Linux-Advocacy Digest #392, Volume #25 Fri, 25 Feb 00 16:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: I want control of my fu&king computer !!! (Tim Kelley)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Robert Moir")
Re: I want control of my fu&king computer !!! ("Robert Moir")
Re: Is it OK to re-release a GPL app as binary-only ? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Is it OK to re-release a GPL app as binary-only ? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Is it OK to re-release a GPL app as binary-only ? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Chad Myers")
Re: Is it OK to re-release a GPL app as binary-only ? (Aaron M. Renn)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? ("Mark Christensen")
Re: Giving up on NT ("Drestin Black")
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Mig Mig)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Barry Margolin)
Re: Is it OK to re-release a GPL app as binary-only ? (Arthur)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Mig Mig)
Re: Is it OK to re-release a GPL app as binary-only ? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Is it OK to re-release a GPL app as binary-only ? (Kaz Kylheku)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (phil hunt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I want control of my fu&king computer !!!
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 13:09:50 -0600
"Ivehadit!!!" wrote:
>
> Okay, we all know windows sucks!!!!
> But I still have to use it for some stuff...
>
> Right now I'm surfing the net and I have several Netscapes running.
> What this shit program keeps doing is, if I'm in one netscape and I
> click on something, instead of waiting I'll go to another netscape and
> start reading something there, but then the other page will "pop"
> up...
yeah, the focus policy in windows is undoubtedly one of the most
annoying things ever concieved.
at least in X11 you can set it anyway you want.
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Robert Moir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 19:30:24 -0000
No Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:895pjv$44r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[snip]
>
> No, you are trolling. I have read at least three people (four including
> myself) asking the same question, and you come with evasives and
> patronizing statements.
>
> MS has to explain how they dare to suggest that many people out there
> using UNIX or UNIX like OSes should switch to NT (or now W2K) when they
> themselves have delayed such a move for far too long. Unless of course
> they don't care to gain business away from current UNIX users.
Because you don't switch servers running enterprise level systems like you
change socks. You, sir, are either the troll here, or you have a woefully
small understanding of running a major datacentre.
> The MS message is loud and clear in this case: I can't (so why a
prospective
> client could), I don't want (so why a prospective client would want to) or
> is not convenient (so why it should be convenient for a prospective
client).
>
> Now stop calling everybody else troll and explain this very simple
> contradiction.
It's self evident to anyone who knows anything about running large scale
operations like this. You don't change base platforms because of operating
system market or marketing department driven needs, it's a mammoth
undertaking regardless of what platform you currently have and what platform
you wish to get to, and what steps you need to cross to take it, and you
just don't do it, unless and until you "have to".
If you need a simpler explanation, then I'd imagine they also be waiting
until Windows 2000 datacenter and Exchange 2000 are both gold code.
------------------------------
From: "Robert Moir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I want control of my fu&king computer !!!
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 19:31:49 -0000
Ivehadit!!! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[snip]
> Please post your reply here on usenet,
A "reply" would only be needed had you posed a question.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Is it OK to re-release a GPL app as binary-only ?
Date: 25 Feb 2000 19:28:12 GMT
On 25 Feb 2000 17:50:20 GMT, Jeremy Nelson wrote:
>>On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 04:25:06 -0800, Jeffrey B. Siegal wrote:
>Requiring everybody to abide by every dot and tittle of the GPL is to
>remind them -- constantly -- how onboxious and onerous a valid license
>_can be_ under our current copyright system. If you don't think the GPL
>should be valid, then you can join with us in changing the system!
If my personal opinion counts for anything, I believe that the GPL most
certainly should be valid. When I release software on the GPL, it's
not that I have a problem with someone profiteering from the licensing
of software -- I just don't want them doing so with *my* software.
I also believe that if I want my software to ship with the source,
licensees should honor and abide by my wishes. If they find this
restriction unacceptable, that's fine -- they don't have to use my
software.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Is it OK to re-release a GPL app as binary-only ?
Date: 25 Feb 2000 19:29:55 GMT
On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 18:19:59 GMT, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>However, in such a world, the present model for controlling proprietary
>software would exist either. Sure, you could release code in binary only form,
>but everyone would copy the binaries.
Repeat after me: "Free SPEECH, not free beer".
The GPL is all about using restrictive licenses to keep the source free.
If they wanted to allow gratis binary-only derivatives, they could specify
so in the license. It seems clear this is *not* what RMS had in mind.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking?
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 19:24:56 GMT
On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 18:34:33 +0100, Mario Klebsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Albert Ulmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>Mario Klebsch wrote:
>>> >If your talking about an operating system,
>>> >you should be calling it GNU/Linux, like i.e. Debian does.
>>
>>> Well, that probably would be Debian GNU/Linux, and there is RatHad,
>>> SUSE, Caldera,... They all claim to be Linux, but in fact are
>>> different OSes.
>
>>Nonsense, they all cater the diverse needs of various users. In my view
>>that's the main point about the whole open source movement: CHOICE! It
>>is good to be different!
>
>The absence of the ABI destroys the choice. If you are not running
>RedHat or SUSE Linux, you really are in trouble, today. However, the
>degree of trouble varies from distribution to distribution.
No, you just need a package made for your particular iteration
assuming that you are unwilling to build your own software or
your distributor is incapable of doing it for you.
>
>If we want to keep the choice, we'd better create a well defined ABI
>yesterday!
Well, if you avoid C++, that's not really a problem.
This issue is more a 'Why not C++' thing than a 'Why not Linux'.
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Is it OK to re-release a GPL app as binary-only ?
Date: 25 Feb 2000 19:32:02 GMT
On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 18:24:38 GMT, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>On 25 Feb 2000 18:13:14 GMT, Aaron M. Renn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Intellectual property concepts should not be used to
> subvert the free market and consumer choice. The notion
I don't believe they are. You can choose to use my software or choose
to use somebody else's instead. That sounds like "free market"
and "consumer choice" to me.
> Software creates the pool of common intellectual capital
> that current copyright should be generating. This helps
Creating "common pools" sounds more like a communist than a capitalist
goal.
> apply competition pressure to companies that would other
> wise have none due to the relative security of their
> natural monopolies.
Well yes, it is certainly legitimate to use this to apply pressure to
companies. I'm not disputing this. I am saying that it's inconsistent
to only regard one type of copyright as valid.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 13:32:17 -0600
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > What you fail to realize is that Hotmail doesn't run on stock Unix either.
> > It's highly customized Unix. No existing OS could run Hotmail out of the
> > box.
>
> Well, I presume since the other OSses don't have these wonderful
> wizards and stuff which do *all* the work wrong, there must be a
> few competent people setting up the machines. Like, configurating
> them.
>
> If you mean something different when you say "highly customized",
> please explain in what areas these customisations were done, and
> how you got knowledge of it in the first place.
>
> But then MS is rumored to have the sourcecode of both NT and W2K
> ... and I hear tell they got programmers as well.
Do you have anything useful to contribute, or do you just spout
off useless bullshit and arrogant/ignorant ramblings about something
you obviously know nothing about?
Are you so scared of Win2K that you must attack it in such an
ignorant way?
Microsoft detailed how it had to customized several areas of
Slowaris, including (but not limited to) the TCP/IP stack which
was underpowered for a web application such as Hotmail.
Several of these customizations were done before MS purchased
Hotmail from the original owners. When MS took it on, the hotmail
traffic increased, and so did the system's instability, thus
requiring more customizations.
-Chad
Friends don't let friends use Linux, except if you're planning
on DDoSing a major eCommerce site, then it's pretty handy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron M. Renn)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Is it OK to re-release a GPL app as binary-only ?
Date: 25 Feb 2000 19:43:04 GMT
On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 18:19:59 GMT, Kaz Kylheku <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In fact it should. In a world without silly copyrights, we would not need the
>GPL. There would be no basis for it, because the GPL is rooted in copyright
>law.
Actually, the GPL is rooted in contract law. Even in a world with no
copyright, people could still distribute binary only software or force
people to sign restrictive licenses in order to get a copy. The GPL is
very useful here.
--
Aaron M. Renn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.urbanophile.com/arenn/
------------------------------
From: "Mark Christensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 20:04:22 GMT
> >Hmm. Looking at the subject of this thread,
>
> That's naive. The thread has changed somewhat. The current debate is about
> whether or not it's fair to allow developers to use the traditional
licensing
> model for profit.
I don't think I would argue that it's unfair to allow traditonal licencing
models. Rather I think it misguided. I do think patenting algorythms, and
other moderately obvious software solutions (one click purchasing) is absurd
and unfair. But I think we all agree on that point.
--
Mark Christensen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
People understand me so little that they do not even understand me when I
complain of being misunderstood.
--Kierkegaard
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 15:12:07 -0500
"Lars Träger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Josiah Fizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Wrong on all acounts, but thanks for playing.
> >
> > The only way to connect anything to a TV with distinct RGB lines is to
use
> > SECAM which is not supported in the US. Hooking up a console or VCR to a
TV
> > using RCA jacks rahter then coax' will give you a better picture due to
the
> > audio and video being on diferent lines. Whats more I've never seen
anyone
> > run Quake style games in lower then 640x480 (well since Quake 1. Doom
was
> > played in 320x300) which is close to twice the rez' of NTSC. In general
> > every one I know plays in 800x600 or 1024x768 in all games, not just
> > shooters.
>
> ROTFL
What part?
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 21:30:26 +0100
Paul 'Z' Ewande© wrote:
>
> Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
> 894d68$3d7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> <SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
>
> > Poor sods.... That Pacheco guy does not seem to have any experience with
> > Unices and neither have you.
> > I have used Ultrix (Digital Unix), Minix, Sinix, Aix, Solaris, FreeBSD and
> > Linux... of these Linux is by far the superior version of Unix... Off
>
> Whoa ! On what grounds do you flatly state that Linux is superior to FreeBSD
> and Solaris ? An inquiring mind needs to know. :)
Its really not that complex Paul.. you dont even have to ever touched
Linux, Ultrix, AIX etc to know. Christopher explained it.. its the richer
enviroment
The fact is simply that Linux has the momentum .. so if some
software is going to be available on Unix its going to bee also available
on Linux... because the amount of desktops running Linux is at least as
large as the rest combined. Linux has simply reached critical mass
I dont think its a better server as Solaris or FreeBSD.. its simply a
better graphical workstation because developement of software happens on
Linux... and the best tools for development exist on Linux.
------------------------------
From: Barry Margolin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 20:30:23 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 01:14:46 GMT, Barry Margolin wrote:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>This is a diversion, but free software is actually licensed. Ironically
>>
>>This is true, but only because it exists in an environment where it's
>>possible for someone to restrict others' freedom to copy. If free software
>>were totally unrestricted (i.e. public domain), derivatives could be made
>>non-free. The GPL tries to create a state of affairs similar to what we
>>would have if software licensing weren't possible in the first, and does so
>>by using (opponents might say perverting) the software license and
>>copyright mechanism itself. Nice trick!
>
>Actually, the GPL goes much further than this by insisting that the source
>code be released.
That's true. I just wasn't talking about that aspect, since it was not
relevant to the particular point I was making.
The GPL is effectively doing two things at once: making the software
open-source, and also making it free. Only the freeness is really related
to the philosophy of copyright.
--
Barry Margolin, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
------------------------------
From: Arthur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Is it OK to re-release a GPL app as binary-only ?
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 12:24:43 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 04:25:06 -0800, Jeffrey B. Siegal wrote:
> >The problem with this reasoning is that you are framing it in terms that
> >assume that ownership of software is axiomatic: "people to buy *their*
> One question I'd like to ask those that don't believe in property rights --
> if the commercial software licensees have no legitimate claim of
> owership to software, then the same should apply to GPL authors. Does this
> mean that, provided I am not making a profit, it is legitimate for me
> to release binary-only derivatives of GPL'd works ?
> It seems that a lot of people are quick to flame those who breach the
> GPL, but on the other hand, they don't believe that other licenses need
> be honored. This would seem inconsistent. Either copyright is valid or
> it isn't.
Excellent point (if only because I've been thinking the same thing
as I read this thread), and I think you're correct. But I also think
you're asking the wrong question.
The question should be why, given the legal protections and absence
of liability that copyright owners enjoy (which will increase enormously
with UCITA), shouldn't software copyright holders be required to release
their source code to interested parties? It seems to me to be only
reasonable given that the copyright exists in the first place to promote
"Progress in Science and the Useful Arts".
There are basically three ways to protect IP: trade secrets (which
protect what you want to hide, but not what you sell), patents
(which protect your ideas, but require disclosure) and copyrights
(which protect your expression of ideas, but not the ideas themselves).
It seems to me that the situation in software (especially with the
advent of DMCA and UCITA) is that software mfgs want the benefits
of trade secrets with patent protection of ideas under the guise
of copyrights.
My objection isn't to paying for software. My objection is the
absence of the situation the GPL creates: I, and more especially
more knowlegeable people than I, can't see the underlying source,
so we can't fix bugs, plug security holes, promote interoperation,
*learn new techniques* and lots of other things. If the source
were readable, proprietary standards would be impossible. If the
source were readable, everyone's IP rights would be better enforced.
If the source were readable, monopolies would be more difficult
to establish and maintain and competition would be enhanced.
Arthur
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 21:41:39 +0100
Clark Pacheco wrote:
> I'm still baffled you said Linux was a better Web Server than FreeBSD or
> Solaris.... But Lets see what some of the top site have to say about this...
I never anything about Linux as a webserver... Solaris is certainly a
better webserver than anything else including Linux on powerrfull hardware.
Compared to FreeBSD Linux is at least as good, here is why; If FreeBSD had
better performance then the kernel developers could simply grab that code
from FreeBSD and even change the licence to LGPL.. Changing Linux code to
BSD licence would not be possible.
But why compare FreeBSD to Linux - they are cousins (take a look at the
FreeBSD site and read a bit)... The main developemnt on Linux is for me the
desktops enviroments Gnome (and now Easel) and KDE.. FreeBSD seems to
concentrate on servers... so i wouldnt have any problem using FreeBSD for
server and Linux for the desktop. If i found FreeBSD to be a better
enviroment than Linux i would switch and still say that NT is crap.
> Yahoo, Hotmail, and CDRom.com all run on FreeBSD
Yeah... Deja.com, Etoys and Realnetworks run on Linux... but see above
> Go, Zoom, AOL, Netscape, Excite, CNN, Cnet, Download.com, Sportsline, Sony,
> Macromedia (need I go on...) all run on Solaris
See above Clark
> And then Most of the other big sites run on Digital's products or IIS....
>
> So if Linux is so much better then what major sites have opted to use Linux
> over FreeBSD or Solaris?
>
> If I'm a poor sod then tell me what bigger web sites than what I've listed
> use Linux?
You poor thing Clark.... i never said Linux was a better platform for
webservers than Solaris....
BTW.... I have some family named Pacheco that emigrated to the California
many years ago.(i think in the 20's or 30's). I surely hope youre NOT one of
those Pachecos or i will have to spank some other Pachecos i know!!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Is it OK to re-release a GPL app as binary-only ?
Date: 25 Feb 2000 20:48:25 GMT
On 25 Feb 2000 18:13:14 GMT, Aaron M. Renn wrote:
>On 25 Feb 2000 17:35:34 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>mean that, provided I am not making a profit, it is legitimate for me
>>to release binary-only derivatives of GPL'd works ?
>
>Free software has nothing to do with "profit".
Yes, I strongly agree with you. Open source licenses are not talking about
"free beer".
>Copyright exists. The GPL is an attempt to use the existing legal structures
>to ensure that software remains free.
Yes, but not free as in beer. Without those existing structures, anyone
would be able to hoard GPL'd code. If the GNU crowd really didn't want to
place restrictions on their software, they wouldn't use the GPL, which is
a restrictive license that uses the copyright system to force authors
of derivative works to release under the same license. BTW, to clarify
my position, I would say that the GPL authors have every right to do this.
>to make software non-free. The copyright laws merely give software companies
>another legal weapon to attack people who
Not just software companies, but anyone who licenses software.
>signing a license agreement. Even in a no-copyright world, the GPL might
>still be a useful contract for keeping software free.
Again, you have the same kind of problems that you'd have releasing
proprietary software.
BTW, when I said "legitimate", I meant "ethical". Yes, perhaps I could
have been clearer.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kaz Kylheku)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Is it OK to re-release a GPL app as binary-only ?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 21:04:45 GMT
On 25 Feb 2000 19:29:55 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 18:19:59 GMT, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>
>>However, in such a world, the present model for controlling proprietary
>>software would exist either. Sure, you could release code in binary only form,
>>but everyone would copy the binaries.
>
>Repeat after me: "Free SPEECH, not free beer".
>
>The GPL is all about using restrictive licenses to keep the source free.
However, in the above paragraph, I am not talking about the GPL. So what
you are saying is not in contrast.
>If they wanted to allow gratis binary-only derivatives, they could specify
>so in the license. It seems clear this is *not* what RMS had in mind.
I didn't say anything about money. All I said was that the practice of
restrictive licensing and binary only software would not exist in a world that
is free of copyright. That would include gratis binaries as well. Gratis
proprietary binaries are not freely redistributable; they are subject to
licensing agreements as well. (And anyway, they are usually offered by a company
for the reasons of entrenching themselves in the market to which they hope to
be an exlusive supplier of non-gratis binaries.)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 21:15:49 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 04:42:19 GMT,
Mark Christensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What if the Santa Claus machine works over a distance like a camera.
>> Mommy don't even have to borrow Bobby's toy. Should Bobby be granted
>> an artificial right to refuse her the permission to copy?
>
>This reminds me of a fake op-ed piece about a world where "stealing"
>someone's fire is criminalized by congress.
>
>It was written by L. Fitzgerald Sjöberg, and it is quite persuasive, not to
>mention very funny.
>
>Here's the first couple of lines, and a link to the rest:
>
>> As most of you are aware, congress has recently passed as law to allow
>> copyright to be applied to individual works of fire, both in terms of
>> actual fires and in terms of manufactured oxidation potential like matches
>> and lighters.
>
>> I, for one, am glad to see justice finally served. I mean, think about it.
>> You go through all the work to create a fire, and someone comes up
>> to your fire and pokes a stick in it. They can then walk away, having
>> stolen your fire, and use it for anything.
>
>http://www.brunching.com/features/feature-copyfire.html
>
>As far as I can tell it's at least a year old, but it almost sounds like a
>response to the UCTIA fiasco.
I think it is older than that.
--
***** Phil Hunt ***** send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] *****
Moore's Law: hardware speed doubles every 18 months
Gates' Law: software speed halves every 18 months
------------------------------
** 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.advocacy) 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-Advocacy Digest
******************************
