 Thu, 15 Feb 01 16:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: How to forward external requests to internal machine? (maxmutt)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else ("Peter T. Breuer")
safe rm (S P Arif Sahari Wibowo)
Re: need a app to erase a cdrw (Bill Unruh)
Re: LFS and lilo (John in SD)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (John Hasler)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (John Hasler)
Booting Win2K and Caldera eDesktop ("Ken")
Re: safe rm ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: How can I get rid of "bash"? (Andrew Purugganan)
Re: need a app to erase a cdrw (Glitch)
Re: safe rm (S P Arif Sahari Wibowo)
NFS + pine? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Robert Surenko)
Re: How can I get rid of "bash"? ("Doney")
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Robert Surenko)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (S P Arif Sahari Wibowo)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: maxmutt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: How to forward external requests to internal machine?
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:56:34 -0700
use IPmasq with portfwding.
Warren Bell wrote:
>
> I'm running Mandrake 7.2 with ipchains as a firewall. I want to forward
> any requests to a certain port to an internal machine on the local
> network allowing it through. I've been looking around but can't find
> how to do this. The only thing I've found is that you can't do it with
> ipchains. What program can I use to do this?
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 19:54:21 +0100
In comp.os.linux.misc Dan Mercer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just as the religious rely on the collective experiences of those
> who have gone before, so does science. You certainly do not
> perform experiments to prove every article of science you encounter,
> you rely on faith that your predecessors performed their experiments
> correctly. Following the cold fusion debate, you can witness the
This is absolutely not so. One of the requirements of a scientific
theory is that the theory be testable by everyone.
Experiments are repeated again and again and again by many teams.
The results of new and old experiments are reinterpreted and examined
again and again.
To illustrate, a housemate of mine when I was a student was checking the
inverse square law of gravity at medium scales ... (he found a one part in
10^15 deviation, I believe, dependent on materials).
To illustrate again, Feynman used to give the story about being asked
to judge textbooks in brazil (I seem to recall), and exploding that
the standard text was completely fabricated. He read the data on a
"classic" experient and saw that it didn't fit the experiment .. it was a
rolling ball moving under gravity down a ramp. When it hit the
ground it should have slid slightly and lost energy in the
momentum change. But the data showed no such trace. It had been
calculated from the "theory", not observed. This text had been used by
years by students and teachers. All of them _believed_ that it was
true, because they were bad scientists. Feynman was a good scientist,
and he believed nothing. Thus he saw that the data did not fit the
physics.
> uproar tha ensues when experiments appear to challenge the preheld
Oh, that! Yes, there are scientific dogmatisms and they are
overturned in "revolutions".
> beliefs. The reaction of physicists is to deny and attack the new
> evidence just as fundamentalists attack evolution. If cold fusion
> yet proves out and is not the likely result of poorly conducted
> experimentation, the howls from physicists will equal the howls
But it didn't hold up to experiment. Many teams repeated the
experiment, in the scientific way, and did not reproduce the result.
Theories predicting the effect observed surfaced, and were tested,
and panned out.
If there is cold fusion, that was not it. Not to anyone's satisfaction.
> of those who originally shouted down the germ theory of Pasteur or
> the works of Charles Darwin.
The fact that many good theories initially appear crazy to many does
not imply that any theory that appears crazy must be good (though it's
a help).
Try "morphic resonance" as an example of an intersting theory that
may be crazy enough to be true. It was tested, at least, and passed.
> But the universe isn't as our senses report it. For instance,
> you and I and a European bee may look at flower and think it is black.
This is obvious. But both of us can sense the object, no matter how we
label it. If one of us has to use secondary senses to do so, no matter.
>> Well, there are issues of sanity involved here. Doubting the evidence of
>> your own senses leaves you in a difficult position.
> Then, to your mind the blind should not believe in light, nor the
> deaf ins sound?
They have good evidence for the existence of light. They can perform
experiments to verify its existence. For example, they can get two
seeing friends to stand 100 yards apart. They can whisper to one
and ask him to raise a handkerchief, or drop it to the ground. They can
then walk the 100 yards to the other friend, and ask him if they
had whispered the command to raise or drop to the other friend. Repeat
to taste.
Then try it when the two friends are separated by a tall building.
> Faith is essential in programming a computer. Unless you are actually
On the contrary, suspicion is essential. If that were not the case, I
would not be able to detect compiler and kernel and library and
hardware errors, and I am.
> programming the microcode of the CPU, you rely upon the belief that
> what you write will do what you want, a belief that is all to often
No I most certainly do not! On the contrary, I program using the
thesis that what I write will NOT do what I want, and I have to defend
myself from it. If you think that that's how to program, then you
don't know how to program! You have to evaluate the risks. One of
the things one never does, for example, is use non-mainstream features
of a language or library. One never writes code that cannot be tested.
> shaken. Eveen the assemby writer must interact with other people's
> work if only the BIOS, and must have faith that the work they did
Not at all.
> was correct. Quite simply, we cannot confirm every postulate
We certainly can. I at least always took great care to prove everything
for myself.
> we use in life. We cannot even confirm that ever postulate is ultimately
> confirmable.
That is a truism. The "goedel fact" that every suficiently powerful
reasoning system contains a truth that is impossible to prove in
that system is easy to show. It's just one of the fixpoint theorems.
>> I tend to view that
>> as evidence that scientific belief is qualitatively different, since
>> believing in scientific principles like observation, no-interpretation,
>> experiment, hypothesis formation and refutation, does help you program
>> a computer.
>>
>> On the other hand, so does alcohol and coffee.
Peter
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,linux.redhat.misc
From: S P Arif Sahari Wibowo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: safe rm
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 19:16:48 GMT
Hi!
Do you know a program that replace the ordinary rm with 'safe rm' that
move the objects into a 'trash folder' instead of delete it right away?
Thanks.
--
S P Arif Sahari Wibowo
_____ _____ _____ _____
/____ /____/ /____/ /____ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_____/ / / / _____/ http://www.arifsaha.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh)
Subject: Re: need a app to erase a cdrw
Date: 15 Feb 2001 19:16:55 GMT
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Any apps available to erase CDRW discs? I got xcdroast and cdrdao but
>neither let me erase a disc....anything else I can try?
?? Yes, they do. At least if you have the latest xcdroast, or more particularly
cdrecord (
which is what xcdroast actually uses.)
man cdrecord
See the blank= option.
------------------------------
From: John in SD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LFS and lilo
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 19:19:28 GMT
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 02:45:54 -0500, Gerry Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I'm trying to build linux from scratch for my old 486 using the lfs howto.
>I removed its harddisk and put it in my pentium as a slave.
>I can boot into lfs when I boot from my master harddisk.
>But now I want to install lilo on the boot of my lfs disk, so I can put it
>back as a master in my 486.
>I tried to run lilo with boot=/dev/hdb and root=/dev/hdb1.
>I also tried root=/dev/hda1.
>I ran lilo in my original configuration like this:
>/sbin/lilo -v -C lilo.conf -r /mnt/lfs
>
>Anyway, lilo gives me in both cases LI when I boot from my lfs disk.
>
>Can anyone help me with this problem?
Simple: when the disk is in the computer where it is set up, it is device
code 0x81 (probably /dev/hdb). When it is the master disk in the 486, it is
device code 0x80 (probably /dev/hda).
Set it up as it will be in the 486: /dev/hda
To force the device code to 0x80, use:
lilo -C lilo486.conf
lilo486.conf looks like:
disk=/dev/hdb <-- change the device code to what it WILL be
bios=0x80
root=/dev/hda1 <-- a lie, but this is what it will be
read-only <-- standard stuff
boot=/dev/hdb <-- what it is during setup
install=/mnt/disk2/boot/boot.b <-- what it is during setup
map=/mnt/disk2/boot/map <-- what it is during setup
message=/mnt/disk2/boot/message <-- if you use a message file
# one kernel image below:
image=/mnt/disk2/boot/vmlinuz <-- kernel to boot
label=linux
Once this boots on the 486, change all referenced to "/mnt/disk2" to "",
and get rid of the disk/bios lines.
--John
LILO version 21.6.1 (16-Dec-2000) source at
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/Linux/system/boot/lilo
patches at ftp://brun.dyndns.org/pub/linux/lilo
------------------------------
From: John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 18:20:03 GMT
Bob Surenko writes:
> Is this what you are saying?
With the addition of animal psychology (both theoretical and practical) and
math, yes. I guess I must be a behavioral sophist.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
------------------------------
From: John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 18:05:07 GMT
Dan Mercer writes:
> So, if you had personal experience of something inexplicable by science,
> would you be more likely to believe that Science doesn't have the answers
> for everything?
I have found that experiences of "something inexplicable by science" are
generally explicable by common sense. And I already know that science
(note the absence of capitalization) doesn't have the answers for
everything.
> I know that there are at least 3 incidents in my life that can't be
> explained by any Physical laws I know.
There are a number of incidents in my life such that were I to assume that
they actually occurred as I recall them I would conclude could not be
explained by the laws of physics. The preponderance of evidence, however,
supports my fallibility over the existence of the tooth fairy.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
------------------------------
From: "Ken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.questions,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Booting Win2K and Caldera eDesktop
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:40:19 -0500
Hi everyone,
I want to dual boot Caldera eDesktop 2.4 and Windows 2000 Pro. I have two
hard disks. The first one /dev/hda has a single partition and Windows 2000
is installed on it. The second one has an ext2, FAT32 and a swap partition
on it and Linux is installed there. Caldera uses a boot loader called GRUB.
Right now I have to boot from the Caldera CD. I can boot Windows 2000 no
problem.
I tried making an image to boot Linux with like this
dd if=/dev/hdb1 bs=512 count=1 of=linux.img
and copied it to my Windows partition and added it to my boot.ini file. I
get the option when NTLoader runs to launch either Windows of Linux but when
I select Linux it just sits for a second and then my machine reboots. I
have tried making images of everything from one block to 9 blocks. None of
these image files work. I want to load Linux using NTLoader. What am I
doing wrong?
Thanks,
Ken.
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,linux.redhat.misc
Subject: Re: safe rm
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 20:28:58 +0100
In comp.os.linux.misc S P Arif Sahari Wibowo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you know a program that replace the ordinary rm with 'safe rm' that
Your shell. Define an alias.
> move the objects into a 'trash folder' instead of delete it right away?
Peter
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Purugganan)
Subject: Re: How can I get rid of "bash"?
Date: 15 Feb 2001 19:50:12 GMT
Doney ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
[ Hello, Please help
[ I am new to Linux, I run TURBO LINUX.
[ I got into "bash" and now it will not go away even if I reboot the machine.
[ I just want to go back to the default when I installed the OS.
you could type "linux 5" (without the quotes) at the LILO prompt, some
distros know this as the GUI logon
If it is runlevel 5, might as well make it permanent, using sometool like
linuxconf
--
jazz
Registered linux user no. 164098 +--+--+--+ Litestep user no. 386
Doesn't it bother you, that we have to search for intelligent life
--- OUT THERE??
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:10:41 -0500
From: Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: need a app to erase a cdrw
Bill Unruh wrote:
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>> Any apps available to erase CDRW discs? I got xcdroast and cdrdao but
>> neither let me erase a disc....anything else I can try?
>
>
> ?? Yes, they do. At least if you have the latest xcdroast, or more particularly
>cdrecord (
> which is what xcdroast actually uses.)
>
> man cdrecord
> See the blank= option.
ok, i tried that
I get 'cdrecrod: Bad file descript, Cannot open SCSI driver'.
I tried the mmc_cdr and scsi2_cd driver but both gave same error.
cdrecord -scanbus provides the following:
0,4,0 4) 'PLEXTOR ' 'CD-R PX-W124TS' '1.01' Removable CD-ROM
Xcdroast could use it fine but i think i must hav an old version b/c i
dont see the place for erasing a disc but if cdrecord by itself won't
work i dont know why Xcdroast would.
Using Xcdroast .96e, which includes cdrecord 1.6.1
standalone cdrecord (from commandline) shows I'm using version 1.8a30
Any ideas what causes that error above?
thanks
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,linux.redhat.misc
From: S P Arif Sahari Wibowo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: safe rm
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 20:22:41 GMT
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Peter T. Breuer wrote:
>> Do you know a program that replace the ordinary rm with 'safe rm' that
>Your shell. Define an alias.
>> move the objects into a 'trash folder' instead of delete it right away?
Well, when I count it the time for make the script for each shell, and
then the time to make the trash management script, well I guess is wort it
to see if somebody already make the package.
Also, I want to know if somebody have a program that works in lower level,
so even the deletion is called from other program (not shell), it still
goes to the trash can. Maybe some kind of module that change the file
system functions?
Thanks.
--
S P Arif Sahari Wibowo
_____ _____ _____ _____
/____ /____/ /____/ /____ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_____/ / / / _____/ http://www.arifsaha.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: NFS + pine?
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:27:31 -0600
I have an NFS server with a directory export like this:
/home client(rw,no_root_squash)
Now, when a user on the client side uses pine to read email, it
freezes. Further investigation indicates that pine can not access NFS
files with 600 permission, even though they are accessable by the user
via cat, more, etc. All the access entries show up in the NFS server
log like this:
Feb 14 10:00:00 server_name kernel: fh_verify: user/mbox permission
failure, acc=4, error=13
When I chmod 655 user/mbox, it starts working immediately.
Is there any special trick to work around this?
------------------------------
From: Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 20:38:45 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Mercer) writes:
>> Their is certainly a strong element of faith in science. We
>> accept the existence of that we have no direct knowledge (muons,
>> for instance) based upon the assurances of people we have no
>> direct knowledge. Is it really that far a stretch to believe
>> Christ existed based on the works of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John
>> than to believe black holes exist.
> science is based upon *repeatability*. that which cannot be repeated
> is not science.
Science has suggested the therory that specific traits in a species
make it more successful than others. I suggest that you are of a species
that is succcesful because it belives things repeatable.
Your belief in "repeatability" is an illusion produced by a hormone
in your brain. It may or may not "really" be repeatable.
prove it.
Or how about this one...
Little fairies manipulate scientific experiments for their infinite
amusment and joy. These little fairies are from the 5th dimension
and feel their greatest acomplishment is that they have faked out the
humans who now believe that all objects fall at the same rate.
All smart little fairies know that heavy things fall faster.
Prove it.
Or maybe....
We are all asleep in little pods. We are hooked to a virtual reality
program called the Matrix...
My point is that Science is based on some fudemental principles
that can not be proven, such as the belief that repeatability
means something.
> science is a method. you give a hypothesis. you do an experiment to
> show that the hypothesis holds. you give people enough information to
> reconstruct the experiment. if others can reproduce it, you begin to
> accept the hypothesis may be true. if enough other experiments based
> on extrapolation of the hypothesis prove to work, then you start to
> trust it more and more.
And as soon as you completely trust it, someone comes up with an
experiment that dis-proves it.
Science comes up with stuff that works... but it does not lead to
truth.
--
=============================================================================
- Bob Surenko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- http://www.fred.net/surenko/
=============================================================================
------------------------------
From: "Doney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How can I get rid of "bash"?
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 20:40:53 GMT
Actually I don't want the GUI.
I am in command line mode, but I am limited on what I can do. Even in root.
I am inside something( sorry new to linux) that
wont let me do any of the configuration of TURBO LINUX. Let's say: before
I was able to access my network setup and an interface to
activate/deactivate
programs/modules.
Doney, Thanks
------------------------------
From: Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 20:51:09 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc Peter T. Breuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Then, to your mind the blind should not believe in light, nor the
>> deaf ins sound?
> They have good evidence for the existence of light. They can perform
> experiments to verify its existence. For example, they can get two
> seeing friends to stand 100 yards apart. They can whisper to one
> and ask him to raise a handkerchief, or drop it to the ground. They can
> then walk the 100 yards to the other friend, and ask him if they
> had whispered the command to raise or drop to the other friend. Repeat
> to taste.
> Then try it when the two friends are separated by a tall building.
How does he know that all his friends are not really voices in his
head?
> That is a truism. The "goedel fact" that every suficiently powerful
> reasoning system contains a truth that is impossible to prove in
> that system is easy to show. It's just one of the fixpoint theorems.
Very true, however, I've always liked the word "just".
When used that way it implies that the subject of the sentence is
unimportant. I always remove the word "just" and re-read the sentence.
So I see, "It's one of the fixpoint theorems". Well, that doesn't really
say anything. But points out a good place to apply the scalpel.
What is the difference between a "fixpoint theorem" and a "faith
in a belief"?
> Peter
--
=============================================================================
- Bob Surenko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- http://www.fred.net/surenko/
=============================================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 20:57:10 -0000
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 20:38:45 GMT, Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.misc Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Mercer) writes:
>
>>> Their is certainly a strong element of faith in science. We
>>> accept the existence of that we have no direct knowledge (muons,
>>> for instance) based upon the assurances of people we have no
>>> direct knowledge. Is it really that far a stretch to believe
>>> Christ existed based on the works of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John
>>> than to believe black holes exist.
>
>> science is based upon *repeatability*. that which cannot be repeated
>> is not science.
>
>Science has suggested the therory that specific traits in a species
>make it more successful than others. I suggest that you are of a species
>that is succcesful because it belives things repeatable.
>
>Your belief in "repeatability" is an illusion produced by a hormone
>in your brain. It may or may not "really" be repeatable.
>
>prove it.
>
>Or how about this one...
>
>Little fairies manipulate scientific experiments for their infinite
>amusment and joy. These little fairies are from the 5th dimension
>and feel their greatest acomplishment is that they have faked out the
>humans who now believe that all objects fall at the same rate.
>
>All smart little fairies know that heavy things fall faster.
>
>Prove it.
>
>Or maybe....
>
>We are all asleep in little pods. We are hooked to a virtual reality
>program called the Matrix...
>
>My point is that Science is based on some fudemental principles
>that can not be proven, such as the belief that repeatability
>means something.
The only problem with your tirade is the fact that the
only reason you even exist now is because of such
"religious" beliefs.
[deletia]
>> science is a method. you give a hypothesis. you do an experiment to
>> show that the hypothesis holds. you give people enough information to
>> reconstruct the experiment. if others can reproduce it, you begin to
>> accept the hypothesis may be true. if enough other experiments based
>> on extrapolation of the hypothesis prove to work, then you start to
>> trust it more and more.
>
>And as soon as you completely trust it, someone comes up with an
>experiment that dis-proves it.
>
>Science comes up with stuff that works... but it does not lead to
>truth.
No one with any clue claims that it does. It suffices that
it works remarkably better than following church doctrine.
However, being a process that allows for self-correction at
least holds out the hope that you will progress to something
that more resembles the true nature of the universe.
[deletia]
"truth" is unecessary.
However, those that can abandon the truth of yesterday for
the truth of tomorrow will more likely get to it. If your
faith is wrong, it will always be wrong. The nature of
faith is adverse to improvement.
Personally, this is why I abandoned faith. Those that advocated
it most strongly were actively opposed to any attempt to apply
the intellect to the persuit of enlightenment.
--
Freedom != Anarchy.
Some must be "opressed" in order for their
actions not to oppress the rest of us.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
From: S P Arif Sahari Wibowo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:00:55 GMT
On 15 Feb 2001, Johan Kullstam wrote:
>science is based upon *repeatability*. that which cannot be repeated
>is not science.
This not accurate. Science is based on *consistency*. A theory need not to
be repeatable to be considered science, but it need to be consistent with
other theory and observations.
For example, the Big Bang theory, obviously not repeatable, but consistent
with existing theory and observation.
In math and logic, there is only 3 state of any statement: consistent /
absolutely true, inconsistent / absolutely false, or unproven.
In natural sciences, a hypothesis will considered a theory when it shown
consistent with some theory and observation. As more observation and
theory come up and tested against that theory, the 'truth' of that theory
become better as it have no inconsistency with those observations and
other theory. Eventually, some observation will come up that will not
consistent to that theory. At that point we will know the limitation /
accuracy of that theory (e.g. Newtonian mechanics). In fact all theory in
natural sciences will have their limitation.
Therefore having an idea of god is not only Ok, but even scientific, as
long as that idea is proven to have no inconsistency with all other
scientific theory and observations. :-)
Thanks for reading.
--
S P Arif Sahari Wibowo
_____ _____ _____ _____
/____ /____/ /____/ /____ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_____/ / / / _____/ http://www.arifsaha.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 by posting to comp.os.linux.misc.
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
******************************
