Linux-Advocacy Digest #653, Volume #25 Thu, 16 Mar 00 13:13:09 EST
Contents:
Re: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel, Linux the next desktop OS!! (Craig Kelley)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Norman D. Megill)
Re: C2 question ("Chad Myers")
Re: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel, Linux the next desktop OS!! ("Chad Myers")
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or Linux
(Maury Markowitz)
Re: An Illuminating Anecdote ("mr_organic")
Re: An Illuminating Anecdote ("mr_organic")
Re: which OS is best? ("Olivier Borgeaud")
Re: which OS is best? (Leon Hanson)
RedHat drops LinuxExpo 2000 ("Drestin Black")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel, Linux the next desktop OS!!
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 16 Mar 2000 09:14:45 -0700
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > 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.
>
> Yeah, I saw it too... right next to all the rest of the bargin-bin
> <$30.00 software and old, washed up games.
Of course Windows 2000 was conspicuously absent...
--
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] (Norman D. Megill)
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: 16 Mar 2000 11:27:16 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>On 14 Mar 2000 23:06:05 -0500, someone claiming to be Norman D. Megill
>wrote:
nteresting that because you've never heard of it, it therefore can't be
>>an MS bug.
>
>How so? What you have described would be a major bug if it were
>generic to the OS, and would effect other video drivers as well. Have
>you reliable reports that such is happening? If not, then it would me
>more sense to call it a driver issue than an OS issue, unless one's
>primary motive was to bash MS.
I'll grant you that I don't know whose "issue" it is. But there are
very serious, major bugs in MS software that are very rare and only
experienced by a few people. For example, I have experienced one with
MS Word that erases ALL of my work, including the AutoSave file. I
spent many hours with MS on the phone under their Task #30578459. They
admitted it was a known problem but refused to fix it or investigate it
further because it is rare for most people. For a description, see
http://x43.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=343048337
http://x43.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=344029166
http://x43.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=344214952
>>[...]how do you really know that some deeper hidden damage
>>hasn't also occurred that will only show up later?
>
>[...]So, in
>answer to your question -- there is no way to KNOW absolutely that
>such did not occur, but it is unlikely.
As I said,
>>why should I take the risk, especially
>>contrary to Gateway's advice? Windows has enough mysterious flaky
>>problems as it is, so I want to eliminate as many unknowns as possible.
..............
>[...]Yes, let's address that procedure now, since you earlier asked what
>could be eliminated:
>[...]Unless you have made changes to your BIOS setup, which you don't
>mention having made elsewhere, 5 6 and 7 can be eliminated altogether.
I do often make some changes after installation. So I want to get
everything back to a known state to be on the safe side. Anyway these
steps consume a trivial amount of time.
>> fdisk /mbr <- if boot sector is corrupted
>
>And since you have not mentioned that the boot sector is corrupt, this
>could be skipped in any case.
Again, this is almost instant. So why not do it anyway - how do I know
it's not corrupt? I am doing a clean reinstall because the computer
won't boot, or Windows crashes every hour instead of once a day, etc. -
I have no idea what is corrupted and what isn't. It also gets rid of
any boot sector viruses. But yes, sometimes I do skip this.
>
>> (The following 2 formats change the label to uppercase to workaround an
>> FDISK bug.)
>
>Why / how had they become lower case to begin with?
I don't know. A Windows crash can do strange things to your disk. But
they were in one case. So I do it as a precaution - Gateway told me it
could happen, it did happen, and this is the procedure Gateway gave me
for fixing it. The real question is, why hasn't the bug in FDISK that
hiccups on lower case (as well as the other FDISK bugs) been fixed by MS?
This is legacy DOS software probably 10 or more years old.
>> 4 (Delete Non-DOS Partition - says: No Non-DOS Partition to delete)
>
>If you know that there is not a non-DOS partition, why would you try
>to delete it?
Precaution. With a badly corrupted disk, who knows how FDISK will
interpret it.
>>10A. (Continuation point if just reinstalling Windows)
>> Note: the /u is important because Windows is (more) flaky if
>> there is old random background data on the disk.
>
>Proof of the above assertion?
(1) I experienced it - once I could not even get through the complete
install without the OS hanging at some point. (2) Gateway confirmed it
could happen and told me not to try to save time by omitting this step.
My theory: there may be some code where the developer forgot to
initialize data after reading a new disk block, and a certain peculiar
background random data pattern will trigger a bug. Just my theory
though.
If you think "random data" can't trigger MS bugs, just try to read a
randomly corrupted Word document (e.g., send it through an ASCII FTP
filter). Most of the time Word will crash with Illegal Instruction
faults, etc., sometimes locking up the whole OS. An app that doesn't
completely validate its own binary format is truly appalling design IMO.
Even StarOffice can read corrupted Word documents better than Word:
http://x43.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=453801472
But now I am getting off-topic.
>> sys c:
>
>If you use the command format /u /s c: you can skip the sys command
>here.
Agreed.
>
>> CTRL+ALT+DEL
>
>Or simply type "autoexec" at the a: prompt, since you seem to need the
>batch processes.
7 keystrokes instead of CTRL+ALT+DEL
>> copy *.* c:\cabs
>
>Not necessary -- Win95 installs just fine from CD.
This is to avoid constantly swapping the "Windows 95 CD" and the
"Multimedia Notebook System CD" later on.
>> cd win95\solo2300\vxdinf
>> copy *.* c:\cabs
>
>Likely not necessary, since this will install from CD as well.
>
See above.
>> cd \
>> c:
>> cd \cabs
>> setup
>> ENTER (...routine check... To continue, press ENTER. To quit Setup, press ESC.)
>> x (Select EXit)
>
>I would recommend the command setup /id (skips disk space check) /is
>(skips Scandisk) /im (skips check for memory) /iq (skips check for
>crosslinked files)
>
>Also, load SMARTDRV first -- the install will go * much * faster...
OK, although my expertise is insufficient for me to comment on your
suggestion for this particular hardware. Perhaps I will look into it.
>> Yes (System Settings Change ...restart your computer now?)
>
>This restart in unnecessary, since you have other things to configure
Some restarts are, and some aren't. I didn't want to spend the time
experimenting with every possible combination. Since the video, in
particular, seems so touchy, I wouldn't risk not doing it here.
By the way Gateway told me to do it here. I know it's starting to sound
like a mantra but they've done a lot more installs than I have. You
dismiss them as a bunch of dumb techs reading a script - but if they do
this constantly all day long, why have they not optimized the script?
They have to wait on the phone line for the reboot just as long as I do.
Perhaps you can convince them to pay you big consulting $$ by showing
how much money they would save over 1,000,000 installs.
>
>Enabling the second controller is unnecessary -- on the reboot, it
>will be enabled as a consequence of enabling the first one.
OK.
...
>> [computer powers off]
>> Power on computer
>
>I would move this to before the PC Card stuff and avoid another boot.
OK.
....
>> Start
>> Shutdown
>
>And this reboot can be avoided by refreshing the DevMan.
I'll accept that, although I've never tried.
>> Close Internet Explorer
>
>Or hold down the shift key to bypass Autorun.
OK. It would save one mouse click.
....
>Of course, choosing a custom setup to begin with, you can specify all
>of this during the initial installation...
Yes, that would save going to the control panel (a few mouse clicks),
minus extra mouseclicks selecting the right custom setup. You still
have to specify the information.
>>Start
>> Shutdown
>> Restart Computer
>> OK
>
>Why the restart here -- you've just restarted and not made any
>changes?
Well, it is one way of getting the user name/passwords entered. I
agree it is not an efficient one.
>>[To install LapLink]
>
>I thought we weren't installing apps? Oh, well...
Yes, strictly speaking I am installing an app. In this case it is
getting the machine back to the factory setup, and anyway the CD I need
is already inserted, so it saves time later on. As I said, there may be
steps not essential for everyone: I wrote this for my own use and not
for Usenet.
...
>
>If you're installing a printer here, why did you cancel out of it
>earlier?
Because the floppy disk drive was installed in the printer port at that
time.
>Why go to Configure, etc. when you are not making any changes?
>
These are just to verify it is set up correctly. That's a good idea,
don't you agree? But I still have to make a few changes like:
>> Primary DNS: xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx
>> Secondary DNS: yyy.yyy.yyy.yyy
>Well, that'll do for starters...
Thanks for your help. You have proved your point that there are
inefficiencies in my procedure. But they don't really cost me much more
time in terms of the whole procedure, and given that my procedure is
debugged and tried-and-true I will most likely keep using it as is since
that involves the least risk. If it was something I did every day then
yes, I would try to optimize it.
--Norm
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: C2 question
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 10:46:27 -0600
"Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Linux uses the archaic ROOT/GROUP/EVERYONE security style that
> > does not offer fine-grained access control, nor does it afford
> > implicit DENY which is another sub-requirement of the DAC requirement
> > for C2.
>
> Yes it does, actually. You can create a bunch of groups, and invite
> certain users into each individual group and lock out others. And,
> it's not ROOT/GROUP/EVERYONE. It's owner/group/others. Root is
> usually the owner of important system files. Each file or directory
> specifies owner/group. Then you can have a logical OR of read, write,
> executable of each category, owner, group, others. Root belongs to
> group "wheel", or at least on BSD root does. This means that a given
> user must be invited into group "wheel" before he can su root. So, I
> believe unix systems do have fine-grained access control.
http://www.radium.ncsc.mil/tpep/library/rainbow/NCSC-TG-009.txt
2.1 Talks about Discretionary Access Control Subsystems.
-QUOTE-
=======================
(Bottom of Page 10 going onto 11)
The following interpretation, in addition to the interpretations and
requirements for the DAC/D2 class, shall be satisfied for the DACID3 class.
2.1.3.3.1 Access control lists for each object
The DAC subsystem shan anow users to specify the list of individuals or
groups of individuals who can access each object. The list shan additionally
specify the mode(s) of access that is anowed each user or group. This implies
that access control lists associated with each object is the only acceptable
mechanism to satisfy the DAC/D3 requirement.
=======================
-END QUOTE-
How can you specify a list of groups that have access to a specific file,
for example?
If I have three groups: Accounting, Marketing, and Production, and they have
different needs for this file. Let's say it's an annual sales report that
Accounting has read/write/modify, Marketing has Read-only, and Production has
Read-Only, in NT/2K I would do:
Accounting: Read, Write, Modify
Marketing: Read (Deny write for extra security)
Production: Read (Deny write for extra security)
How would I do this with the OWNER/GROUP/OTHERS methodology?
What about Auditing? Can you audit a specific user's actions on a specific
file when excercised through a group?
If John was a member of Marketing, and he attempted to write to the file,
would it record a failure audit for Marketing, or a failure audit for
John?
Can you do explicit Deny? And when I mean Deny, I don't mean to NOT give
someone permissions, I mean, explicitly disallow them from accessing a
resource? This is a requirement of C2.
Here's a "Guide to understanding DAC in Trusted Systems"
http://www.radium.ncsc.mil/tpep/library/rainbow/NCSC-TG-003.txt
7 begins the talk on ACLs, and 7.3 in particular has an thorough examination.
7.4 discusses the "Protection Bits" methodolgy used by UN*X (and Linux) in
general.
-QUOTE-
=======================
"Protection bits are an incomplete attempt to represent the access control
matrix by column. Implementation of protection bits include systems such as
UNIX [15], which use protection bits associated with objects instead of a list
of users who may access an object."
=======================
-END QUOTE-
There is one example of the functionality lacking in the UN*X method
exemplified in the follow quote:
-QUOTE-
=======================
"The user who created the object is the owner, and that can only be changed
through superuser privileges. The owner is the only one (besides a superuser)
who can change protection bits."
=======================
-END QUOTE-
That is, there is no way to delegate the changing of permissions on an
object.
With DAC, you can allow someone to change permissions, but not take ownership
of the object. In NT (as with other OSen with DAC implemented) you can allow
someone to change permissions but not change ownership. Ownership is the
ultimate trump card, and even if someone has explicitly denied you access
to an object, you, as the owner, can always trump. This allows you to
delegate authority to a remote admin, but yet not allow him/her ultimate
authority.
The TSEC goes on to furthur criticize the UN*X style of doing things in the
following paragraph:
-QUOTE-
=======================
"The problem with protection bits is that they are an incomplete implementation
of the access control matrix model. The system cannot conveniently allow or
disallow access to a protected object on any single user basis. It has been
suggested that groups be set up so that any needed combination of users can be
specified. But, for more than a few users, the combinatorics of such a
solution are unrealistic. Also, groups are controlled by the system
administrator, and such a scheme would require full-time attention."
=======================
-END QUOTE-
There you have it. If that isn't clear enough, I don't know what is.
Linux cannot qualify in it's current form because of these glaring failings.
Likewise, other Unices with these limitations are also not accepted.
This is why it is necessary to produce "Trusted" versions of the OS to
comply with C2's DAC and object reuse criteria.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel, Linux the next desktop OS!!
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 10:57:56 -0600
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Of course Windows 2000 was conspicuously absent...
Because Windows2000 is not targeted at the consumer. Wal-Mart is targeted
at the most uninformed and ready-to-spend-lots-of-money-without-knowing-
anything consumer (suprisingly, they're selling Linux!).
Go to CompUSA, CircuitCity or BestBuy (where the more informed consumer
shops) and you'll see Win2K there with a big display, and the RH box
is sitting next to Caldera and FreeBSD way back on the third aisle with
all the other "X for Dummies" or "Home Recipe Maker!" type software.
-Chad
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Maury Markowitz)
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or
Linux
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 17:00:13 GMT
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sal Denaro wrote:
> It was years ago but I wrote code for converting and tweaking ADPCM
> encoded sound so it could be played on dialogic 4Dx phone cards. These
> were ISA based cards made in the late '80s and early '90s and have long
> since been replaced with PCI cards that have tons of RAM for buffers
> and much more IO.
Could have fooled me. I was just talking to them two weeks ago, and
they're still selling the vast majority of their voice cards on ISA, a
shocking number of those _8_bit_ISA_. A two line card with no fax costs well
over 500 bux, and a PCI one _starts_ at $2k minimum.
Sheesh, who are they fooling? Oh wait, it's themselves.
> That may or may not be the case with QuickTime. Seeing that people have
> used QuickTime to port Mac Apps to Windows and Apple is using QuickTime
> to port the Mac toolbox to OSX, I tend to view QT as being less abstracted
> than you.
That's one of my primary complaints with QT actually. IIRC (this is almost
a decade ago now) QT 2.0 _was_ pretty abstracted, it ran using fairly native
implementations on both the Mac and PC. However the performance was less
than that of QT1.5x on the MacOS, and people freaked. So, as the story goes,
they ported over OS 6.0.x guts, linked that into QT, and that's QT2.1. So
now we have this fantastic porting platform...
> Second, that is true of the CODEC, but QuickTime is not a CODEC and the
> CODECs are NOT owned by Apple.
Well SOME of them are anyway.
> Lastly, Apple has made it pretty clear that this is to help out
> their developers.
Now if only they'd ship Foundation...
BTW, is SuperNews any good? My feed bites, what pay ones should I be
looking at?
Maury
------------------------------
From: "mr_organic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Illuminating Anecdote
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 10:34:18 -0600
"Sitaram Chamarty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 11:34:17 -0600, mr_organic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> >themselves. They were like the old COBOL coders I used to know,
> >simply plugging in code chunks by rote and staring slack-jawed at the
> >screen when something went wrong.
>
> I take moderate and half-joking offense at two things in your
> post. One is emacs-versus-vim, so we'll let that go :-)
>
> The other is your above statement. I realise you qualified it
> with "I used to know", but I have to wonder. I have been working
> in COBOL conversions most of my working life (which means writing
> C/lex/yacc, and more recently perl, code to convert programs en
> masse from one dialect to another - I have had a fair amount of
> experience at that).
>
> All this necessitates dealing with many COBOL coders. One of my
> more recent customers, for instance, is 55+ and what he doesn't
> know about (a) MF COBOL, (b) AIX hardware/installation/sysadmin is
> probably not worth knowing or known only inside MicroFocus and
> IBM. Plus he's really an all-rounder - he knows stuff I wouldn't
> imagine if I had that same stereotype in my head.
>
> There are many others like him in my past. COBOL does not protect
> you from the real world of the computer within which it runs, like
> $LAME_DEVELOPMENT_TOOL in your post apparently does. (Ever used a
> failing tape drive whose auto-threader had failed and you had to
> manually thread the 9-track tape just the right way? :-) (OK I've
> kind of dated myself - but so what?)
>
> More than that would cross over from righteous indignation to
> severely off-topic so email me if you like :-)
>
> PS:
>
> http://www.dimensional.com/~sitaram/cobol/stereotypes.html for
> another post, in another day, on another group.
COBOL is a hideous language and has ruined more promising hackers
than BASIC ever did. It is a bloated, over-verbose mess that
is completely unsuitable for any kind of interactive use. It shows
its roots as a batch-only, data-processing language which was
designed by committee and implemented mainly by suits who didn't
know any better.
Porting COBOL to the PC was a perversion for which MicroFocus and
IBM should burn in hell.
------------------------------
From: "mr_organic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Illuminating Anecdote
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 10:31:37 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "mr_organic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > He said: "What's Emacs?"
> >
> > I said: "Out of my office, infidel."
>
> Glad you weren't around when I was learning. Or would it have helped
> that I didn't know Windows?
>
> I did read a lot of man pages, etc. But I also asked a lot of
> questions. Looking down on your coworkers won't better your situation
> at all. Teach whoever will learn.
>
> --
> Bruce R. Lewis <URL:http://web.mit.edu/brlewis/www/>
I never refuse help to larval-stage hackers; without guidance, they'll
never tread upon the True Path. What bugs me (mightily!) is that many
WinCoders, fresh from a week-long course in $LAME_DEVELOPMENT_TOOL,
are arrogantly sure they are masters of the craft and _do not need_
help. Only when $LAME_DEVELOPMENT_TOOL barfs out obscure errors do
they realize their mistake.
Don't get me wrong -- arrogance is a phase all larval-stage hackers
go through. But many WinCoders mix this arrogance with an astounding
ignorance of their programming tool, which I cannot abide. They will
only learn what they must and no more. This is laziness, and when
they come crying for "help", what they really mean is that they want
their problems solved for them. A simple RTFM usually suffices; failing
that, STFW will work.
Too many WinCoders have given up on careful software engineering --
they have been seduced by the "easy to use!" drool spouted by the
marketroids at M$ and (I'm sorry to say) Borland. They don't have any
idea how to actually _design_ software -- if their pretty ActiveX control
or .ocx component breaks, they are adrift and completely stuck.
To be sure, there is much ugly code in Unix, but it is often ugly for a
reason. Further, the _average_ quality of code is much higher in a
typical Unix installation than on a Windows box. This is because most
Unix coders have had to learn their toolchain the old fashioned way, not
having much in the way of "easy to use" IDEs (although that is changing
now). If you want a program to work, work reliably, and be maintainable,
you'd better write good code, or your program will die in the wild. This
is one of the best things about Open Source, and why it has an inherent
advantage over closed-source programs.
------------------------------
From: "Olivier Borgeaud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:52:20 +0100
> The windows gui
> is pathetic IMNHO. It lacks consistency
This one is the best !
ok, let's have a look on KDE or gnome ... Very consistent ;>)) Specially wen
you want to configure hardware in control pannel !
Please, I also use linux, but only because I am intersted with (old)
technologies. I found Linux so complicated that in fact, it is a very nice
way to understand how computer works, process, scheduler, etc...
Try to make a document with 400 pages with Staroffice or Applixware ... You
will see how bad it works. Try to scroll the text... It takes alot of time,
because the system is not responsive ....Or it crash the application ;>)
Where are perfomances and reliability ?
I have also to say that my computer is a PIII 600 and 256 MB RAM !
I bought Windows 2000 and Office 2000, and now It takes less than 2 seconds
to start Winword, few seconds to open a 400 pages documents and I can scroll
it in real time (It contains both texte and images)
Every one have to make this experience. Install Linux on his machine and use
apps. I tell you, you will find not expensive to spend 2000.- Swiss francs
(Yes, Switzerland) for a good OS and a high quality Office suite. Sure, MS
is a monopoly, and their products are expensive. But you an immediat and
strong result.
Anyway, I do not say (No Linux at home). I do not care the product or the
editor. I just need to work with some reliable products, no more.
Best regards,
Olivier
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leon Hanson)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 17:55:01 GMT
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 12:17:09 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>They use the computer as a tool and not a toy. I have 4 children
>ranging from 17 to 3 years old. The older 2 use ApplixWare and
>StarOffice (they are comfortable with either) for school work. Each
>term they have to make a presentation on a chosen topic to their
>classes. They use netscape to research these projects.
Generally, everything you outlined in your post I believe most
certainly can be done by young kids using Linux. I think Linux is
quite usable as a desktop OS, provided the end user doesn't have to
change the system (install software) much.
But that last line of yours: "they use Netscape to research these
projects" God, I wish there was a better web browser for Linux than
that godforsaken Netscape.....
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RedHat drops LinuxExpo 2000
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 13:03:51 -0500
http://www.news-observer.com/daily/2000/03/16/biz01.html
With the Linux Expo fades yet another icon of Linux's innocent early years
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
