Linux-Advocacy Digest #603, Volume #25 Sun, 12 Mar 00 15:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Giving up on Bob Germer (Marty)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (5X3)
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K) (5X3)
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K) (5X3)
Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective) (mlw)
Re: Buying Drestin Linux Was (Re: Drestin: time for you to buy UNIX for DumbAsses
(5X3)
Re: Buying Drestin Linux Was (Re: Drestin: time for you to buy UNIX for DumbAsses
(5X3)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Alison Dakin")
Re: Buying Drestin Linux Was (Re: Drestin: time for you to buy UNIX for DumbAsses
(Stefan Ohlsson)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Norman D. Megill)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on Bob Germer
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 19:06:00 GMT
Bob Germer wrote:
>
> On 03/11/2000 at 11:41 PM,
> Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > That's why the Linux/Win98SE dual boot box has only 64 meg - it's an
> > Intel 430TX chipset MB. It will take more ram but only caches 64 meg.
>
> Unless, of course, you are running OS/2. Then all the ram can be used
> provided you tell the Bios you are smart enough to run OS/2. I have Warp
> running on a 430TX motherboard with the Award Bios set for using OS/2.
> When thus set, all 96 megs are available and the swapfile never grows
> beyond the allocated size.
>
> When I tell it I am not running OS/2, the swapfile grows and grows since
> the memory above 64 megs is not used for programs, etc.
Bob, please stop embarrassing yourself. He was talking about caching for more
than 64MB, not utilizing more than 64MB. There was a limitation with the TX
chipset which could not use hardware caching for over 64MB. Additional RAM
could be utilized, but it could not take advantage of hardware caching
facilities. Still trying to pretend to be someone who sets up computers for a
living?
--
The wit of Bob Osborn in action:
"Perhaps it something you should try to your kids don't end up as stupid as
you."
"There is an old saying fartface."
"Not only are you a filthy low-life lying bastard pig, you are too stupid to
know it."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 12 Mar 2000 19:26:04 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> He's just upset because NT is better at something than Linux and there is
> proven, undeniable proof of it.
> Even his weak arguments are ignorant because, NT4SP6a with C2 hotfix
> was tested and certified on (among other machines) Compaq Proliants
> 6000 and 7000 in quite usable scenarios. Those servers were some of
> top selling servers in 1999 and are widely used in many different
> environments (banks, credit card processing houses, ATM centers) all
> running NT in near-C2 configuration, if not C2 configuration.
1. if you knew anything at all about C2 certification beyond what
microsoft lies about, you would know that there is no such thing as
"near-c2 certification". Either it is or it isnt. All systems that
are NOT C2 certified (and posess no other above or below) are seen
as equally insecure, and rightfully so.
Which youd know if you knew anything at all about computer security.
2. There is no PROOF that NT is better at this than unix is, and if you
knew anything at all about logic and argument, youd know this as well.
No one has paid for any linux distribution to become C2 certified, and
until that happens there is no proof.
3. There are lots of other system configurations that are not C2
certified that are nearly infinitely more secure and useful than NT
is. If you are saying that this C2 certification makes NT the most
secure operating system in the world, you are a fool. If you knew
anything about something other than your sophomoric pointy clicky
operating system, youd know this as well.
But you dont, because you know nothing about the way computers
actually work. I'm continually shocked and amazed that anyone has
even let you have a job in this industry---until I realize that
you have a job administrating NT, which explains quite alot about
the quickening inundation of mediocrity into the industry. (that
means dipshits like you who dont understand computers are making
it worse for everyone)
p0ok
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K)
Date: 12 Mar 2000 19:28:43 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8aeb2o$3oq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On Sat, 11 Mar 2000 17:38:01 GMT, "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >>"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> message
>> >>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >>> Note that it was also given in this thread's precursor that any OS
>> >>> would have to be adjusted, 'even' W2K.
>> >>
>> >>Hmm... who said that? The whole point I was trying to make is, that
>> >>Win2K is scalable enough it wouldn't have to be modified (in it's core,
>> >>meaning the filesystem or the TCP/IP stack) like Solaris was.
>> >>
>> >>-Chad
>>
>> > The fact is that you don't know how much the Solaris stack was
>> > modified. You originally made a pull-it-out-of-your-ass claim that
>> > the stack was re-written, when in fact all Microsoft has said on the
>> > matter is that it "had to customize the filestore service as well as
>> > the IP stack." That's it... customize. They did NOT say that they
>> > had to modify the source code.
>>
>> They couldnt have said that, because that would imply that Sun actually
>> let them see the source code for *any* portion of solaris, which has
>> never, EVER happened. For reasons quite obvious to anyone with a brain.
> you missed something anyone who knows history would know... Sun didn't let
> MS see it, they let hotmail.com (pre-MS purchase) see it and modified it.
I understand that, but I also understand fully that the NDAs signed by hotmail
and Sun were NOT transfered through the microsoft deal. Microsoft has
absolutely no contractual right to see any portion of solaris source code,
and very likely wont EVER. Again, for obvious reasons.
> I know someone who was a part of it - why is it so hard to accept that it
> was done. It's not such a big thing!
Me too--:) And again, it was IP networking functionality that was modified,
not anything that was as low-level as tcp-stack source. Not even close.
p0ok
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K)
Date: 12 Mar 2000 19:30:27 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8aeasa$3oq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Go ahead and post some more microsoft URLS that swear up and down that
>> the win2000 tcp stack can throw 2.4 gigs per second over a single
>> interface.
>>
> hmmm... hows stuff like this hit ya?
> http://www.unisys.com/events/comdex99/presentations/uis-ms.asp
> or
> http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/news/0,4153,1018161,00.html
> or
> http://www.winntmag.com/Articles/Content/7704_01.html
> As you can see, it's easy to document claims... now, here is one claim from:
> http://www.washington.edu/hdtv/sc99/
> "Microsoft and the Alliance and the partners demonstrated that it is now
> possible to send a gigabit-per-second TCP/IP stream from one Windows 2000
> workstation to another over a WAN. Microsoft teamed with the Alliance's NT
> cluster development team and with the National Laboratory for Applied
> Network Research (NLANR) to verify that Windows 2000 TCP/IP software
> performance scales at Gbps rates on long-distance networks. This work
> demonstrates speed breakthroughs in end-to-end workstation internetworking
> and shows the capabilities of Windows 2000 TCP/IP."
> now - is it your claim that MS conspired with all these people to make shit
> up and then paid off the press to misreport what they saw?
No, im saying that the microsoft claim of 2.4 gigs per second of streaming
video media (hundreds of connections) on *one* interface was a boldfaced lie.
p0ok
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 14:30:01 -0500
Robert Morelli wrote:
>
> mlw wrote:
> >
> > Robert Morelli wrote:
> > >
> > > Davorin Mestric wrote:
> > > >
> > > > this will never happen, because the linux community already perceives
> > > > that linux is the best development platform. this is off course far
> > > > from the truth, but truth is not important. what is important is what
> > > > people think, not what actually is. so, there would be no push to
> > > > improve something which is already 'best'.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Sadly, I must agree with this assessment, at least as regards old
> > > timers.
> > > I see two big contributing factors.
> <snip>
> > > 2. A distorted sense of what powerful software is. At the time UNIX
> > > came into
> > > being, in the 1970's, people had just understood compiler principles
> > > and finite
> > > state machines, etc., and that seemed hot. In retrospect, to most
> > > people on
> > > non-UNIX platforms, that stuff now seems simple minded compared to
> > > things like
> > > GUI design, which requires art, creativity, and also more advanced
> > > software
> > > concepts. But as ridiculous as it may seem, I think that to the
> > > average UNIX
> > > afficionado parsing still seems hot, and piping together programs with
> > > many
> > > command line switches seems fancy and powerful, and the expertise of
> > > the kernel
> > > hacker is exalted far above the level of the goofball who invents
> > > something like
> > > a toolbar, a hypertext help system, or an IDE. Unfortunately, a
> > > contributing
> > > factor was the fact that the modern GUI was first popularized on the
> > > Mac, a
> > > platform with brain dead multitasking and networking support. This
> > > invited
> > > people without insight to also dismiss the GUI as brain dead by
> > > association.
> >
> > You know, this is a huge philosophical argument, that is largely wasted
> > on end users, but important for software development. Under Windows the
> > command:
> >
> > "something | sort > file.txt" is a very expensive procedure. Under UNIX,
> > "something | sort > file.txt" is very efficient. UNIX was designed with
> > the notion that multiple programs can and should as one. Windows (and
> > DOS) were designed thinking that a program stands alone, while this was
> > because DOS was a monotasking environment, the metaphor stuck.
> >
> > Under UNIX there is no real reason to put everything into one program,
> > in fact, it is a bad idea. Does that mean that one does not have nice
> > GUI applications? No. It means that, with the exception of WYSIWYG
> > editing, applications that consist largely of dialog boxes and text
> > entry fields, it makes sense to have a text program do the actual
> > processing of the data, while some GUI toolkit acquires the data and
> > issues the command to process. This is actually no different than using
> > VB for dialogs with a .DLL under Windows, except that you can test the
> > components on the command line. (Which, the end use may never do, but as
> > a developer, I can test the hell out of it!)
> >
> > This sort of metaphor is hard to do well in Windows because the child
> > process management tools are not in place. Just because one can't do it
> > under Windows does not mean it is bad, and I reiterate, the reason one
> > can't do it under Windows is because Windows is based on a programming
> > model that is very very primitive. NT is a bit better, but if one writes
> > an application for "Windows" it is very hard to justify targeting only
> > NT.
> >
> > Under Windows the closest analogy is VisualC++. You have a nice WYSIWYG
> > text editor, but have a text based program actually do the compiling.
> > cl, nmake, etc. are command line utilities. This is, in fact, a very
> > UNIX model of doing things. It should be noted, doing this sort of thing
> > in Windows is difficult to do, under UNIX, one simply issues "popen" and
> > reads a file.
>
> You aren't really addressing the point I was trying to make. I don't dispute
> the value of good command line support and piping etc. If it's a choice between
> a pleasant looking GUI, and getting a job done, I prefer to get the job done.
Absolutely, get the job done, but using command line apps behind a GUI
front end is a very efficient and stable way to do something under UNIX.
> In fact, I consider it mind boggling that no Microsoft OS was ever released
> with integrated scripting support beyond the DOS batch language. (I think NT 4.0
> has some kind of a scripting language, but still not seriously supported. Of
>course,
> there have always been ports of perl, etc., but the system never included
> the support to make them practical as scripting languages for applications ...)
> By the same token, I don't praise Apple for weak networking support and
> cooperative multitasking. Mac and Windows are brain dead systems in numerous ways,
> and I don't use them for much.
Windows does not lack scripting languages, it lacks the infrastructure
to make scripting a viable alternative to coding whole applications.
>
> My point is that a good OS should embrace not only the older basic technologies like
> command line support, but also the more advanced technological innovations like the
> modern GUI paradigm and the component object model.
The UNIX way of reusing small programs that do one thing in a testable
and deterministic way is far more advanced than Windows "shove
everything into one app because we can run't more than one" attitude.
The command line is just one interface to a very powerful development
paradigm. GUI development environments like Tcl/Tk can use the command
line programs just as easily as VB would use a .DLL. Except with a
command line utility providing the horse power behind the GUI
environment, you can regression test bugs, automate testing, etc. A lot
easier.
> If you ask a typical UNIX bigot
I take offense to "UNIX bigot"
> why
> you can't load a file into Emacs by dragging a file object onto the Emacs window,
>he'll
> smugly answer that UNIX people wouldn't use such a capability even if it were there.
> These
> people are actually proud of their insularity and lack of sophistication.
Judging everyone that uses UNIX by one person being flip is stupid.
>
> Mind you, I'm no Windows advocate. But I'll at least give Microsoft credit for one
>thing.
> In their own bumbling, incompetent way, they have been gradually -- very, very
>gradually --
> adopted paradigms from other systems (of course, always implementing them in a half
>assed
> way). Their philosophy is one of extreme conservatism in that they never introduce
>anything
> original and have no vision of going beyond existing paradigms. But neither do they
>limit
> themselves by bigotry. I have some sympathy for Apple, because even though the Mac
>is weak in
> many respects, the company did have vision. They introduced the Newton about a
>year before MS
> cancelled its first incarnation of the WinCE API (called WinPad). And in the late
>80's they
> conceived of Pink (aka Taligent) that would go beyond anything then (or now) in
>existence.
> Unfortunately, Pink was an expensive failure. As a fall back, they have now
>adopted a UNIX
> foundation for future versions of their OS. That's not too exciting a vision, but
>it does
> solve the immediate problem of getting decent multitasking.
>
> As for UNIX, I have to say that there has been a general complacency to remain with
>very,
> very good implentations of a 1970's computing paradigm. UNIX still thrives because
>for
> many purposes a very good implementation of simple, old fashioned ideas is superior
>to a weak
> implementation of something more sophisticated. I do find it a bit of a depressing
> philosophy though and in some cases deeply frustrating.
Anyone that thinks "old fashioned" has any place in UNIX has not been
paying attention. The issue is reason. Make a good case for different
metaphors and paradigms and they will be implemented and introduce into
standards before Microsoft's first rip-off.
Many of the things that pass as programming paradigms in Windows are
simply bad ideas. To adopt them simply because they are new would be
foolish. Does this mean that things are rejected out of hand? Of course
not, but if it is a bad idea, it shouldn't happen.
>
> But, fortunately I don't think that's really the end of the story. There is a new
>energy
> among the younger developers of Linux and the traditional UNIX sense of community
>still
> prevails. I believe that open, vigorous communities are ultimately more creative
>and
> productive than closed systems. For this reason I expect Linux to break free of the
>depressing
> legacy of complacency and I see it as the most promising system for the future.
I think you don't see what is happening. UNIX and thus Linux are not
"old and stodgy" by any measure. It ain't Windows, no way, but some fun
and exciting stuff is happening. Good GUI apps are coming, and many of
the GUI apps in Linux are better than the run of the mill Windows apps.
I will grant you the $100 Billion dollar software company apps are not
on Linux, yet, but Linux has better implementations for the $100 Million
dollar software company apps.
>
> <snip>
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Buying Drestin Linux Was (Re: Drestin: time for you to buy UNIX for
DumbAsses
Date: 12 Mar 2000 19:33:39 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <8aeb6p$3oq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3) wrote:
>> >
>> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 11 Mar 2000 13:08:59 -0500, "Drestin Black"
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> <snip>
>> >>>Yes, it installed, I have no idea if it installed right because I
> haven't
>> >>>really done anything with it, there isn't really anything to do with it
>> >>>other than type shit at the CLI or fire up a browser in the
> windows-clone
>> >>>GUI and be impressed that even if X crashes I can telnet in, kill the
> task
>> >>>and try again!
>> >>>
>> >>><click>
>> >
>> >> IOW, you did this with a chip on your shoulder. Just like the
>> >> LinVocates that you complain about who install Windows just
>> >> to find every problem they can with the install or the OS itself,
>> >> with no intention of actually using it with an open mind to see if
>> >> they might actually <gasp> like using it.
>> >
>> > There is no chance that Dresden will ever, ever give linux a fair
> chance.
>>
>> It is not a matter of 'ever'. He can't do it. He knows only M$. Unless
>> he has a button to click the guy is completely lost. Very sad (except
>> he makes this newsgroup so much fun even though I have him killfiled).
>>
> I love it when that happens... they can't take it and won't even listen to
> the other side. blinded by linvocacy and unwilling to even consider it's
> possible linux isn't perfect - he slips his blinders on, his rose color
> glasses and doesn't even see the train coming... :)
I understand fully that linux isnt perfect; thats why I choose FreeBSD for
most "important" tasks, like my workstation at my job. But I also understand
that for my applications (various and sundry) NT is much, much worse.
And so is W2K btw. What the fucks up with stuff I stick in the recycle bin
coming back after deletion? And what about mysterious disappearing
directories? I just recreated an MP3 tree for the 4th time and im sick to
death of doing it man.
p0ok
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Buying Drestin Linux Was (Re: Drestin: time for you to buy UNIX for
DumbAsses
Date: 12 Mar 2000 19:36:10 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Darren Winsper
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Mar 2000 01:06:08 -0500, Drestin Black
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I _have_ given it a chance but, as I wrote before, there was nothing it
>> could do that I couldn't do in W2K already. I mean, if I could find even one
>> single thing I need to do with Linux that I cannot do easily with W2K I
>> would install it (in vmware 2) in a heartbeat. right now VMware is running
>> FreeBSD for me to continue using...
> What can FreeBSD do that Linux can't?
It loads better and handles very high loads much more easily. Its got a
MUCH better tcp/ip stack. Its got a Ports tree and an automated cvsup.
p0ok
k
------------------------------
From: "Alison Dakin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 19:53:47 -0000
5X3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8agr0c$23eq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > He's just upset because NT is better at something than Linux and there
is
> > proven, undeniable proof of it.
>
> > Even his weak arguments are ignorant because, NT4SP6a with C2 hotfix
> > was tested and certified on (among other machines) Compaq Proliants
> > 6000 and 7000 in quite usable scenarios. Those servers were some of
> > top selling servers in 1999 and are widely used in many different
> > environments (banks, credit card processing houses, ATM centers) all
> > running NT in near-C2 configuration, if not C2 configuration.
>
> 1. if you knew anything at all about C2 certification beyond what
> microsoft lies about, you would know that there is no such thing as
> "near-c2 certification". Either it is or it isnt. All systems that
> are NOT C2 certified (and posess no other above or below) are seen
> as equally insecure, and rightfully so.
>
> Which youd know if you knew anything at all about computer security.
>
> 2. There is no PROOF that NT is better at this than unix is, and if you
> knew anything at all about logic and argument, youd know this as well.
> No one has paid for any linux distribution to become C2 certified, and
> until that happens there is no proof.
>
> 3. There are lots of other system configurations that are not C2
> certified that are nearly infinitely more secure and useful than NT
> is. If you are saying that this C2 certification makes NT the most
> secure operating system in the world, you are a fool. If you knew
> anything about something other than your sophomoric pointy clicky
> operating system, youd know this as well.
>
> But you dont, because you know nothing about the way computers
> actually work. I'm continually shocked and amazed that anyone has
> even let you have a job in this industry---until I realize that
> you have a job administrating NT, which explains quite alot about
> the quickening inundation of mediocrity into the industry. (that
> means dipshits like you who dont understand computers are making
> it worse for everyone)
well said - there are too many dipshits like Chad about....
>
>
>
>
> p0ok
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefan Ohlsson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Buying Drestin Linux Was (Re: Drestin: time for you to buy UNIX for
DumbAsses
Reply-To: Stefan Ohlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 12 Mar 2000 21:00:38 +0100
Drestin Black wrote:
>"5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> There is no chance that Dresden will ever, ever give linux a fair chance.
>
>oh no, now THAT is just not true. I've run it myself at home and at work. I
>had it in a vmware window up until only just recently to peck with to check
>things out. We've installed it a few times for several tests at work and
>sometimes just to do our own benchmarks. We've got a copy running now
>running apache for some application developement. No, I DO give it a chance
>but... understand, this is a NT advocacy group
>
No it isn't. It's a linux advocacy group. At least from where I'm reading.
However, since so much is crossposted anyway, why not just make the both
of them into comp.os.linux-vs-nt...
/Stefan
--
[ Stefan Ohlsson ] · http://www.mds.mdh.se/~dal95son/ · [ ICQ# 17519554 ]
Baby O: What's wrong with him?
Cameron Poe: My first guess would be... a lot.
/Con Air
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Norman D. Megill)
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: 12 Mar 2000 15:05:13 -0500
In article <8agho5$ema$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
doc rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>That wasn't the procedure for installing Windows is what is funny about it.
>Had you never installed Windows before and someone was pulling your leg?
>
>--doc
>
>
Well, "doc", obviously you don't know what you are talking about,
because it is *precisely* the procedure (show me what's wrong with it -
you can't, because it works, and each step is necessary). It is not my
own creation but it is the procedure instructed to me by not one but
several Gateway support techs on different occasions, that I assembled
into a start-to-finish document. So you are telling me that Gateway
would waste their time (quite a bit of it in fact) by pulling my leg and
giving me unnecessary instructions?
--Norm
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
