Linux-Advocacy Digest #405, Volume #25 Sat, 26 Feb 00 16:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux And MS Exchange Server (Greg Copeland)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Windows 2000: flat sales (Greg Copeland)
Re: Free Anti-Win95 MPEG! ("Rich Cloutier")
Re: The latest from IDC ( Was Re: Linux sales. ) (5X3)
Re: IE on UNIX (nohow)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Mig Mig)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Mig Mig)
ProSplitter 2000 is released FREE for Linux ("Oscar Agra")
Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers (Cliff Wagner)
Re: Propagandist Chad Myers Lies About Linux 150 Times (Cliff Wagner)
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (Mario Klebsch)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux And MS Exchange Server
From: Greg Copeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 19:11:33 GMT
Mark Hamstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Morton, Andrew [WOLL:4009-M:EXCH]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > John F wrote:
> > >
> > > I would like to use Linux at work but we have a MS Exchange Server
> > > running the interoffice mail, common calendar, contacts, etc. Outlook Web
> > > Access isn't an alternative because is very limited and, of course, it
> > > basically sucks. My question is; Does anyone make an Exchange Server client
> > > for Linux? Is anyone working on one? Thanks in advance.
> >
> >
> > http://cobra.bynari.net/
>
> Working on it: yes. Available Exchange functionality: nope.
>
> From the Bynari web site:
>
> "Notice: These binaries do not include functionality of Microsoft
> Exchange(r). Such functionality is available only when you have
> the TradeMail server components."
>
> cf. http://cobra.bynari.net/launch.shtml
>
> --
> Mark Hamstra
> Bentley Systems, Inc.
To fill in a little more detail, the TradeMail (soon to be renamed to PeerMail
[last I heard]) Server is actually a replacement for Exchange. The TradeMail
client (soon to be PeerMail) does not require the PeerMail Server to interact
with Exchange.
Greg
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 26 Feb 2000 19:15:40 GMT
On 26 Feb 2000 02:11:57 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>In gnu.misc.discuss, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I have no such notion. However, I believe that in the context of a
>> capitalist economy, they are more or less essential.
>
>This is the point where you two apparently disagree.
>
>Given that to my knowledge there has never been an otherwise
>fully-developed and stable capitalist economy without the notion of
>copyright and patents, at least in the modern era, there doesn't appear to
>be much in the way of empirical evidence to support either of your
>positions.
The existence of a mature capitalist economy with copyrights would appear
to support my position.
However, the lack of existence of a capitalist economy
without copyrights would lend no support to either position.
However, one could point to countries where copyright protection is more
or less ignored and unenforced, despite being enshrined in the legal system.
Examples include Taiwan, Singapore, Japan and the former Hong Kong.
It's interesting to note that the leaders in development of quality
proprietary software are countries which do honor copyright law.
I'd also point out that where the US does not have strong
copyright laws -- in type design, they have simply dropped the ball
and forced a lot of the small time designers into poverty or
out of business. In the area of type design, several of the major
foundries are German, and there are several smaller ones in Germany
and Northern Europe, while the US where one can buy warez font CDs
in stores does not enjoy the same amount of stature that it does in
other parts of the software market.
Of course, there's a causality problem in my argument -- does the
copyright protection arise because of a strong industry or does
the strong industry arise because it is enabled by copyright
protection ? My opinion is that like many causality relations,
this one is at least partially cyclic ( ie both statements are partly
true ).
--
Donovan
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: flat sales
From: Greg Copeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 19:17:36 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Greg Copeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > First of all, from what I gather, based on several benchmarks and
> > comments that I've read from Microsoft, is that W2K, as a whole, is
> > slower than NT4.0. I expect that this is to change, but as I understood
> > it, they actually took a stability is actually a priority stance (a first
> > for Microsoft). As such, they supposedly took some minor performance hits
> > over it's previous version.
>
> Every benchmark i've seen so far has rated Win2k at least 5% faster in most
> things than NT4.
>
> > > 1.) Hotmail is going to be migrated, Microsoft has stated it's plans
> > > to do so
> >
> > Again, from what I've been reading, it's been planned RSN for a long
> > time. Quiet honestly, I have no idea how they plan on being able to
> > realistically do that. NT just isn't there to be able to handle this kind
> > load. And, even if you assume that it can handle the load (just for sake
> > of making a point), there is NO WAY that the systems would stay up for
> > longer than a day at a time. This means that their uptime and stabilities
> > would seriously fall off. Not exactly a good way to advertise their
> > technology. Deep down, you have to know this. Microsoft is very aware
> > that they have serious stability issues. As such, NT 5.0 is their first
> > attempt at beginning to address them. Realistically, plan on one to two
> > years before any serious advancements are made in the arena.
>
> MS runs www.microsoft.com, one of the busiest sites in the world entirely
> off of NT. MS never upgraded these servers to NT4 though, they ran on NT
> 3.51 with IIS 4. Now, MS has upgraded many of those machines to Win2k
> running IIS5. They've been doing this since Win2k was still in beta, which
> says a lot for MS's confidence in Win2k.
This is an important distinction. More than likely, it's IIS that has been
getting faster and NT that got slower. IIS has come a long way. It's well
known that performance was job one with everything else a solid third. :)
Given that IIS is probably gotten 10-20% faster, it can/could easily mask
a performance drop in the OS.
>
> I doubt that hotmail get's more hits than MS's other sites.
>
> > > 2.) If you weren't so fricking ignorant (or a flaming troll) you would
> > > know that converting something the size of the Hotmail application
> > > from legacy platforms is not something you do overnight.
> >
> > Actually, what's running on Hotmail is extreemly simple stuff. Doing a
> > port would be very simple. Let's face it, take a look at what all Hotmail
> > does. A reasonably sized team could whip that up in a very short
> duration.
> > There's really isn't that much there. My point? Obviously, if they were
> > really wanting to move from the platform, a company with the resources
> that
> > Microsoft has could have EASILY rolled it over as part of their W2K
> > brewhaha(sp?). They simply didn't. I'd guess to say that Hotmail scares
> > the hell out of them because of the negitive press that it COULD generate.
> > As such, it's better to have a couple people whinning about how Hotmail
> isn't
> > NT rather than having major press pointing at problems with such a high
> profile
> > case.
>
> Not as simple as you might think. Hotmail has a custom written TCP/IP stack
> and custom data stores. Essentially this means that Hotmail has completely
> replace the stock Solaris TCP/IP stack with a heavily customized one, and
> they've replaced the file system with a heavily customized one to give
> absolute performance (probably at the cost of removing functionality which
> they do not use for Hotmail, such UDP packets).
>
> I'm pretty sure MS was waiting for Win2k to be finished before working on
> the migration.
>
> > I hope you can see, that it really makes no sense for them to convert
> > Hotmail at this point in time.
>
> Except for MS to use it as a marketing tool.
Actually, that's not true. The stack had minor changes made to it to
handle the nature of the site. As I understand it, those changes are
now standard part of OS because the need for it is no longer considered
a niche. Furthermore, having/not having UDP has no impact here. I
stick to my original comment. You've provided no new information.
Greg
------------------------------
From: "Rich Cloutier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Free Anti-Win95 MPEG!
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 14:25:34 -0500
"allsafe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> You guys would appreciate this:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/the_real_waysafe/Blast_win95.html?951463346020
>
> Quick little video that would only tickle the denizens of this group.
>
> (I ain't selling nothing, and you're only two clicks away from
> downloading a free 22 second MPEG video that every pissed-off Win95 user
> could understand)
>
I appreciate your sentiments, but I abhor violence; especially violence
against trees. (Not to mention the fact that you've ruined a perfectly good
jewel case.)
--
Rich C.
"Have you supported a new Linux user today?"
To reply by email, remove the "abc_" from my address.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Subject: Re: The latest from IDC ( Was Re: Linux sales. )
Date: 26 Feb 2000 19:32:50 GMT
Greg Copeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wow. I've been looking at a number of postings made by you. You
> consistently ignore any opinion and fact that doesn't meet your personal
> view point. Your comments are well written. I assume that you are
> intelligent, however, making comments that people don't spell well (yes,
> I don't spell well and tend not to use spell checkers) and include that
> as cutting commentary only detracts from any point that you are trying
> to make. You also seem to have a habit of taking out any contextual
> comments in your reply that would directly counter points that you
> attempt to be making. Overall, you've established little to no
> credibility with me. Below is a good example. It really doesn't matter
> that you agree or disagree with his analogy. If the analogy illustrated
> the authors point, it IS a good analogy. Often, when people have no
> other basis for counter, the analogy is attacked rather than the issue
> the author was attempting address.
Its like youve never read an advocacy group before or something.
p0ok
------------------------------
From: nohow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IE on UNIX
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 11:41:40 -0800
On Sat, 26 Feb 2000 11:10:47 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Michael Wand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Then why hasn't Unix progressed beyond what it has?
>>
>> In what respect do you think Unix has not progressed? Just because an old,
>> good concept is still used? (This includes a well-structured filesystem,
>> for example).
>
>I'm not the one claiming that Microsoft has held the computing world back by
>a decade.
>
>And, if ext2 is so wonderful, why are there 5 projects going for next
>generation filesystems?
>
>> > Microsoft has been pushing NT, which has 0% of DOS in it for 7 years.
>The
>> > consumer populace has not accepted it.
>>
>> So why? Because
>>
>> [ ] it is too expensive?
>> [ ] it does not support modern DirectX versions? (Why?)
>> [ ] .....................?
>
>All of the above. Although the biggest reason would probably be backwards
>compatibility. MS would have spent more effort on keeping DirectX up in NT4
>if more users were migrating.
>
>It's a chicken and egg scenario. At first they wouldn't move because there
>weren't very many 32 bit applications (in 1993-1995), so MS created Windows
>95 to get users to move to a 32 bit OS so that developers would start
>writing 32 bit apps. Next, the reason was because NT couldn't support Win95
>device drivers and hardware. So, MS created Win98 and Windows 2000 which
>merged device drivers. With Windows 2000, corporate users (which were the
>majority of Win9x's desktop sales) will likely be moving finally. For home
>users, Win2k is still much too complex, thus they'd probably stay with
>Win98, so MS needs an interim OS until Whistler ships (the so called
>consumer NT). That's Windows Millenium Edition.
>
>Microsoft knows that users would rather just stick with the OS they have if
>there is a significant reason not to upgrade. Back when MS and IBM were
>pushing OS/2, users stuck with Windows because it was more compatible than
>OS/2 was at the time, and later when MS and IBM split, users stuck with
>windows over OS/2 to MS's benefit.
>
When MS was pushing OS/2 the size of the Windows market was miniscule,
it was a DOS world. Users got shifted to Windows because of the OEM
computer market's dependency on DOS not because they choose Windows
over OS/2.
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 20:41:17 +0100
Robert Moir wrote:
>
> Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:896ooe$iae$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [...]
> > 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 ..
>
> Momentum = hype?
What hype? Who pays for that hype?
Momentun = The increasing number of users
> > 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
>
> OK, so Linux is better because more people use it? Well then, even Windows
> 95 is obviously better than Linux using your logic here. Wow, an interesting
> theory!
I didnt say that... but if you call that a theory then youve got a
problem. I just said that (nearly) everything that comes for any Unix also
comes to Linux.. and that the people developing for Linux are an
intelligent bunch..
> > 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.
>
> Software development happens on a lot of platforms.
Yes.. and some platforms are better than others.. depending on the
definition of better
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 20:49:48 +0100
Perry Pip wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 19:09:36 -0800, Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 16:56:59 -0500,
> > Drestin Black, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > brought forth the following words...:
> >
> >>
> >>"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> >>message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>> On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 11:07:29 -0500,
> >>> Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > Oh really? Think again. MOST banks use windows in their branches almost
> >>> > exclusively. Do you consider Prudential a small "banking" operation?
> >>60,000
> >>> > copies of W2K pro going on-line during these first 6 months (10,000
> >>> > laptops). I think it's time you visit your banks again.
> >>>
> >>> My bank (Deutsche Bank) changed from terminals to NT a couple of
> >>> years ago. I had a few lines with their people, saying that these
> >>> machines (just workplace ones were NTs, not the ATMs) crashed
> >>> often. I got an enthusiastic "yes, you should have told that to
> >>> our management before they changed". Guess the terminals were
> >>> more stable.
> >>>
> >
> ><Snip a bunch of German banks, few of which use NT or IIS>
> >
> >>>
> >>> as they say, the ball is on your side now ...
> >>
> >>German banks - not US. I will grant you that there are more German banks
> >>using some form of unix for their external website than IIS. I can't address
> >>the topic of German OS choices very well. I was speaking of US banks. Also,
> >>consider the important transactions happen on SSL - take a look at your
> >>netcraft survey regarding SSL servers - overwhelming majority are IIS and
> >>growing.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >Bank Of America, www.bofa.com SSL on Netscape-Enterprise
> >Couldn't find an SSL server on www.wellsfargo.com, but the http
> >was running on Netscape-Enterprise.
> >www.chase.com is also running SSL on Netscape-Enterprise
> >www.bankamerica.com um, Netscape-Enterprise for SSL
>
> Not to mention the very bank he mentioned:
> www.prudential.com: SSL on Netscape-Enterprise on AIX.
>
> And his business, drestinb.ic.net is running Apache on FreeBSD.
I just think he has a subdomain there at ic.net. He's main business seems
to be at www.callitechnic.com.
The strange part is that he claims to be a major operator on Networking on
NT (claims of installing software on Windows for "14000 seats" once -
this is very big). So i wonder why he does not host his own business. :)
Greetings
------------------------------
From: "Oscar Agra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: at.linux,aus.computers.linux,comp.os.linux.alpha
Subject: ProSplitter 2000 is released FREE for Linux
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 19:59:14 -0000
Hi everyone,
ProSplitter 2000 is finally released....
ProSplitter 2000 is available FREE for Linux and also available for
Windows 95/98/NT
ProSplitter 2000 is a fast and powerful file splitting utility.
ProSplitter 2000 makes it possible to transfer manageable sized files
through any medium and for any purpose. It offers via its
straightforward graphical interface a wealth of features which provide
a complete solution to your needs.
Features include :
- Easy to use graphical user interface
- Fast 32 bit splitting / joining of very large files or DIRECTORIES !
- Recursive archiving of directories
- File Compression
- DES (Data Encryption Standard) Encryption
- Robustness and Reliability guaranteed via CRC data checks
- Self-joining executable allows files to be joined without ProSplitter
- Attachment of comments to pieces
- Drag-and-Drop of files, directories and links (Win 95/98/NT only)
- Support for splitting via the Windows Explorer Context-Menu (Win 95/98/NT
only)
Download it directly from ;
For Win95/98/NT - http://www.prosplitter.co.uk/zips/psplit21.exe
Linux -
http://www.prosplitter.co.uk/zips/psplit21.tar.gz
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cliff Wagner)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.conspiracy.microsoft
Subject: Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers
Date: 26 Feb 2000 20:15:09 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 26 Feb 2000 09:56:33 +0000, Jason typed something like:
>Netscape screwed themselves over with 4.0, the codebase is unstable, and with no
>support for ActiveX...
>
>-J
No support for ActiveX is a bad thing?
-c-
>"Lewis A. Mettler" wrote:
>
>> Bill Gates did threaten Mr. Clark and the rest of the industry with the
>> bundling of its browser very early on.
>>
>> I guess Bill Gates knew they had a monopoly and could force their
>> customers to buy the dog food (i.e. IE) and some would even be foolish
>> enough to help sell that crap to others by also lying about the price.
>>
>
--
Cliff Wagner ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Visit The Edge Zone: http://www.edge-zone.net
"Man will Occasionally stumble over the truth, but most
of the time he will pick himself up and continue on."
-- Winston Churchill
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cliff Wagner)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Propagandist Chad Myers Lies About Linux 150 Times
Date: 26 Feb 2000 20:56:42 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:10:52 -0600, Chad Myers typed something like:
>
>"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> So then, what's the command to do a registry recover
>> to a specific 'known good' date?
>
>You can use the NT Recovery option on startup. There
>are also several tools (Microsoft and 3rd party)that
>allow you switch Control Sets and other functions.
Good reason to run rdisk.exe after any decent sized
modification and labeling it accordingly (i.e. post spX rdisk)
>Using the "Last Known Good" configuration is generally
>the most common. Of course, common is relative, seeing
>as how the registry never corrupts.
Never say "never" with anything computer related.
99.999% is not the same as 100%.
>The most common use for LKG is when/if you a.) make
>some critical mistake that prevents the system from
>booting (very difficult) or b.) install a driver that
>has some issue that prevents the system from booting
>properly.
Not too incredibly difficult to make a system change
that prevents a system from booting. I worked on
some misconfigured machines that installing SP4 on them
rendered every last one of them non-bootable.
>> What happens if your transaction log is toasted?
>
>** Disclaimer: This is my impression of how it works,
> I'm sure there might be someone who could talk more
> definitively about this subject
>
> 1.) The likelyhood of both the registry AND the
> log file getting nuked is nil
> 2.) If the log is nuked, the registry will most likely
> continue with what it's got currently and rebuild
> the log.
> 3.) If BOTH are nuked (very unlikely) you can either
> a.) Restore from backup
> b.) perform recovery steps and/or rebuilds
I've seen a lot of "very unlikely" situations come to
pass. Anything important should be backed up nightly.
In the event of the above, you could lose up to 23h59min
of changes (although, with a good backup program, you only
would lose any changes to the registry in that time period.)
> It's also important to note that the System Hive, which
> is the most critical hive (required for boot) is backed
> up before the log file is updated into the HIVE. So,
> if an update is in process, and both the hive and the
> log file get nuked, or the log file gets nuked and the
> hive is in an inconsistent state, the alternate System
> HIVE will be used. If all 3 files get nuked (highly
> unlikely) you will have to restore from backup.
>
> It's unlikely that the .alt file will get nuked, as its
> only open for a split second as it's being copied.
> If it does get nuked at that instance, the original
> system hive is still valid, so it doesn't matter.
Agreed. Although, once again, I've seen strange things
where even a Last Known Good wouldn't fix the problems.
Ended up restoring off of a 2 day old backup.
>> Can you mount the transaction log somewhere else?
>
> Not that I know of. I don't think you can, because that's
> a good thought. However, Microsoft is smarter than that,
> because they use transaction logging in many of their
> database-type systems like Exchange, SQL, etc. In all of
> those, you can choose different volumes to put them on.
> For some reason, with the registry they choose not to.
> I'm sure they know more about it than you or I and made
> an informed decision to keep it with the reg file itself.
They may have known more about the registry, however that doesn't
mean it isn't a design flaw. Not saying it is or isn't, however,
The idea does have merit IMO.
>> Is the transaction log visible and available for filesystem
>> level backup and recovery.
>
> Yes.
>
>
>Can you secure inividual options or configurations in a flat file?
/etc/system.rc vs ~/.userrc
fairly standard stuff.
>What happens when your conf file(s) get nuked?
You grab the last copy out of your CVS repository.
>Can you audit changes to individual options or configurations in a
> flat file?
man cvs
man rcs
>Can you delegate the access and/or modification of a specific
>section of the conf file to a sub-administrator?
Please give a practical application of this.
-c-
--
Cliff Wagner ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Visit The Edge Zone: http://www.edge-zone.net
"Man will Occasionally stumble over the truth, but most
of the time he will pick himself up and continue on."
-- Winston Churchill
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mario Klebsch)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking?
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 21:18:14 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Miquel van Smoorenburg) writes:
>You must be kidding, or you are using a weird system. I can run
>libc5, glibc 2.0 and glibc 2.1 X based applications at the same
>time without any problems.
I can run them at the same tine, too, but when the dynamic linker
schoeses the set of X11 libs linked against libc5 for a program using
libc6, I usually get errors about missing symbols. Here is one example:
./xisdnload: error in loading shared libraries: /usr/libc5/lib/libX11.so.6: undefined
symbol: _xstat
The shared library libX11 does have the same name (libX11.so.6), no
matter wether it requires libc5 or libc6. So I have to files called
libX11.so.6 on my system. I even observed situations, were an
application loaded both libcs, libc5 and libc6. :-(
73, Mario
--
Mario Klebsch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
