Linux-Advocacy Digest #639, Volume #25 Wed, 15 Mar 00 13:13:05 EST
Contents:
?? ("Net Walker")
Re: A Linux server atop Mach? ("scott hand")
Re: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel, Linux the next desktop OS!! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: I can't stand this X anymore! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (JEDIDIAH)
Re: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel, Linux the next desktop OS!! (Bob Hauck)
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Open Software Reliability (Craig Kelley)
Re: which OS is best? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Why waste time on Linux? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Open Software Reliability (Bob Hauck)
Re: Linux is it's own worst enemy. ("Net Walker")
Re: Question (Bob Hauck)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Net Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: ??
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 17:09:25 GMT
> With NT? ha!
What has NT to be with you ? Have you ever thought that there's NT
information on the net too ? I use both OS's and like/dislike things from
two. Do not need to have the best OS for every thing in every world for
every person ... use all of it and enjoy.
Net Walker
------------------------------
From: "scott hand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]!.net>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Linux server atop Mach?
Date: 15 Mar 2000 12:14:58 -0500
On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 4:21 PM, Charles W. Swiger
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Obviously. :-) Changing the kernel is not trivial; you don't just wave a
>magic wand at the Darwin sources and have it suddenly be able to run Linux
>binaries within 5 minutes.
Sure.
>> but it makes me wonder about the possibility of Apple creating and
selling a
>> distribution and license for just the higher level bits (non-Darwin) of
OS X
>> to people who want to modify the low level parts (Darwin).
>
>At least if you have PowerPC Mac hardware, the license for the upper
layers is
>called "MacOS" for roughly $99/copy. And yeah, you are free to replace
the
>kernel Apple ships with one that you've build from the Darwin sources.
This is the confusing part. Obviously you can not do this with the current
OS 9, but you seem to be claiming that you will be able to with OS X (cuz
it's based on Darwin, duh). AFAIK Apple will only be selling OS X as a
complete package and not as Darwin+(everything else). If versions of Darwin
were to be swappable, how would this be handled? A custom install
selection? Or does the non-Darwin really sit that cleanly atop Darwin? My
original thoughts were to the idea that Apple could sell Quartz, etc.
unbundled leaving it up to the user to provide a platform. Everything I
have read about OS X would seem to indicate that Apple does not want to
leave this integration to the user, even as an option.
IF, on the other hand, this sort of hacking is encouraged by Apple, with no
devious countermeasures taken, then it opens up a whole new market with a
lot of value to the enterprise/server world.I would think that the intel
problem would be solvable and this is where it does become important that
Apple have a strategy in place to license just the top layers. Not doing
the intel bits themselves might assure that OS X not become a popular
consumer-type desktop on non-Apple hw, but they could still sell to large
businesses with in-house development that refuse to switch from intel.
Note, I am not speculating as to the likelihood that they would be very
succesful with this strategy, just explorin possibilities.
<snip>
scott
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel, Linux the next desktop OS!!
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 17:17:58 GMT
On 15 Mar 2000 09:27:49 -0700, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Multi_OS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> blithered:
>>
>> : > It is not good news for Linux, Corel Linux is the worst of breed.
>>
>> : So is Intel. This news is better than a kick in the ass with a frozen
>> : boot, which is what m$ is getting. He didn't claim Corel Linux was the
>> : best thing since sliced bread, he said _Linux_ was the next desktop
>> : OS. Linux can be whatever anyone wants to make of it, as long as you're
>> : running a Linux kernel you've got Linux ! If Corel/Intel helps put
>> : Linux in stores and on desktops more power to em.
>>
>> On three separate occasions, I've asked store clerks in both CompUSA, and
>> Best Buy how well Linux was selling... most of them stated that it wasn't
>> selling in but meager numbers. In fact, most of the boxed Linux
>> distributions at these retailers have a layer of dust on them. This
>> does not bode well for Linux at all, IMHO.
>
>OTOH, I saw RedHat 6.1 at Walmart yesterday.
>
>$29.95
>
>I *never* thought I'd see it in a department store. It's come along
>way since Slackware 1.0.
You can find it at Sam's Club too.
What surprised me was seeing Linux distros and the Linux version
of Quake 3 in a software mall store in a discount mall in the
middle of nowhere (Nevada/California border).
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.app
Subject: Re: I can't stand this X anymore!
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 17:21:31 GMT
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 08:43:35 GMT, Truckasaurus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Michael Gu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> if Steve Jobs think Microsoft Windows is 'absolutely tastless' , i
>> really would like to know what kind of words will he be using
>regarding
>> X windows, Motif or CDE.
>>
>> -- this is purely fiction:
>> What do you want a big screen(more pixels) for?
>> X windows: Bigger letters, of course!
>
>X xindows: If _you_ don't want more pixels, don't use them.
>
>> Windows: So you can see more letters at once.
>
>Windows: So that we can fill your screen with more sodding paperclips!
Past a certain point "more letters" simply isn't useful
anymore. This would be true even if you had infinite
resolution to exploit.
Given the existence of $300 19" monitors that can do 1600x1200,
the need for a screen font renderer optimized for 640x480 screens
seems somewhat lacking...
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 17:24:26 GMT
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 10:09:25 -0600, Robert MacGregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > "Matt Gaia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > : How good is Linux's multiple monitor support? Oh wait, that'd be
>> > useless,
>> > > : I guess. I mean, how much benefit does watching the kernel compile
>> > > : on two screens really provide?
>> > >
>> > > Oh wait, why would you need Multi-Monitor Support on any system except for
>> > > a multimedia system. Just another proof of Windows bells and whistles
>> > > vs. Linux functionality.
>> > >
>> >
>> > ahhh... feature envy denial... <grin>
>>
>> Linux has been doing multiple monitors LONG before Microsoft
>> "invented" it.
>
>And, for the record, Mac's have been doing multiple monitors since the
>first Mac II's came off the line back in the mid 80's.
>
Microsoft, the largest consumer software company in the world
took 11 years to catch up with Apple in this regard. A band of
volunteers took 2 years to catch up with M$. Plus, as the other
guy said, the limitation was in Xfree86, not Linux or Unix.
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel, Linux the next desktop OS!!
Date: 15 Mar 2000 17:33:26 GMT
Reply-To: bobh{at}slc{dot}codem{dot}com
On 14 Mar 2000 22:22:01 GMT, Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On three separate occasions, I've asked store clerks in both CompUSA, and
>Best Buy how well Linux was selling...
Notice that he doesn't say when these occasions were. Perhaps they were
in 1997.
Good FUD Stephen.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 17:33:48 GMT
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 00:29:59 -0600, Bill Sharrock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:QBdz4.1925$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> So are you saying to me to catalog 10 cd's I have to be running a full
>> desktop environment, and mounting in that, catalog, and unmount in the DE
>> 10 times, instead of under Windows quickly shuffling the 10 cd's through
>> without the nonsense?
>>
>> I can't believe you think mounting and unmounting removable media to be
>> acceptable. Especially in this case.
>> Not everyone runs a desktop environment, and that is a damn poor place for
>> that functionally to exist.
>>
>
>You are aware that you can run an automounter daemon and not have to worry
>about all of this.
He doesn't even have to bother with that.
He can just click on the little CD icons in KDE and GNOME and
select the mount, unmount and eject menus. He's just whining
about something being different from his only frame of reference
and being unwilling to adapt to different ways to doing things.
[deletia]
>> That doesn't help those without, or in file managers.
>>
>
>The daemon would be independent to a desktop manager or a anything else.
True. However, such a user is unlikely to ever go into a filesystem
outside the confines of a shiny happy gui tool. If they choose to
forego the shiny happy gui tools then disk mounting is just the
tip of the iceberg...
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 17:34:29 GMT
On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 23:42:36 -0500, Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Darren Winsper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:17:13 -0500, Jim Ross
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > If fonts were fixed under Linux/XFree86, I feel many programs would
>benefit,
>> > starting at AbiWord in Linux.
>>
>> XFree 4 has decent Truetype support IIRC. I'm waiting for it to appear
>> in Woody (Debian's current unstable tree) before I give it a proper
>> test drive.
>>
>> --
>> Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
>> Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
>>
>> DVD boycotts. Are you doing your part?
>
>
>Isn't lack of anti-aliasing the real problem though?
No.
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Open Software Reliability
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 15 Mar 2000 10:36:57 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Murphy) writes:
> On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 03:03:48 GMT, R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Actually, more than a claim. UNIX, and subsequently Linux
> >have set unprecedented levels of reliability. Much of this
> >due to the combination of AT&T culture and Open Source culture.
>
> Unix is one of the most notoriously unreliable operating systems
> in the history of computing. Its initial implementations did not
> even run on hardware with memory protection. For the first 20 years
> of its existence it had to be constantly rebooted and its reliability
> was ridiculed compared to the mainframes. Even today, the unreliability
> stands. eBay has lost _b_illions in market capitalization due to bugs
> in Unix. Where I work, our Linux servers need to be constantly rebooted
> because the NFS implementation is so riddled with bugs, and there is
> no way to fix things besides reboot. At least Unix reboots fast - it
> needs to be rebooted so often that it better be.
You'd better fix your boxes then.
Our entire organization runs under UNIX, and we haven't had *any*
unplanned downtime for about 2 years now.
> AT&T culture, and open source culture, aren't engineering entities,
> they are research entities, and are more interested in creating
> research vehicles than products. The products are not engineered to
> be bulletproof or reliable.
That depends on who is writing what, of course:
[snip VMS figures]
> >This is the first big myth that needs to be exploded. For the most
> >part, open source software is developed by system administrators
> >for system administrators.
>
> And it is preferable to have software which controls nuclear
> reactors written by sysadmins (as opposed to professional engineers)
> for what reason? These makes Unix more reliable than the more robust
> operating systems, such as VMS, why?
That's funny, the Linux Journal had an extensive article about
scientists at CERN who are using large arrays of Linux boxes to
monitor particle collisions. Linux is used to monitor rail traffic in
France. Solaris is used in a number of online brokerages which
provide real-time trading and information.
There is no such thing as "UNIX" -- there are dozens of flavors. You
can pick one up and scrutinize it, but you can't make vague
generalizations about UNIX' reliability.
[snip]
> >Keep it mind that even today, the average UNIX or Linux based server
> >supports no less than 100 concurrent users. Many support as many as
> >1000 concurrent connections per processor. Even the most trivial bug
> >can become incredibly costly. As a result, the control has become
> >quite sophisticated.
>
> Proof please? Which companies deploy Linux servers which supports
> 1000 concurrent users (i.e. logins, not HTTP requests)?
HTTP requests can easily eat up more resources than a network login.
Each telnet connection takes about 200k, plus whatever program they
are running, of course. A ssh connection takes up about 800k, if
security is important to you. An n-tier system using a real database
on the backend and a webserver on the front, can easily best these.
Nobody is going to argue that VMS isn't king of tty connections. It
was designed to hang any number of dumb terminals off it and run them
at maximum efficency; even (especially) in a cluster.
> >In 1984, the military tried to get all government programmers to
> >use ADA. Their hope was that the software produced would be so
> >reliable that they could use it to guide nuclear missles from space.
> >
> >Eventually, the military began to see that the open source community
> >was achieving - for a fraction of the cost, what the military had
> >spent nearly $1 trillion over several years to achieve.
>
> Proof please? Please show me documentation that the US military is
> using open source software to guide nuclear missiles from space (and,
> I mean the software running on the missile, or control centers, not
> some print server in the back room of a design center).
I have no idea about the missiles themselves, but at my last job at
Lockheed, Linux was used to track nuclear waste.
> >Keep in mind, that UNIX (all that code that get included with the
> >Linux kernel) has been used to control Nuclear Reactors, manage nearly
> >all telecommunications traffic, provide the services of the Web,
> >distributed financial information, and even clear real-time financial
> >transactions such as those conducted on the stock exchanges.
>
> Proof please? Please tell me which Nuclear Reactors, which
> telecomunnications traffic centers, and which stock exchanges run on any
> brand of Unix (and, no, a print server in a back room doesn't count).
http://www.nasdaq.com/help/helpfaq.stm#why
monster.com has a couple of job openings for UNIX guys at nuclear
plants. Of course, after using it for a while, I got booted out:
Thank you for using Support Online
We are currently Experiencing difficulties opening the page you have
requested. We are researching this Problem and will resolve it
shortly. Please use the search option on Support Online, available at
http://support.microsoft.com/support/
Hmmm. Cutler's new VMS isn't up to snuff then? :)
Here's an article about _Linux_ being used in a Canadian telecom:
http://www2.linuxjournal.com/lj-issues/issue71/3546.html
There are several jobs for UNIX in the telecommunications arena at
monster. There's only one for VMS...
> As for "the services of the Web", yes, Unix does indeed rule that,
> but it is also one of the most UNRELIABLE computer services in the
> history. C.f. "the world wide wait", repeated frustrations with various
> servers (almost all of which run Unix) randomly crashing. Look at the
> recent report that said something like 25% of potential e-commerce
> transactions due to server problems - this is Unix unreliability
> costing companies billions of dollars. All to blame on Unix.
>
> Unix users are proud of the World Wide Web, but in fact, I would be
> extremely ashamed if my OS choice controlled that (and if it was still as
> unreliable as it is now), and would try to downplay its dominance.. Please
> point to a Unix SUCCESS, not a failure.
Blah blah blah. UNIX isn't one single thing. You can't point to a
box and say *that* is UNIX. You can't generalize about how reliable
"UNIX" is, because everything is distinct. Irix has completely
different design goals from AIX. The former is great for 3D graphic
work, the latter is excellent for network serving. We have two AIX
machines that have NEVER EVER crashed even ONCE over the last ten
years. Well, actually, one of them had a hard disk crash -- but
that's hardly the OS' fault.
Considering that there is no central management of the internet, and
that it is an open standard which allows everything from Amigas to
Z-80 based machines to run on it; I'd say that it works pretty damn
well. If any one company (be it Digital, Sun, Microsoft or Apple) had
designed the internet, it would be much MUCH worse -- both in terms of
pricing and open-standards.
If MSN had trumped the web, VMS wouldn't even be able to connect to
it...
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 17:41:38 GMT
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 02:29:58 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Bob Lyday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers wrote:
>> >
>> > What children learning software and games are there for your children
>> > on Linux?
>> >
>> > What do they typically use the computer for? Learning? Playing games?
>> > Browsing the web?
>> >
>> > What type of computer education are you giving them simply because of
>> > your overly-biased and ignorance-founded hatred for Microsoft?
>>
>> Yeah, the guy is "overly biased" probably cuz he doesn't want to
>> buy from an organized crime gang, which is all M$ is. Actually
>> I have found that the more ignorant a person is, the more they
>> think Crimosoft is a cool corporation. That's the way I was
>> until I ran Losedoze for a while and went on the Internet and
>> found out about how wicked and terrifying this corporation
>> really is.
>
>Yep, that paragraph really paints you as a rational and objective
>individual.
>
>> Chad, you may be interested to know that that is why a lot of us
>> hate M$. We don't hate them cuz they are "too successful." We
>> are not fans of excessive government regulation. We don't hate
>> them cuz they make lousy products. We don't hate them cuz they
>> are a monopoly.
>>
>> We hate them cuz they are an organized crime gang that, through
>> an illegal monopoly, killed a bunch of superior products, set
>> computing back 5-10 years, and then rammed their lousy,
>> overpriced crap down our throats. Why is that "overly-biased
>> and ignorance-founded"?
>
>Uh huh.
>Please explain which superior products they killed (and how).
OS/2 : Forced IBM to not preload their own OS. This
was is a matter of public trial record.
Desqview/drdos : Forced OEMs into contracts that charged
for ANY machine that was sold regardless
of whether or not it went out with MS product.
Public record: first DOJ consent decree against MS.
>Please explain how they set computing back 5 - 10 years.
They sat on their asses from 1985 to 1995 not bothering
to fully exploit the IA32 instruction set and not
bothering to fully deploy gui based systems.
>Please explain how they rammed anything down your throats.
They conspire like Coreleone's to make it impossible to choose
anything else. Part of it is a fundemental nature of intellectal
monopolies. Part of it is legal manuvering specifically intended
to prevent other companies from doing business.
Undermining any other company's ability to derive a revenue stream
from http clients while being able to fund the development of their
own client, force bundled with the natural monopoly product they use
to fund that development.
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Why waste time on Linux?
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 17:46:47 GMT
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 07:15:55 -0500, Haoyu Meng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Random Liegh wrote:
>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Sanders wrote:
>> >proculous wrote:
[deletia]
>>
>> You have to admit; using linux if all you're into is *games* is *in fact*
>> a waste of time (mostly, yes--there are exceptions). Perhaps mr
>> proctologist-of-bore(g) should stick to games, maybe?
Win9x is not worth putting up with for games. NT is not perfectly
compatible either. So, it does make quite a bit of sense to use
Linux or Be or MacOS if you like computer games.
>
>And the good thing about compiling a kernel is that you only have to do it once!
>Once you get it setup, you can do rock-solid computing for months/years without
>ever needing to worry about underlying system reliability. Mainting a workable
>system on Windows is far less so. Although clicking though the Control Panels
>might save might save you the few minutes it would take to configure and compile
>a kernel, the resulting system under Widnows is bound to fail in no more than a
>few months, in some way or another. This especially true if large number of
>application packages are installed, which frequently result in
>REGISTRY corruption.
I love the fact that I can torture my machine, just plain turn
it off, and I can be very confident that I won't 'break' it.
This is especially good for games that have a tendency to really
stress system software and the hardware.
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Open Software Reliability
Date: 15 Mar 2000 18:02:08 GMT
Reply-To: bobh{at}slc{dot}codem{dot}com
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 08:23:16 GMT, Terry Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 03:03:48 GMT, R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Unix is one of the most notoriously unreliable operating systems
>in the history of computing.
>_Today_, VMS has the following markets:
Ok, I see where you're coming from now. You are the Anti-Rex. He spouts
nonsense in support of Unix, you spout nonsense in support of VMS.
I'm not sure, but I think you are tilting at slightly larger windmills
than he is. It is a close call though.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: "Net Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is it's own worst enemy.
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 18:01:43 GMT
I fully agree with you. Though, another OS's have their own problems too.
Anyway, by now, Windows 98 is the ONLY possible choice to use normal
hardware, play games and compute home works ... unstable, but the ONLY
option, I reapeat.
Net Walker.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Question
Date: 15 Mar 2000 18:05:10 GMT
Reply-To: bobh{at}slc{dot}codem{dot}com
On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 21:27:51 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi. My name is Ryan Higgens, a student at Clemson University and I'm
>doing an english argumentative research paper on Linux vs. Windows.
[snip questions]
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Since you're posging from Deja I'll point out that they have an archive of
this group. Just read the last week or so and will have as good an answer
as you will get from this post.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.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
******************************
