Linux-Advocacy Digest #457, Volume #25 Wed, 1 Mar 00 14:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: LINUX = COMUNISM more... (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Why waste time on Linux? ("ne...")
Re: My Windows 2000 experience ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (Donn Miller)
Re: Giving up on NT (JEDIDIAH)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Linux Gets Worldwide Recognition (Damien)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (JEDIDIAH)
Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto (Donn Miller)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (JEDIDIAH)
Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: what exactly is Linux advocacy? (JEDIDIAH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: 1 Mar 2000 18:24:48 GMT
In article <qu9v4.3350$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Mark S. Bilk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:89gomf$6rp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>In article <89fo31$fe8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>"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).
>>
>>It is Chad Myers' job to spew lies and hate against Linux, and
>>propaganda in favor of Microsoft, into comp.os.linux.advocacy
>>at every possible opportunity.
>
>Thanks for the warning, Pastor Mark.
>
>>>Or you could fire up Babel and read this one:
>>>http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/odi-28.02.00-001/
>
>Hello Mark. Do you even read my posts, or do you just immediately
>start writing your hate monger speeches?
I do read the copious and vicious anti-Linux propaganda that
Chad Myers posts to this Linux newsgroup on behalf of Microsoft.
>The articles I posted showed that there was SMP support running
>(kind of) with Linux on 64, but it's >2 processor support was
>suffering.
>
>Show me a linux box running 16 Itanium processors and taking
>good advantage of each processor, then you can call me a liar.
>
>Until then, you're just spewing lies of your own.
>
>-Chad
What Myers wrote here certainly qualifies as hate-propaganda
directed against Linux and its creators:
>>>>guess that hacked puke of SMP support in the Linux
>>>>kernel was a more hacked piece of puke than they thought).
Myers' many lies have been documented elsewhere, for example
the claim that he repeated 160 times that Linux users fre-
quently have to recompile the Linux kernel.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers
Subject: Re: LINUX = COMUNISM more...
Date: 1 Mar 2000 18:31:17 GMT
On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 09:07:38 GMT, Truckasaurus wrote:
>Look up communism;
Where ? A dictionary isn't sufficient.
> it's an order of society, where *the means of
>production* are owned by 'the people', or by the government on behalf of
>'the people'.
There are several definitions of the word "communism".
The one you offer is insufficient at best.
One I have in front of me is
"a political theory derived from Marx, advocating
class war and leading to a society in which all property is publically owned
and each person is paid and works according to his or her needs and abilities"
This is also wrong -- the correct word for this definition is "Marxism".
Marx did not invent communism. My point is that dictionary definitions
are somewhat naive.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "ne..." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why waste time on Linux?
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 18:39:19 GMT
On Mar 1, 2000 at 12:54, Niall Wallace eloquently wrote:
[...]
>Installed from Windows gave me Boot Magic so I can use the mouse to decide
>which OS I want to use, Seems to be capable of mounting almost every disk I
>have except my Mac Formatted discs.
You might want to look into hfsutils.
[...]
--
Registered Linux User # 125653
"I'd love to go out with you, but I'm having all my plants neutered."
1:37pm up 26 days, 2:14, 7 users, load average: 0.11, 0.15, 0.10
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: 1 Mar 2000 18:44:46 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Rob Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Unfortunately, it wasn't the best example, but I believe that pcAnywhere
: installs it's own drivers that run in ring 0, thereby sidestepping any
: crash protection the OS offers.
And you presumably understand *why* a remote control program must do
this: because the NT video drivers ALSO run in kernelspace (in ring 0
also if I'm not mistaken).
Microsoft chose to put them there because it would improve the speed
of graphic operations on slower machines - but this happens at the
price of system stability, because, now, a flaky driver can crash the
OS (which wasn't true previously - up to and including 3.51 IIRC).
With video drivers, PC Anywhere, many 3D games, and numerous other
pieces of software now relying upon this behavior at a very low level,
it is no longer possible for Microsoft to change this behavior without
breaking lots and lots of things.
So they *permanently* traded the long-term stability (and IMO
viability) of their flagship OS product for a *temporary* gain in
speed, which Moore's Law has rendered irrelevant.
This perfectly illustrates my contention that Microsoft is driven not
by technical considerations, but by marketing ones.
Joe
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 13:52:29 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 10:26:03 -0500, Donn Miller wrote:
>
> >My experience with XFree86 3.3.x is that there's a memory leak in the
> >X server, the X libs, or one of the X apps (such as Netscape). By
>
> Netscape. In particular, several versions of netscape have leaks in the
> text widget ( and probably other places )
Boy, I believe that! I tried posting an article on Deja one time. I
was typing a lot of text, as I was making a long post. I began
noticing that my cursor kept getting slower and slower, and my HD
light was starting to flicker. Before I could kill the thing, the
memory usage skyrocketed, and my machine was swapping like crazy. In
no time, my machine was on its knees. So, I just reset the thing.
Now, I've set resource limits on memory usage. (Before everything was
set to unlimited. Big mistake if you want to keep your unix box
running.)
- Donn
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 18:45:45 GMT
On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 05:22:46 GMT, ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 12:26:17 +0800, Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> HDTV+Playstation3 will be the thing to beat for PC's and Macs. That
>> >> combo will be sooooo fast and gorgeous.
>> >
>> >By the time the PS3 + HDTV + network connects + everything else that
>> >makes a
>> >PC a PC, you are going to be spending more money on that system than a
>> >PC!
>>
>> Perhaps, however the PSX screen will still be several times
>> larger. You can get a 60" projection TV for what some of the
>> better ~ 20" CRT tubes will cost you.
>
>Not an HDTV though. HDTVs are absurdly priced at the moment.
Only when compared to older TV technology. Compared to
computer monitors, HDTV prices don't look all that bad.
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 18:47:41 GMT
On 1 Mar 2000 02:15:01 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 01:31:19 GMT, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>On 28 Feb 2000 17:18:23 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>My point is that if we limited ourselves to OpenSource today, this would
>>>be where it's at.
>>
>> ...which means I could quite nicely manipulate RTF files
>> with a shiny happy GUI.
>
>Which is good for people who are prepared to settle for the features
>offered by RTF.
You, nor any of your other Bloatware worshipers have yet
to demonstrate why most, if not a vast majority, of end
users WOULDNT be suitably served by RTF.
>
>> This would be true if we 'froze'
>> open source development at the state it was 18 months ago.
>
>Yeah, sure. 18 months ago, OpenSource Word Processors were at the same
>level of the proprietary word processors of the mid 80s.
How exactly has the bloatware brigade progressed since then
and why would most people care? Most people put up with the
like of msword due to network effects, not quality or features.
[deletia]
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 18:51:44 GMT
On 1 Mar 2000 02:30:28 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 01:27:27 GMT, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>> The maxim "compete always" may be due for some revision.
>
>My suggestion is this -- let everyone license the software as they choose,
>and let the best software win. If OpenSource is really "the right way", the
>market will choose it. I don't believe that it is right to ram OpenSource
>software down everyone's throat.
This is a truely assinine comment.
If anything, it is proprietary software that causes product
to be 'rammed' down people's throats. This is the aspect of
current copyright law that most motivates my opinion that IP
law as it is now should be scraped and is woefully inadequate
for it's orginal intended purpose and is actually 'bad for
business' in a purely capitalist sense.
>
>On the other hand, I think there's a case to be made though for
>government sponsorship of free software projects, on the grounds that
>these projects develop infrastructure that benefits everyone.
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
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: 01 Mar 2000 18:59:54 GMT
On 29 Feb 2000 15:55:33 GMT, in alt.microsoft.sucks,
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On 29 Feb 2000 07:10:46 GMT, Damien wrote:
| >On Sun, 27 Feb 2000 16:25:25 GMT, in alt.microsoft.sucks,
| >Roger <roger@.> wrote:
|
| >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.
|
| You're talking a load of hogwash.
|
| (1) Microsoft's document formats were never
| "open", and neither were the document formats of any other office
| application vendor. The formats were always controlled by the vendor.
|
| (2) Once you do things like embed applications within applications, it
| makes it somewhat harder to make a format "easy to parse". Speaking
| of "easy to parse", I believe Office 2000 is based on XML. But that
| in itself doesn't help much ( see (4) )
|
| (3) You can repeat your lies as often as you like, but it doesn't alter
| the fact that MS still publish their document formats.
|
| (4) It doesn't really help that much that the format *is* published,
| because their document formats depend on nonstandards like OLE and
| Visual Basic.
So MS published the document formats, then removed them, but it was
too late because there are in some archive CD, but it doesn't matter
because they are based on non-documented, non-standards. . . Is this
the concensus? What was the point of this discussion? That MS uses
incompatibilities in document formats to create vendor lock and
promote continous and costly upgrading?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 18:55:28 GMT
On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 14:08:42 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > "Josiah Fizer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > [SNIP Windows is not a multi-user OS]
>> >
>> > > > Which of these single-user assumptions can you list ?
>> > >
>> > > A common System and System 32 folder? So that even if the user who logged
>in
>> > > hasn't installed MS Office they still need to have the freakin DLLs.
>> >
>> > Does not Un*x have /lib?
>>
>> Yes, but UNIX lets each user have a lib/ (or whatever you want to call
>> it) in whatever place the want to have it.
>
>But there is still one globaly /lib dir that all users can access for
>common libraries, no? I mean, it only makes sense that there would be one.
Actually there are several depending on how you choose to
make that particular library fit into the system structure.
The system is abstract and flexible enough that you can
modify this structure on a global or user level dynamically.
[deletia]
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 14:03:22 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto
"Mark S. Bilk" wrote:
> Myers' many lies have been documented elsewhere, for example
> the claim that he repeated 160 times that Linux users fre-
> quently have to recompile the Linux kernel.
I think Windows advocates overexaggerate the kernel recompiling
thing. Really, you only need to recompile your kernel if you're
applying bug fixes, or adding a new feature that can't be implemented
via loadable kernel modules.
Just think - if Chad hates recompiling his kernel so much, I'm sure
he'd love the big one: "make world" on FreeBSD. (That's 255 megs of
source code - takes 4 1/2 hours on my P166 MMX.) I usually don't hate
recompiling my kernel if it makes my system run better. A lot of
times it's not required. But, some of us like to tweak system
performance a little.
The make world thing isn't really that big of a deal, because I can do
it while I sleep. A lot of the bottleneck of a make world is disk io.
- Donn
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 19:01:38 GMT
On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 04:10:11 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:89ic0f$1dn1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>
>> > "5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:89hk8p$8su$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> But the bug is also in Windows 2000 because it allowed a
>> >> >> buggy application to crash the OS. If pcAnywhere modifies
>> >> >> system files, installs device drivers etc then Windows 2000
>> >> >> should not even have allowed pcAnywhere to install. At least
>> >> >> that's what Microsoft lead me to believe "System File
>> >> >> Protection" does for me.
>> >>
>> >> > Hey, moron, it doesn't modify system files. It installs itself
>> >> > as a driver. It's not modifying system files, and therefore
>> >> > there's no system files to protect.
>> >>
>> >> Then how in the world does it crash such an advanced operating
>> >> system?
>> >>
>>
>> > Similar to how X can hang Linux requiring a hard reboot?
>>
>> See, everyone keeps saying this and I actually have never once
>> seen this happen.
>
>Fire up X with a reasonably complex WM and some svgalib program like squake.
>Flick between the X and squake VTs until the machine locks.
This is a contrived example that merely demonstrates that
trying to bit bang the same hardware with two root mode
apps concurrently is a stupid idea.
>
>> Sure, ive seen X lock up (especially under MKlinux, DR2) but the
>> system was always recoverable via telnet or ssh.
>
>You're just not trying hard enough, or you are exceptionally lucky.
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: 1 Mar 2000 19:07:24 GMT
In article <89jcr8$r0n$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) writes:
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>Or you could fire up Babel and read this one:
>>>http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/odi-28.02.00-001/
>
>> are equipped with a dual processor board (however, with only
>> a 500-MHz processor) and a gigabyte of RAM.
>
>Hey, they changed the bit about only one processor.... That wasn't there
>when I read it.
>
>> One workstation is running Linux (kernel 2.3.46) in an already
>> completely functional port, with XFree86 and the window manager
>> Window- Maker.
>
>"already completely functional port" is a mistranslation. The correct
>translation is "a port that appears pretty much complete". The word
>used ("wirken") has two meanings, one being along the lines of "to appear",
>the other along the lines of "to work" or "to function".
>
>> It also has 32-Bit emulation, for programs that are
>> not yet ported to the new architecture, which functions perfectly:
>
>"without blemish" is closer to the original than "perfectly".
>
>> On the second computer is the test version of a 64-bittigen
>
>well, "64 bit", with a whole bunch of German suffixes ;-)
>
>> [?] Windows 2000 with an ACD PROGRAM to admire.
>
>Why would Babel change "CAD" into "ACD"? What *is* "ACD"?
>
>Bernie
Having no knowledge of German, I relied completely upon
babelfish.altavista.com for the translation, which I then
edited for readability. The errors you mention are present
in the babelfish output (maybe it does better on Vogon
poetry 8^). I tried to be very careful with my edits, but
if they messed anything up, please correct -- in particular,
whether one or two processors were used. Here are the
original, the babel translation, and what I posted:
CeBIT-News
IA64 (Itanium) mit Linux und Windows 2000
Hewlett-Packard zeigt in Halle 21, Stand C34 zwei
Workstations mit Intels neuem 64-Bit-Prozessor. Die Rechner
sind mit einem Dual-Proessor-Board (allerdings nur ein
500-MHz-Prozessor bestückt) und einem Gigabyte RAM
ausgestattet. Auf der einen Workstation werkelt Linux in
einer schon recht komplett wirkenden Portierung mit XFree86
und dem Fenstermanager WindowMaker (Kernel 2.3.46). Auch
die 32-Bit-Emulation für Programme, die noch nicht auf
die neue Architektur portiert wurden, funktioniert tadellos:
Der Netscape Communicator läuft stabil als
32-Bit-Programm. Die zahlreichen Linux-Anwendungen, die im
Quellcode vorliegen, lassen sich hingegen schon
größtenteils als 64-Bit-Programme kompilieren. Auf dem
zweiten Rechner ist die Testversion eines 64-bittigen
Windows 2000 mit einem CAD-Programm zu bewundern. (odi/c't)
CeBIT-News
IA64 (Itanium) with Linux and Windows 2000
HEWLETT-PACKARD shows two workstations with Intels new
64-Bit-Prozessor in hall 21, status C34. The computers are
equipped with a dual Proessor board (however only a
500-MHz-Prozessor equipped) and a gigabyte RAM. On work-
station werkelt Linux in an already quite completely working
Portierung with XFree86 and the window manager a WindowMaker
(Kernel 2,3,46). Also the 32-Bit-Emulation for programs,
which were not portiert yet on new architecture, functions
perfectly: The Netscape Communicator runs stably as
32-Bit-Programm. Numerous Linux applications, which are
present in the source code, can be compiled however already
to a large extent as 64-Bit-Programme. On the second computer
is the test version of a 64-bittigen Windows 2000 with
a ACD PROGRAM to admire (odi/ c't)
CeBIT-News
IA64 (Itanium) with Linux and Windows 2000
HEWLETT-PACKARD is showing two workstations with Intel's new
64-Bit processor in hall 21, location C34. The computers
are equipped with a dual processor board (however, with only
a 500-MHz processor) and a gigabyte of RAM. One workstation
is running Linux (kernel 2.3.46) in an already completely
functional port, with XFree86 and the window manager Window-
Maker. It also has 32-Bit emulation, for programs that
are not yet ported to the new architecture, which functions
perfectly: Netscape Communicator runs stably as a 32-Bit
program. However, numerous Linux applications that are
available as source code can already be compiled to a large
extent as 64-Bit programs.
On the second computer is the test version of a 64-bittigen
[?] Windows 2000 with an ACD PROGRAM to admire.
(odi/ c't)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: what exactly is Linux advocacy?
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 19:05:45 GMT
On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 08:51:14 -0600, John Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>BRian wrote:
>>
>> I was looking through the Linux groups for ideas for a linux section for my
>> site when this one caught my eye. What exactly is Linux Advocacy?
>
>> BRian
comp.os.linux.setup
and
comp.os.linux.hardware
Would be more appropriate for the fence sitting newbies.
There you can actually see who is having problems with
what and what sorts of resolutions occur.
>
> It's a newsgroup where, if you are interested, you can find out why you
>might like to run Linux on your PC. Its generality, however, results in
>a lot of flame wars, misunderstandings and misconceptions.
>
> I find that I like to read the threads where some Windows user writes
>about how he couldn't get Linux to run on his system. Instead of going
>to one of the help groups that would be apropos to his problem, they
>whine and cry about their ineptitude. And they're not even embarrassed
>to do so in front of all the readers here!
>--
>John W. Sanders
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.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
******************************
