Linux-Advocacy Digest #438, Volume #25 Tue, 29 Feb 00 05:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers ("David ..")
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Microsoft's New Motto ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
ActiveX (Damien)
Re: Linux Gets Worldwide Recognition (Damien)
Re: Giving up on NT (Mike Marion)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (Mike Marion)
Re: Recent denial of service attacks (Satch)
Re: Video Conferencing on Linux (bln)
Phreaker/Hacker/Cracker [was: Re: Recent denial of service attacks] (Jaro Larnos)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "David .." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 00:09:03 -0600
Hi All,
I won't get in this argument. Windos?? Why you can only do one thing
at a time. I have 18 setiathome files running, a mail server a proxy
server, junkbuster, and a firewall all at the same time and still have
plenty of system to get online browse the web and still do more without
the dreaded blue screen of death.
I'll "NEVER" go back to M$.
Feel The Power!
The power of a REAL OS!! ;o)
David
--
Due to extreme SPAM abuse! Remove z's and x's from above to reply.
Thnak the spammer's A..holes that they are. Still can't reach me?
Then your address range is already blocked due to previous spam.
Sorry! I hate spam!!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 06:44:52 GMT
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >Sun attempts to bash Microsoft for not having a 64-bit OS/platform.
>>
>> Do they? References? Of course, they would be correct to do so --- MS
>> *does not* have a 64 bit OS right now, and the smallness of 32 bit address
>> spaces are quickly becoming a problem in many areas.
>MS has Windows 2000/64 in beta right now and it works right now and runs on
>64 bit processors right now.
They have a 64 bit OS *in development*. You can't buy it, I can't buy it.
When making purchase decisions, 64 bit NT does not come into it.
Bernie
--
If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens,
how incapable must Man be of learning from experience
George Bernard Shaw
Irish playwright, 1856-1950
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: 29 Feb 2000 17:13:53 +1100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>How's the Trillian Linux64 team doing?
>http://www.zdnet.com/sr/stories/news/0,4538,2431772,00.html
>Hey! A public beta... but wait... when you start reading the
>fine print, SMP has got a long way to go (gasp! I thought linux
>was so well designed, it should've been a snap to get SMP working
>in 64-bit, guess that hacked puke of SMP support in the Linux
>kernel was a more hacked piece of puke than they thought).
Or you could fire up Babel and read this one:
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/odi-28.02.00-001/
Bernie
--
Human blunders, however, usually do more to shape history
than human wickedness
A.J.P. Taylor
British historian, 1906-90
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 29 Feb 2000 07:05:40 GMT
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 05:27:29 GMT, Mark Christensen wrote:
>You seem to have missed my main point, and therefore you have avoided the
>one question which might bring some sanity to this discussion.
>
>What exactly is it about the basic tenants of capitalism which requires
>anyone who accepts the basic tenants of capitalism to be either in favor of
>intellectual property law, or inconsistent?
I don't answer this because I don't wish to debate it -- at least not now.
My main issue is with those who think that others
are morally obliged to share with them but they are not morally obliged to
share with others.
This is ultimately my main point -- you either are for or against sharing.
But to be opposed to sharing in general, but at the same time, to hold a
position that others should be forced to share with you -- that is something
I consider to be hypocritical.
The right to property would be the main capitalist principal I would cite.
Denial of the validity of intellectual property is a thinly vieled attack on
the right to property. The second principal I would cite is that enlightened
self interest is an essential precursor to productivity. In particular,
you can hurt or destroy an industry by attacking its means to generate revenue.
The "cosource" advocates have not offered instances of companies that have
profited from developing end user applications. In other words, they are
unable to offer evidence that destroying copyright would not destroy the
application software industry.
I'll say this again -- I present this only so you can see where I'm coming
from. I don't wish to debate it because I haven't got the time right now
to get stuck in a long, complex and philosophical debate.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.conspiracy.microsoft
Subject: ActiveX
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 29 Feb 2000 07:07:37 GMT
On Sun, 27 Feb 2000 16:34:59 GMT, in alt.microsoft.sucks,
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Granted, there are some security issues, but Microsoft is working
| on them. They have fixed most of the glaring holes in IE 5.xx.
The've fixed *most* of the glaring security holes? What glaring
security holes are left? You find this acceptable?
| Please, tell us what you know of ActiveX and why it's "crap".
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Linux Gets Worldwide Recognition
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 29 Feb 2000 07:10:46 GMT
On Sun, 27 Feb 2000 16:25:25 GMT, in alt.microsoft.sucks,
Roger <roger@.> wrote:
| On 27 Feb 2000 02:15:21 GMT, someone claiming to be Donovan Rebbechi
| wrote:
|
| >On 27 Feb 2000 01:41:57 GMT, Damien wrote:
| >>On 27 Feb 2000 00:28:10 GMT, in alt.microsoft.sucks,
|
| >>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| >>| On 26 Feb 2000 21:14:31 GMT, Damien wrote:
|
| >>"[The MS Office file formats] all made freely available from the MS
| >>msdn website in 1998. Since then they have been removed,"
|
| I was unaware that they had been -- the link I had pointed to the old
| site, and a quick search was fruitless, but as has been pointed out,
| it's still on the MSDN CS>
|
| >>One can speculate as to why.
|
| Perhaps because that's where your hidden backdoor is, Damien?
MS published the docs, then realized that openfile formats, even if
they are designed in such a way as to make them as difficult to parse
as possible on more then one platform, would not help them keep people
from using other platforms.
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[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: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 07:38:24 GMT
Todd wrote:
> Wow... didn't know that. It'll make Matrix look a whole lot better.
Oh yeah, I've seen our HDTV stuff in my company's digital cinema group... it's a
pretty old set (in HDTV terms) but it still makes TV (even DVDs using SVHS) look
like total crap.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
UNIX - live it,love it,fork() it !
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 07:59:24 GMT
5X3 wrote:
> Both Accubyte and Paragon Technology, Inc. had athlon 850s available for
> shipment at 4pm, EST today.
Man, here in San Diego, we tend to have the fasted processors available in
stores all over, stock doesn't seem to be a problem. I'm sure glad I don't have
to mail order those types of parts. Then again, you can't drive a friggin'
block in this town without passing another small computer store. Prices here
are pretty good too.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
My karma ran over your dogma.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.admin,comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: Recent denial of service attacks
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Satch)
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 07:59:34 GMT
[posted and mailed]
Allegedly [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jaro Larnos) said on 28
Feb 2000 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> the following:
> One question.. How many people have gotten this hacker
> - cracker thing wrong?
You mean, how many of them get it RIGHT? Read on...
> I'm serious, someone did actually mess these two words
> and their meaning pretty well because I nowadays only
> here of crackers, not hackers and this is quite poor.
The people who originally coined the word "hacker" disagree with you, and
rather strongly. The original misuse of the word "hacker" arguably stems
from the news reports of the "414s" phone phreakers group that got busted.
Some headline editor (myth has it the editor worked for The Detroit News)
was looking for something short and "punchy" and came across the word
"hacker" -- and that was the beginning of the disinformation exercise.
> A Cracker was and might be that one still is or those
> are, the people who disable copy protections on
> software and then distribute those through software
> pirates.
Crackers by definition are people who "break into" systems and software.
This includes disabling copy protection. Crackers rarely engage in the
distribution of cracked software; that's the realm of the WaReZ-hEaDs.
> A Hacker, is the one who penetrates a computer
> system's login or some other way makes it through
> to the hacked system's shell to execute commands
> in. A hacker can also "hack" into databases and
> terminalservers, routers etc. etc.
Actually, a "hacker" in the computer sense is a person who solves problems.
When a solution is elegent (as opposed to workmanlike) then it is referred
to as a "hack"; when a solution is particularly nifty and cool then it's a
"neat hack." Adjectives go up from there.
The reason that so many people have the misconception that you do is rooted
in arcane history. Many of the early hackers couldn't afford the computer
time (US$18 per second in today's money) to hone their craft -- we can't
all be Bill Gates with a personal VAX. Universities had these computer
systems that were donated by manufacturers to the schools, and the
bureaucrats (in their infinite wisdom) forgot they were running centers of
learning and placed interesting administrative controls around these
computers. Early hackers, therefore, had to learn how to get around the
security blockades to get the CPU time they needed to practice their craft.
Many of the security workarounds were exchanged among the first generation
of hackers, but the real joy came with the solutions to problems and not
the cracking of security systems. Unfortunately, the second generation
didn't realize that system cracking was a means to an end, and so in order
to "prove themselves" the second generation were more bold (and less
careful) about how they stole resources. Indeed, system cracking got a bad
name because the second generation, not content with just computer time,
started to leave "calling cards" to "prove" that they were WaY cOoL.
They weren't, they aren't, and they never will be, way cool.
The MIT group (usually associated with the MIT Model Railroad Club) were
lucky in that there were minicomputers around the campus that were begging
to be used...
> One doesn't "crack" a server, but hacks it. Where
> have people gone this wrong??? I know the media
> loves the word "cracker" with not really even knowing
> what it means.
The media used to love the word "hacker" to refer to criminal activity
involving the phone system, computers, or satellite systems. Some hackers
got journalists thinking about this when those journalists were asked if
the entire profession should be tarred by a suitable moniker that refers to
the worst of the breed. The Internet Press Guild (www.netpress.org) has
done its small effort to correct usage, too, so that "hacker" is now less
perjorative than it was in the middle 1990s.
> Every time something happens on Internet, it's a
> "cracker" which it really isn't.
If you prefer, it's the acts of "cyber-criminals," "cyber-terrorists," or
"cyber-deliquents." Those three terms are more accurate, although it
doesn't fit on a headline very well. In some cases, drop the "cyber" as
unnecessary.
> There are two types of hackers, the ones who don't
> and the ones who do. If one has the knowledge to
> do so whether to hack into or even exploit a server
> he becomes a hacker it doesn't make him/her a
> criminal unless (s)he uses this knowledge to really
> attack and disable a server, or even a connected
> PC. Nevertheless neither of these is a cracker.
Actually, there are literally hundreds of types of hackers. The field of
hacking is a fertile one, and goes way beyond computers. In a narrow
sense, the principal difference between an engineer and a hacker is as
follows:
Engineer: finds a workable solution to a problem.
Hacker: finds an elegent solution to a problem, usually by completely
rethinking the problem and thus finding a whole different direction.
Rather than doing it the same ol' way yet again, the hacker will draw from
unusual disciplines to execute a solution that is both workable...and art.
Consider the art world. You have people who earn their living by painting
sofa pictures by the gross, or hammer out "government art". These people
are known only to a few. Then you have the people who, during their time,
set the world on its ear with their work. They aren't content with turning
out sofa paintings or government art. They do things in a new way. They
are the ones that have their name associated with "schools" of art.
Hackers go far beyond the needs of the moment. Consider Thompson at Bell
Labs: his job was to take an old PDP-7 and turn it into something that a
group of lawyers could use as a word processing system. Rather than sit
down in assembler and craft up a word processing system, he took a
different tack and came up with the precursor of the Unix Operating System.
And why did he do that? He wanted to reduce the time it would take to do a
workable writer's workbench. And succeeded.
> You don't crack into systems, you crack a code.
> A hacker and a cracker can co-operate, while the
> other one hacks into system's the other one cracks
> for instance the userbase crypta. This still doesn't
> make both of these people crackers.
Here's something to think about: true cracking, where the person
discovering the shortcomings of systems and designing exploits to take
advantage of those shortcomings, is performing an act of black hacking.
The guy is indeed a hacker, albiet one that hackers don't like to talk
about.
What most people think about when they thinking of "cracking" is in reality
second-rate people who use the work of the true hacker cracker and
replaying his work on a large scale. In the circles I frequent, these
wannabes are referred to as "script kiddies", referring to the scripts that
control the software that bang on the gates of remote systems, not to
mention the emotional age of some of the people who do this sort of stuff.
I apologize for the length of this contribution. It's long. It wasn't to
meet the "requirement" that the original contribution be longer than the
quoted material. Instead, I felt that a frank comparison of your
understanding of hacking vs. cracking, when compared to the truth, would
show why you most reasonably would hold the views that you do.
Oh, you ask, am I a hacker? That's a question I ask myself, and get asked
by others every year that I attend a conference of the original MIT Model
Railroad Club alumni. Frankly, the jury is still out, so put me down as a
definite maybe.
--
_____
__/satch\____________________________________________________________
Satchell Evaluations, testing modems since 1984, 'Netting since 1971
satch at concentric dot net [OR] satch at fluent dash access dot com
"Is spamming a spammer counter-spamming?" www.fluent-access.com
------------------------------
From: bln <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Video Conferencing on Linux
Date: 29 Feb 2000 08:05:38 GMT
Houssam Owayed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Guys,
: Does any one know if there is a video conferencing tool for Linux. I am
: using Mandrake Linux 7.0 ( kernel 2.2.14). I need to access ils servers.
: Regards,
There are a very good CuSeeMe client for Linux named Q-seeme
and some others for videoconferencing on networks that support
multicast trafic, like these:
VIC
NV
IVS
Rendervouz
http://www.cs.duke.edu/~reynolds/quickcam/index.html
http://www.oxygene.500mhz.net/mbone.html
- bln
------------------------------
From: Jaro Larnos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.admin,comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Phreaker/Hacker/Cracker [was: Re: Recent denial of service attacks]
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 09:36:34 GMT
Satch wrote:
> > One question.. How many people have gotten this hacker
> > - cracker thing wrong?
>
> You mean, how many of them get it RIGHT? Read on...
>
> > I'm serious, someone did actually mess these two words
> > and their meaning pretty well because I nowadays only
> > here of crackers, not hackers and this is quite poor.
>
> The people who originally coined the word "hacker" disagree with you, and
> rather strongly. The original misuse of the word "hacker" arguably stems
> from the news reports of the "414s" phone phreakers group that got busted.
> Some headline editor (myth has it the editor worked for The Detroit News)
> was looking for something short and "punchy" and came across the word
> "hacker" -- and that was the beginning of the disinformation exercise.
Yes but wasn't it that it was disinformational when relating to
phreaking, or as to say they mean the same thing which they
really do not. But nowadays, or maybe a couple of years back
when I used to run a BBS I knew a term hacker, which wasn't
quite the same as phreaker since hackers "hacked" on BBS
systems and somewhat big systems like onto Pentagons
computers.
To phreak is an outdated issue as today but thanks for bringing
it up. It's nice to know people still remember the times everything
was analog :)
> > A Cracker was and might be that one still is or those
> > are, the people who disable copy protections on
> > software and then distribute those through software
> > pirates.
>
> Crackers by definition are people who "break into" systems and software.
> This includes disabling copy protection. Crackers rarely engage in the
> distribution of cracked software; that's the realm of the WaReZ-hEaDs.
First there was code, then there was connections, I suppose
Crackers didn't know much about connections when they
"cracked" copyrighted games from a C64 or Vic20 to another.
And I didn't say they engaged the distribution, they surely
had and still have their channels I believe.
> > A Hacker, is the one who penetrates a computer
> > system's login or some other way makes it through
> > to the hacked system's shell to execute commands
> > in. A hacker can also "hack" into databases and
> > terminalservers, routers etc. etc.
>
> Actually, a "hacker" in the computer sense is a person who solves problems.
> When a solution is elegent (as opposed to workmanlike) then it is referred
> to as a "hack"; when a solution is particularly nifty and cool then it's a
> "neat hack." Adjectives go up from there.
Could be, but similarly escape doesn't always mean break out.
> The reason that so many people have the misconception that you do is rooted
> in arcane history. Many of the early hackers couldn't afford the computer
> time (US$18 per second in today's money) to hone their craft -- we can't
> all be Bill Gates with a personal VAX. Universities had these computer
> systems that were donated by manufacturers to the schools, and the
> bureaucrats (in their infinite wisdom) forgot they were running centers of
> learning and placed interesting administrative controls around these
> computers. Early hackers, therefore, had to learn how to get around the
> security blockades to get the CPU time they needed to practice their craft.
Agreed.
> Many of the security workarounds were exchanged among the first generation
> of hackers, but the real joy came with the solutions to problems and not
> the cracking of security systems. Unfortunately, the second generation
> didn't realize that system cracking was a means to an end, and so in order
> to "prove themselves" the second generation were more bold (and less
> careful) about how they stole resources. Indeed, system cracking got a bad
> name because the second generation, not content with just computer time,
> started to leave "calling cards" to "prove" that they were WaY cOoL.
Yes, you mean "hacking" got a bad name due cracking?
Those calling cards you are referring might as well be a message
to other netabusers too. A media trick saying "I managed to do
this, can someone do it better?"
> They weren't, they aren't, and they never will be, way cool.
I suppose so.
> > One doesn't "crack" a server, but hacks it. Where
> > have people gone this wrong??? I know the media
> > loves the word "cracker" with not really even knowing
> > what it means.
>
> The media used to love the word "hacker" to refer to criminal activity
> involving the phone system, computers, or satellite systems. Some hackers
> got journalists thinking about this when those journalists were asked if
> the entire profession should be tarred by a suitable moniker that refers to
> the worst of the breed. The Internet Press Guild (www.netpress.org) has
> done its small effort to correct usage, too, so that "hacker" is now less
> perjorative than it was in the middle 1990s.
But I recent the use of "cracker" in this subject of deeds,
it mainly referred code cracking at the beginning. If it's
later become a terminology of today it just sounds too
bogus for it. Since it was misinterpreted to "hacking"
from "phreaking" and only later was introduced the word
"cracking" to describe someone dug into systems through
using the net or phonelines.
> > Every time something happens on Internet, it's a
> > "cracker" which it really isn't.
>
> If you prefer, it's the acts of "cyber-criminals," "cyber-terrorists," or
> "cyber-deliquents." Those three terms are more accurate, although it
> doesn't fit on a headline very well. In some cases, drop the "cyber" as
> unnecessary.
They are just plainly "criminals" for me but I can't let go
of the fact some of these so called "criminals" tend to be
only 10 to 15 years of age. That's pretty young to be
called a criminal.
> Actually, there are literally hundreds of types of hackers. The field of
> hacking is a fertile one, and goes way beyond computers. In a narrow
> sense, the principal difference between an engineer and a hacker is as
> follows:
>
> Engineer: finds a workable solution to a problem.
>
> Hacker: finds an elegent solution to a problem, usually by completely
> rethinking the problem and thus finding a whole different direction.
> Rather than doing it the same ol' way yet again, the hacker will draw from
> unusual disciplines to execute a solution that is both workable...and art.
Kernel hacker, source-code hacker etc. yea I get the point.
[clipped, agreed]
> > You don't crack into systems, you crack a code.
> > A hacker and a cracker can co-operate, while the
> > other one hacks into system's the other one cracks
> > for instance the userbase crypta. This still doesn't
> > make both of these people crackers.
>
> Here's something to think about: true cracking, where the person
> discovering the shortcomings of systems and designing exploits to take
> advantage of those shortcomings, is performing an act of black hacking.
> The guy is indeed a hacker, albiet one that hackers don't like to talk
> about.
Although I know many of whom have had the skill of not just
use or create an exploit but to fix it sequently. Isn't that a positive
remark?
> What most people think about when they thinking of "cracking" is in reality
> second-rate people who use the work of the true hacker cracker and
> replaying his work on a large scale. In the circles I frequent, these
> wannabes are referred to as "script kiddies", referring to the scripts that
> control the software that bang on the gates of remote systems, not to
> mention the emotional age of some of the people who do this sort of stuff.
I'd like a term "netwiz" for these true hackers, indeed you've
made a point in showing hackers are not criminals. But as I
mentioned it earlier to "hack" is not to "crack", since the
word's inner sence is different.
As to myself I wouldn't like to be called a cracker nor a
criminal if I found out a way to get into someone elses
server or network. I tend not to violate someone elses
property. There are many cases people with right mind
and the ability (knowledge) to find the insecure spots of
any system would then report them to the systems admin.
> I apologize for the length of this contribution. It's long. It wasn't to
> meet the "requirement" that the original contribution be longer than the
> quoted material. Instead, I felt that a frank comparison of your
> understanding of hacking vs. cracking, when compared to the truth, would
> show why you most reasonably would hold the views that you do.
I wholeheartedly admit I have just resulted in similar quote
centric long length reply but nevertheless it was nice to meet
something else than bigotic or self centered replies to mine.
I thank you for bringing these things out the open.
> Oh, you ask, am I a hacker? That's a question I ask myself, and get asked
> by others every year that I attend a conference of the original MIT Model
> Railroad Club alumni. Frankly, the jury is still out, so put me down as a
> definite maybe.
We are all definite maybe anything, from my point of view. It
just isn't sure if "maybe" makes us more obvious in our scores
or ideals. We are hackers to many, to ourselves we might not
even be such. Anything is possible. I believe if there's a will,
there's a way and if there's a way to deliver safety to the net
by hacking, maybe it makes me a hacker too. "Maybe".
-J
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
