Linux-Advocacy Digest #488, Volume #25 Fri, 3 Mar 00 11:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Giving up on NT (Joseph)
Re: Giving up on NT (Joseph)
Re: Linux Developer survey (No Name)
Re: Clarification of the word "communism", re LINUX = COMUNISM more... ("Joseph T.
Adams")
Re: Giving up on NT (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?=)
Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto (Eric Remy)
Re: Giving up on NT (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?=)
Re: I can't stand this X anymore! (Jim Gettys)
Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Re: 63000 bugs in W2K > # of bugs in Debian (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Re: Giving up on NT (Chad Irby)
Re: Symbolic Links for WinBlows 2000 ("Mr. Rupert")
Re: Giving up on NT (Eric Remy)
Re: An interesting article. (Donal K. Fellows)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 06:04:23 GMT
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On 3-3-00, 1:09:46 PM, Paul 'Z' Ewande<?ANSI(169)>=20
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote regarding Re: Giving up on NT:
> "Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a =E9crit dans le message news:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> On 3-3-00, 2:07:26 AM, "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote regarding Re=
:
> Giving up on NT:
> > > As for speed. Basically there is very little. NT is slower the 95.=
> > Not according to the benchmarks that measure graphics and business
> > performance.
> > Just recently, benchmarks that measured 98/NT and 2000 came out, do=
> you want
> > to know what scored highest? 2000.
> > Second? NT.
> > Last? 9x.
> Oh Sure. That's why Windows2000 has the highest system requirements -=
> because it's the fastest OS.
> Well, I know that once you have enough memory [64+ MB], NT is faster=20=
than
> 9x. 2K is no different. Is 2K faster than NT, I don't know, maybe...=20=
Now,
> with 32 MB, 9x will be faster than NT/2K.
One can buy enough hardware and RAM to scale NT past Win9x. For=20
example NT will run faster on a 256 MB 2 CPU Pentium III. So NT is=20
faster because one can throw enough hardware at NT. Windows2000 also=20=
has the burden of requiring a fast CPU and Windows2000 doesn't seem to=20=
have the same performance increases NT shows when given additional=20
RAM. =20
One of the major reasons I use OS/2 is it has lesser resource=20
requirements balanced with its capabilities. Same with Windows95=20
running on a P200.
------------------------------
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 06:14:56 GMT
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On 3-3-00, 10:52:55 AM, Paul 'Z' Ewande<?ANSI(169)>=20
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote regarding Re: Giving up on NT:
> "Lars Tr=E4ger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a =E9crit dans le message ne=
ws:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Paul 'Z' Ewande<?ANSI(169)> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > To sum up, with each and any application i've used on the Mac, I'v=
e=20
been
> > > beating with multitasking issues. While, on Windows9x, i experienc=
e=20
none
> of
> > > these multitasking issues [I don't use QT].
> > >
> > > So IME, I repeat IME, multitasking on the Mac is far from great wi=
th
> > > different sets of applications/tasks.
> > >
> > > If it's not the fault of the OS, then many of the Mac apps are not=
so
> > > brilliantly coded. Happy now ?
> >
> > I didn't say that the Mac's multitasking doesn't suck, I said Win 9x=
's
> > does. Happy now?
> Nope, you said and I quote:
> "Ahu. So Quicktime for Windows is programmed badly, and it's the=20
app's
> fault. Toast on the Mac however is programmed perfectly and it's the=20=
OS'
> fault. Yup, that must be it."
The criticism regarding Win9x's poor multitasking is met head on with=20=
a irrelevant counter charge the Mac's multitasking is worse. That=20
charge doesn't make win9x a good multimedia OS.
I haven't seem anyone claim the Mac is better at multitasking, I have=20=
seen people excuse Win9x's poor showing by blaming the applications=20
while crediting what the Mac can accomplish by praising the=20
applications. A good pre-emtive multitasking OS would preempt a=20
poorly coded application and So the excuses people offer for Windows9x=20=
shows even it's advocates recognize (if not admit) Win9x is seriously=20=
flawed.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (No Name)
Subject: Re: Linux Developer survey
Date: 3 Mar 2000 14:20:40 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 01 Mar 2000 14:51:30 EST, Resarch said:
>Hello,
>We are an independent market research firm specializing in the software
>development community.
>
> <deletia>
No,no,no. You should have said: "we are a bunch of spammers specialized
in the annoyance of the Linux community"
Get lost.
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers
Subject: Re: Clarification of the word "communism", re LINUX = COMUNISM more...
Date: 3 Mar 2000 14:33:25 GMT
Mark S. Bilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: On the other hand, in capitalism, the means of production are
: owned by a small subset (class) of the population, the capital-
: ists
I should point out that in at least one of the countries where
capitalism is most developed (the U.S.), most capital is actually
owned by institutional investors (i.e., mutual funds), which in turn
are owned primarily by pension plans, which are owned by employees.
So in a very roundabout way, workers do own an extremely large portion
of the society's total capital.
One significant problem - and this is a problem with democracy as well
- is that the many layers of indirection between the masses who
supposedly hold the power, and the decisionmakers who supposedly
represent them, allow for a signficant conflict of interest to
develop between them, and, therefore, for decisions to be made at the
highest levels which benefit those at those levels, but to the
detriment of those who are *supposed* to be in control.
: who seize for their own benefit a large portion of the
: value of the goods and services that are produced by the rest
: of the population, the workers.
Owners don't seize anything (at least if the rules are correctly
functioning); they negotiate contracts with workers, suppliers, and
customers to which all parties freely and voluntarily agree.
This breaks down if a single entity (or oligopoly) owns enough of an
important commodity, such as land or oil or operating systems, to make
others dependent upon it.
A key issue that defines much of the difference between socialists and
libertarians is that the former believe that capitalism inherently
leads to such a situation, whereas the latter believe that in the
absence of coercion or fraud, no such monopoly can possibly develop,
much less sustain itself over time.
: This seizure of wealth is
: called exploitation; it's the reason why, in the US for
: example, the wealthiest 10% of the population own 90% of
: everything, and the poorest 90% own 10%. Thus the average
: member of the wealthy 10% owns 81 times as much as the average
: member of the non-wealthy 90%.
Your critique of capitalism loses credibility from this point forward.
I am a defender of liberty, not necessarily "capitalism" (a term
which, like "Christianity," has been so abused as to be devoid of any
precise meaning that all sides can agree on).
If "capitalism" were as bad as its critics claim, I would oppose it
too.
But what you are describing and condemning is the result of freely
entered agreements made without coercion among responsible adults and
entities. What you'd replace it with is a coercive state which would
disallow agreements you don't agree with (which isn't that different
than what we have now, but I digress).
I much prefer liberty.
But since you see capitalism as anti-liberty, and that seems to be one
major reason why you oppose it, I do think we have some common ground
in spite of coming from nearly diametrically opposing positions.
I think we both want to maximize liberty, but disagree as how best to
do so.
Is that a fair analysis?
[rest snipped]
BTW, I do appreciate your work in exposing frauds and bigots on this
group, and agree with much of the rest of what you have to say, except
on this particular subject and a few others that aren't terribly
on-topic here anyway.
Joe
------------------------------
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 15:39:14 +0100
"Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> One can buy enough hardware and RAM to scale NT past Win9x. For
> example NT will run faster on a 256 MB 2 CPU Pentium III. So NT is
Now, you are just being silly. On _one_ processor, as soon as Windows NT has
more than 64MB of RAM, it's faster than Windows9x. Under Windows9x is
faster.
> faster because one can throw enough hardware at NT. Windows2000 also
> has the burden of requiring a fast CPU and Windows2000 doesn't seem to
What's this fixation on processors ? NT/2K require RAM, give them enough RAM
space and they pull ahead of Windows9x. The processor speed is not _that_
relevant.
> have the same performance increases NT shows when given additional
> RAM.
> One of the major reasons I use OS/2 is it has lesser resource
> requirements balanced with its capabilities. Same with Windows95
> running on a P200.
Sure, whatever.
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: Eric Remy <[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
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 09:47:00 -0500
In article <89nr09$aqi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
wrote:
>> Ah, amazing! A driver takes down an OS. And remind me
>> which (non-mainframe) OS won't go down by installing
>> a buggy driver?
>Ahh..so now its non-mainframe.
>
>Inferno (Purgatory) springs immediately to mind.
I'm confused here. Let's take a pathological case. I write a disk
device driver for Inferno, or any other OS. I put in a major bug: every
time a command is received from the OS, there's a 1/10 chance that the
driver will tell the disk to do a low-level format of the entire drive.
How does any OS survive this? I can't think it would be too happy to
find its swapped bits are all now zeros.
I'm serious here- I don't understand. Enlighten me.
--
Eric Remy. Chemistry Learning Center Director, Virginia Tech
"I don't like (quantum mechanics), | How many errors can
and I'm sorry I ever had anything | you find in my X-Face?
to do with it."- Erwin Schrodinger |
------------------------------
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 16:01:31 +0100
"Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> The criticism regarding Win9x's poor multitasking is met head on with
> a irrelevant counter charge the Mac's multitasking is worse. That
Irrelevant ? The original claim was that Win9x is a poor multimedia OS
because apparently when running QT, the downloads seem to suffer, implying
that it is bad because is multitasking ability was bad and stating that
MacOS was better at multimedia for that.
This I disagree because it's one app [I didn't make the test and took the
original post at face value].
As I said, I don't have those issues with Windows Media Player, I can
download stuff, move files, even listen to MP3, encode .MP3/.MPG files,
while watching TV, and compress/move files and the multimedia is not
perturbed.
I can listen to MP3 and burn CDs. I can run media player/winamp while
encoding .MPG or .MP3 files, or anything that strikes my fancy, on
background/foreground, whatever, it works.
System: Celeron 400 / 256MB / Windows98SE.
See, many _different_ multimedia activities against of the one QT example,
which made me believe that QT wasn't optimised for the Windows platform.
[You are, of course, aware that even in a PMT OS, you can set priorities for
apps, maybe QT has a high priority, I don't know, but if degrades download
performance, it's doing something weird, that's for sure]
> charge doesn't make win9x a good multimedia OS.
Well, IMO, it's better than the MacOS, since the original claim was that the
MacOS was a better multimedia OS because QT worked better in it than in
Windows9x. Multimedia doesn't start and stop at QT. Sorry.
If I want to use many applications [other than QT] at the same time, it will
be better because Windows has a better multitasking
> I haven't seem anyone claim the Mac is better at multitasking, I have
> seen people excuse Win9x's poor showing by blaming the applications
Poor showing, it's just one example !
> while crediting what the Mac can accomplish by praising the
> applications. A good pre-emtive multitasking OS would preempt a
> poorly coded application and So the excuses people offer for Windows9x
Even if the application is given ultra high priority ? You are sure that
poorly coded application won't degrade the performance of an NT/Linux/UNIX
system ? Really, really sure ?
> shows even it's advocates recognize (if not admit) Win9x is seriously
> flawed.
Windows is not as bad as people claim it to be, well, not IME, anyway.
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Gettys)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.app
Subject: Re: I can't stand this X anymore!
Date: 3 Mar 2000 15:03:43 GMT
Thanks for the flame and troll... It is soooo helpful.
BTW, I agree with you about Motif and CDE. I'm very happy that Motif
and CDE are very close to dead.
The X Window System, however, is NOT a GUI: it is a system for building
GUI's. This is not spitting hairs, and you really need to understand
the difference. Some of the more recent GUI's/toolkits built on top of
X, such as Gnome/GTK+ and/or KDE/Qt, along with some of the recent window
managers, are getting towards seriously usable by mere mortals, much to
my surprise and gratification. People are finally beginning to use X
the way we origininally intended.
If you don't like what is on your screen (e.g. Motif and CDE), change
it.
You can get a view of what is possible by visiting www.themes.org.
- Jim Gettys
--
Jim Gettys
Technology and Corporate Development
Compaq Computer Corporation
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable
Date: 3 Mar 2000 15:09:20 GMT
In article <89n8am$csf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 2 + 2 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Mark S. Bilk wrote in message <89mgs9$qll$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>...
>>>I also agree with Boris that I "stink" because I can't afford
>>>Windows. Oh, if I only could have a really classy job like Stephen
>>>Edwards so I could afford a real OS like W2K. Oh please, guys, have
>>>pity on me, for I cannot afford the OS of the gods that is W2k.
>>>...
>>> Windows users are very intelligent and high class. Check out
>>>Stephen S. Edwards - he's an excellent example of this. If you run
>>>Windows, you won't be poor, stinky, or low-class like me, but rather,
>>>an intelligent, classy stud like Edwards (who also probably has a big
>>>dick). I'm pretty much a white-trash piece of shit compared to
>>>someone like Edwards. In fact, all of us unix, FreeBSD, and Linux
>>>users are white trash piles of shit compared to Edwards. Oh, and we
>>>also have little dicks, and we always masturbate while we compile our
>>>kernels like Boris says. Also, we always, always stink, because
>>>that's what Boris says. Boris is the man -- he is very intelligent.
>>>
>>>- Donn
>>
>>CNN just reported that trucks filled with what appear to be
>>giant seed pods have been seen near Pittsburgh, PA and many
>>other American cities. They reportedly originate from
>>Redmond, Washington.
>>
>>Stop! Stop and listen to me! These people who're coming
>>for us are not human!
>>
>>Look, you fools. You're in danger. Can't you see?
>>They're after you. They're after all of us! Our wives,
>>our children, everyone!
>>
>>They're here already! You're next!!
>
>LOL.
>
>What was the name of that science fiction classic?
URL: http://www.imdb.com/Title?0049366
URL: http://www.imdb.com/search
Server: Apache/1.3.11-dev (Unix) mod_perl/1.21_01-dev
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Subject: Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers
Date: 3 Mar 2000 15:20:15 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 23:24:22 -0300,
Francis Van Aeken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marada C. Shradrakaii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > ActiveX, Java, etc. are all undesirable. Expecting client-side intelligence
> As far as the security issue goes, things are like in real life. Some people
> trust strangers, take chances, etc. Others just don't. It's more than just a
> rational thing, it's an attitude thing.
Like, you trust someone (aka their code), which makes you trust
people you wouldn't trust in any other way. I mean, you'd let me
happily move your mouse and hack on your keyboard while using your
banking software? Without you being able to look? Well ...
Wolf"I rather decide for myself"gang
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 63000 bugs in W2K > # of bugs in Debian
Date: 3 Mar 2000 15:23:57 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 02 Mar 2000 22:50:13 -0700,
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Where did this internet come from anyway?
> UNIX machines.
> If it weren't for us, you'd be a happy member of MSN; paying by the
> hour for "quality" content.
You think MS would have ever thought of WANs and LANs without
seeing the internet first (and fairly late at that)?
-Wolfgang
------------------------------
From: Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 15:24:24 GMT
Paul 'Z' Ewande© <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "mebbe sucks more" ? Have you tried to multitask on a Mac recently ?
Every single day.
> from http://www.arstechnica.com/reviews/2q99/g3-350/g3-350-5.html
>
> Client in background, 1GB file copy in foreground
>
> So RC5 is 27 times slower with a 1 GB file copy in the foreground under
> MacOS 8.5.1 On NT RC5 is 1.06 tiimes slower.
...when running an old version of the client, which was too "nice" under
MacOS.
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
From: "Mr. Rupert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Symbolic Links for WinBlows 2000
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 09:19:10 -0600
mlw wrote:
>
> Dave Pitts wrote:
> >
> > Hello:
> >
> > In a press release from Micro$oft they mentioned that their
> > R&D people, at the "Redmond Home for the Addeled" after
> > wetting themselves, "Discovered" that disk space can be
> > saved through the use of links. Who would have thought?
> > Think anybody ought to mention to them that links have
> > been around for MANY years in Unix systems? Think that
> > they'll try to patent the idea?
> >
> > The press release URL for your amusment is:
> >
> > http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2000/02-28w2k.asp
>
> I read the URL, and to be honest, I first thought it was humor. Then I
> realized the tragic truth, these guys don't know crap about any other
> OS. The reason why MS thinks it is so innovative is because they are so
> ignorant about every other OS in the world.
>
Actually, Microsoft is very proficient and knowledgeable in the workings
of UNIX. UNIX is used at Microsoft for simulating all possible hardware
configurations for testing WIN98, NT, W2K.
--
The lovely, the talented, and highly acclaimed,
Mr Rupert
------------------------------
From: Eric Remy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 10:51:02 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad
Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Paul 'Z' Ewande© <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> "mebbe sucks more" ? Have you tried to multitask on a Mac recently ?
>
>Every single day.
>
>> from http://www.arstechnica.com/reviews/2q99/g3-350/g3-350-5.html
>>
>> Client in background, 1GB file copy in foreground
>>
>> So RC5 is 27 times slower with a 1 GB file copy in the foreground under
>> MacOS 8.5.1 On NT RC5 is 1.06 tiimes slower.
>
>...when running an old version of the client, which was too "nice" under
>MacOS.
Ok, let's try it again.
MacOS 8.6, G3-233, latest version of client.
In foreground. 783kkey/sec (lintilla core- Damn that's good programming)
In background, light use (reading news) 780 kkey/sec. Looks good.
In background, downloading 100 MB of files from NT server through Fetch:
421 kkey/sec. Whoops
So we lose roughly 40% of the speed as soon as we put a trivial load on
the machine. There's no way an FTP connection should take 40% of the
CPU of this machine. The NT server that was pushing the files never
broke a sweat: RC5 CPU% stayed at 98-99% the entire time.
In other words, it's better, but I still can't wait for OSX. OSX I'm
sure wouldn't have even noticed the download.
--
Eric Remy. Chemistry Learning Center Director, Virginia Tech
"I don't like (quantum mechanics), | How many errors can
and I'm sorry I ever had anything | you find in my X-Face?
to do with it."- Erwin Schrodinger |
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: An interesting article.
Date: 3 Mar 2000 15:55:14 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As I recall, it was a 16 Mhz 386, with 4 MB RAM.
>
> But yes, firing up X would probably do the "disk swamp thing". :-)
A long time ago (93-94 IIRC) I got Linux with (monochrome) X running
on that size of system (386SX16 with 4MB RAM[*] and with only a 20MB
HDD too.) I did need to use an external font server though, and there
were only the absolute minimum of local utilities installed (only one
really small vi clone, etc.) The amazing thing was that you could
actually just about get 800x600 out of a standard VGA card, though the
monitor was none too happy (good thing it wasn't my kit!)
It was horrendous. It knocked Exceed into a cocked hat a hundred
times over. Ah, those were the days... :^)
Donal.
[* 2MB was *not* enough to run X, and terminal sessions weren't too
good either. ]
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- The small advantage of not having California being part of my country would
be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel on our
borders. -- David Parsons <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
