Linux-Advocacy Digest #731, Volume #25 Tue, 21 Mar 00 13:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: What are the limitations of using Linux on your server (if there is one)?
(Leslie Mikesell)
Re: C2 question (B1 on Linux & Free B1) (abraxas)
Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic) ("Eldor Luedtke Jr.")
Re: US politics ("DGF")
Re: I'm back!!! with reasons why U shouldn't use Linux... ("fysg")
Re: Giving up on NT (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Re: I don't want to stir up any concerns... ("fysg")
Re: Producing Quality Code (Matthias Warkus)
Re: US politics ("fysg")
Re: I don't want to stir up any concerns... (Timothy J. Lee)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Craig Kelley)
Re: I'm back!!! with reasons why U shouldn't use Linux... (Nico Coetzee)
Re: I don't want to stir up any concerns... (Craig Kelley)
Re: Linux on the Desktop...TODAY! (Roberto Alsina)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: What are the limitations of using Linux on your server (if there is one)?
Date: 21 Mar 2000 10:38:45 -0600
In article <8b5pro$mks$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>My company is planning on hosting roughly 200 web sites on a single
>Linux box (I am unsure as to which flavor), using Apache server. The
>server will have roughly between 500 megs ~ 1 gig of memory. These
>sites will by dynamic and primarily database driven on a separate
>server which will be using MYSQL as the back end and Perl to access the
>data. Is this a feasible notion, can a single Linux box coupled with a
>database server with the previous stats be capable of hosting and
>handling approximately 200 dynamic web sites?
Yes, you can handle that number of vhosts and the combination of
Linux, apache, perl (if you use mod_perl) and MYSQL will give
you as fast a system as you can build. However, you need to
consider the throughput you need more than the number of vhosts.
Depending on content, one box could drive a couple of T1's to
capacity (you'd probably want dual PIII 600's, a gig of ram
and several scsi drives for that). Also, mod_perl has some
'interesting' memory requirements, so busy sites normally use
some sort of reverse-proxy so the large processes don't waste
time dribbling content back over slow internet connections.
I'd recommend spending some time reading the mod_perl mailing
list archives before starting. There is nothing peculiar to
Linux vs. any other unix flavor here. If you haven't bought
hardware yet, look at the VALinux boxes. It is generic stuff
nicely packaged and preloaded with a slightly customized
version of RedHat.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: C2 question (B1 on Linux & Free B1)
Date: 21 Mar 2000 16:52:50 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In article <8b6u49$2212$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> > As Abraxas mentions, PitBull is nothing like BlackICE. BlackICE is
>> > essentially a network intrusion detection system. PitBull is a
> security
>> > platform that enhances the security on an OS. It allows you to
>> > encapsulate applications so that they are isolated from eachother
> and
>> > gets rid of uid 0 and replaces it with least privilege concepts.
>>
>> Ive noticed that currently you seem to only ship your product for
>> the Solaris platform. Any plans on expanding? I'm particularly
>> interested in a FreeBSD port...
>>
>> -----yttrx
> Actually we have quite a few plans for expansion. We are officially
> porting to AIX, UnixWare, and Linux at this time. However, we have no
> official plans to port to FreeBSD as of now.
Ahhh...suck. The linux port is of interest to me though.
> I don't know what your specific ties to the FreeBSD platform are, but I
> would recommend taking a look at Solaris x86 w/PitBull as an alternative
> platform. With XFree86 and Gnu compiler tools installed on a Solaris
> x86 box, you get an excellent platform. PitBull gives you a flexible
> and secure platform.
Well, The only reason I run use solaris in the first place for very specific
applications is the Sun OS/hardware combination...To me, theres not much of
a point in running Solaris X86; theres no Openboot, theres no hot-swappable
hardware, etc. FreeBSD covers the X86 end of things; I find its much more
stable and quite alot faster than linux is for heavy apps.
Theres also (though a very different kind) quite alot more support for
FreeBSD than there is for linux. The up to the second ports/source tree
is excellent. The documentation is abundant and very clear.
Sure, it doesnt run on as wide a varitey of platforms, but when I buy a
Sparc, its because ill be running solaris; when I buy an SGI, its because
ill be running IRIX, etc.
I think youll also find that Free/Open (especially Open) BSD are much more
secure than linux or AIX is "out of the box". You should take a look at
them...:)
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: "Eldor Luedtke Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 16:59:28 GMT
John Sheehy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In message <8b33ap$gfl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote :
>
> >I often wonder why AmigaDOS was never considered for an embedded
solution.
> >I mean, it's tiny, runs on 68000 hardware (which is still a very popular
> >architecture for some applications, (please, no Z80 vs. 68k arguments
:-),
> >and it's awfully fast.
>
> Perhaps it offers little or nothing, and is therefore bloat, in an
> embedded environment.
> --
Or, more likely, it's owners in the past have been too greedy and so the
cost would be too high.
------------------------------
From: "DGF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: US politics
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 11:57:50 -0500
To whoever started this:
Wow, you should study the immigration policies of countries like Japan,
India and Israel. Correct me if I'm wrong but I recall reading that to
immigrate to Japan and be a Japanese citizen you need a Japanese surname.
To immigrate to India you need Indian ancestry, etc. To immigrate to Israel
you have to be a Jew right?
I find it interesting how you liberals condemn the immigration policies of
Western countires, which are being swamped by immigration, but see no fault
in the racist immigration policies of other countries.
The fact is that the US still takes more immigrants than any other country
in the world and most of them come from Mexico. In fact US immigration
policy is far more liberal than that of Mexico. You should see how
Guatemalan illegal aliens are treated in Mexico. They are treated like shit
with no civil rights, they are beaten and sent back to Guatemala.
You are never satisifed. If we gave you the free immigration you wanted you
would find something else to whine about. The resulting new 1 billion
immigrants(after free immigration) would cause grave social problems. At
that point you liberals would demand economic equality for all those 1
billion new immigrants. You would want the government to raise taxes to
95% to redistribute wealth so that the new immigrants had the same standard
of living as native born Americans. After you got that you would whine of
something else. Maybe that the environment has been ruined by a population
of 1.3billion and growing. You would insist we needed mandatory birth
control and mandatory abortions as well as draconian environmental
regulations. Then you would demand that the US government pay for the
immigration trip for those unable to afford it, further raising the new
immigrant population to 2 billion. After that you would move on to outlaw
"unhealthy" junk food. After that you would demand something else, and on
and on and on and on and on and on and on and on. You never know when to
stop. You are never satisfied. You always need some cause to fight for to
make yourselves feel good about yourselves.
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8akecf$4glq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : On 17 Aug 1999 19:11:14 GMT, Steve Mading wrote:
> :>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Brent Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> :>All you have to do to see the inherent racism in US policy about
> :>foreingers (whether we talk of immigration, border patrol or whatnot)
> :>is to look at the difference between how we treat Canadians and how
> :>we treat Mexicans.
>
> : There is no "inherent racism". Mexicans get a harder time, because
> : more of them immigrate. The US want to accept a balanced group of
> : immigrants, rather than giving all available working visas to Mexicans.
> : The amount of illegals coming in from Mexico doesn't help. ( The US
> : deports over a million illegals each year )
>
> : Let me elaborate: the US have a set quota of working visas that they are
> : willing to give to nationals of each country. ( I believe it's the same
amount
> : for each country ). This means that if you come from a country that
doesn't
> : include a lot of would-be migrants ( such as Canada, Australia, and
Western
> : European countries ), it is much easier to immigrate.
>
> I doubt that the number is fixed per nationality (although I admit that
> I don't know what the policy actually is). If the number were fixed
> per nationality then places with tiny populations like Luxembourg
> would have many unused visas allocated to them while people from a
> more populous country would not have enough.
>
> Mexico has over three times the population of Canada, so there *should*
> be more visas from there, proportionally.
>
------------------------------
From: "fysg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I'm back!!! with reasons why U shouldn't use Linux...
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 17:08:43 GMT
> 1. It's buggy.
Not more buggy than any other OS ... and by far easier to fix.
> 2. It's ugly.
I love my framebuffer console at 100Hz and big resolution text,
and I love my icewm and my Windowmaker, etc ...
> 3. It's slow.
Is it allowed laughing here ?
> 4. Netscape is owned by AOL
I can use Netscape, Lynx, KDE browser, Arena, etc ... and
soon Mozilla ... sure that sooner than Windows family unification hoho.
> 5. It has no useful GUI
Exact, it has useful GUI's, desktops and a powerful and imitated
TCP/IP based model.
> 6. Programmers who work free are bad programmers.
Well ... everywhere there're everything ... anyway, the code is
there for you if you want to improve it ... if it is so bad coded, sure
you could give us some ideas. What about Windows filesystems ?
Memory management ? Process accounting ? All of that are first
course topics.
> 7. Corel makes a version
Can't do a Windows version, neither do you. I can if I want make
my own distro.
> 8. No one has ever made money on it.
Lies. Besides, I hate people that think money is all in life.
> 9. No one will ever buy Linux apps.
May be home users no, but do they buy Win soft ? And the soft
companies will buy, for sure will have a free version.
> 10. Greenspan wore a green tie on St paddies day
No comments.
> 11. Apple is about to release OSX
Based on free code, and in fact, with a in some aspects free license if
I am not wrong.
> 12. Beos is about to release 5
I do not know that OS, is it free ?
> 13. Windows 2000 is.
Failed to end sentence; is ... awul, bloated, buggy, not neccessary.
> Hope this helps
Sure not, nothing new.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: 21 Mar 2000 17:11:06 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 19 Mar 2000 10:58:07 -0600,
Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Ok, so tell me, what does "Terminal Services" do that a Tectronics
> > does not? What does it give me for all the increased cost in RAM
> > and CPU? Give me a reason why I do need 10 M for a user, so I'd
> > need 300 M RAM for a peak of 30 users ... what's the gain?
> It presents a modern, standard, familiar interface to the user?
And this is different from an X-Terminal in which way? (waiting
for you to fall into the trap ...)
> > How many users can you fit in your NT or W2K with 64 MB?
> None, but then I wouldn't *try* with only 64 meg!
So the "Terminal Services" are resource hungry, plain and
simple.
[dual PIII-500 servers]
> > > What's special about it is that *everyone* got these. Even the
> > > receptionist! All with 19" monitors. All with NT 4. All with 10 gig
> > > hard drives. All costing less than a 386-25 with 16 megs, a 500 meg
> > > hard drive and a 15" monitor 10 years ago.
> > So Word finally needs a PIII-500 to run at a usable speed? :-)
> > (Or can you explain what the receptionist *needs* that computing
> > power for?)
> That's my *entire* point! She *doesn't* need that much power. It's
> just that that much power is so *cheap* these days, who cares?
Because the receptionist's old PC was perfectly working you
replaced it? *boggle* Say again?
Well, then I understand why people change to windows :-)
> Her machine costs less than the 386-25 from 10 years ago. Complaining
> about the resource requirements of todays's OSes when those requirements
> come cheaper than 1/100th the power from 10 years ago is kinda silly,
> don't you think?
Don't you think it's a waste throwing away the receptionist's
former machine? It sure did the job --- and I am sure it was a
PII at least. Why won't you simply buy a Cray supercomputer for
every desk and be done with it, then?
> > > So if the OS needs 50 megs ram and 500 megs of disk
> > > space, who cares?
> > Your average user with 64 MB. Which you proclaimed was more or
> > less standard.
> Again, it was/is. 128 meg is becoming the standard *for the same or
> less cost than 64 meg 2 years ago*! See the point yet?
So, you have to buy an extra 64 MB just to be able to run your
50 MB OS. Well, that is a waste. You are seeing my point?
> > And 10 years ago, DOS used what, 130k at most for a standard
> > configuration ... so with 4 MB RAM you'd have 550-600 for
> > DOS-Programs and 3 MB for XMS, EMS, Smartdrive. So you could use
> > 3.5 MB out of 4 (or 15.5 out of 16), and part of the lossage are
> > the PC internals .. but well. That makes 87.5% or ~97.9% memory
> > for your perusal. 50 MB filled out of 256 is ~80.5% free.
> Except that DOS is hardly in the same OS class that today's systems are.
> Add in sound suport, CD/DVD ROM, networking, GUI, etc. and how much of
> the 640K is left now? Again you're comparing apples and oranges.
The claim with the percentage was yours. Not mine. I proved
you wrong, it seems. Or did OS/2 use more than 3.5 MB on your
16 MB?
> > You are better off percentage wise? Gee, by less than 1%, and
> > that only in a much cheaper configuration than the one you mentioned.
> The point is *still* that 256 megs is cheaper today 2 megs was 12 years
> ago. Do you remember when ram was $500 a *meg*? I do. It was (one of
> the many) reasons OS/2 1.x never took off.
> I frankly don't care how much ram todays OSes and apps need. When ram
> is less than a dollar a meg and disk prices even cheaper, who cares?
Ok, here I have the HogOS. It needs just 16 GB (Giga-bytes) RAM
and 16 TB (Terra-bytes) HD. You recon it'll ever take off? Or
will it have the same fate as OS/2 1.x had?
I also have the HoggerAPP. HoggerAPP will start and crawl with
16 GB Ram free, but to really run it'll be happy enough with 256
GB (and don't cheat, HD's are just not fast enough).
(Hey. *you* said: "I frankly don't care how much ram todays OSes
and apps need." Don't complain!)
> I'd much rather pay $130 for 128 meg ram than $2000 for 4 meg anyday.
But are you willing to buy ram for $2000, just to get your OS or
app running?
> As I said before, 10 years from now when we're all running 10 GHZ
> processors with 8 gigs ram and terabyte hard disks that come standard on
> the $1500 computers of the day, and Linux 10.0 and Mac OS XX and Windows
> 2010 require 512 megs ram just to boot, will you still be lamenting the
> "good old days" when 64 megs was "plenty to get my work done" and
> Windows 2000 was "lean and mean"?
I cannot see why Linux would ever need 512 MB just to boot. Not
even Linux 10.x. Maybe my imagination is borken. But then you
can boot Linux (in a special cut down version) 640 + 256 kB (and
yes, that won't give you something useful!). Hey, just look at
it, Linux is about 7 years old. Compare the memory needs of 1.0
to 1.2 to 2.0 to 2.2. Yes, it grew slowly, but the kernel still
needs between 1 and 2 MB runtime memory (depending on your
configuration). It might be 5 MB or 7 in 10 years from now ...
but even that I doubt.
As for W2K, lean and mean? In the same way an overfat elephant
is lean and mean to a Saturn V.
-Wolfgang
------------------------------
From: "fysg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: I don't want to stir up any concerns...
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 17:23:57 GMT
I more than less agree to you, but as I see, a Unix based OS (like Linux)
grows from a very good base to reach what Windows is supposed to have
already (desktop, games, applications, drivers); while Windows will hardly
grow from its awfully coded and buggy propense propietary closed system to a
so usable and configurable while powerful OS as Unix is today and has been
for years. I mean, Unix is the floor and Windows the ceiling, I think it is
better grow from floor to ceiling than in reverse ... though who knows.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Producing Quality Code
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 17:59:38 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the 21 Mar 2000 14:34:40 GMT...
...and Donal K. Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[Quicksort]
> >> When to use and when not to use recursion.
> > The only problem I can think of with recursion is that it might eat
> > up too much stack space, because each function call needs a few
> > bytes for passed parameters and local data.
>
> The best rule of thumb I've seen is that you should use recursion
> where the data is naturally recursive, and not otherwise. There are a
> number of extra tricks you can use (tail recursion, etc.) but they
> hardly ever optimise comprehensibility, debuggability or maintainability!
A case in point, without any judgement:
In "Algorithms and Data Structures", Wirth presents two Quicksort
implementations. One is recursive, the other one iterative. The
iterative Quicksort basically uses a stack of pointer pairs to store
the subsequences that are to be sorted after the current run is
complete.
This stack does more or less exactly what the operating system does
when you call a function, and the iterative Quicksort looks much less
clean. Furthermore, it's probably rather hard to parallelise.
ma"Writing a paper about this. Sigh."wa
--
This may scare your cat into premature baldness, but SUN are not the
only sellers of Unix.
-- Anthony Ord
------------------------------
From: "fysg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: US politics
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 17:39:11 GMT
We all are on a world, we should all be the same and colaborate together,
I wish GPL would apply to other than software.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Timothy J. Lee)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: I don't want to stir up any concerns...
Date: 21 Mar 2000 17:50:47 GMT
Reply-To: see-signature-for-email-address---junk-not-welcome
Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| But, those Windows OSes are really unmatched for desktop and
|ease of use, I'll admit that.
|With Windows *.*, I tend to view it as this nicely packaged OS where
|everything is configured for you, and there's always driver support
|when necessary. IOW, I tend to view this as the ideal desktop system.
Sure? Even compared to MacOS?
Adding new hardware to a Windows computer is not exactly easy in many
cases, and DLL conflicts can be mystifying to many users. Windows 2000
supposedly fixes the latter problem, but many Windows users are not using
Windows 2000.
--
========================================================================
Timothy J. Lee timlee@
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. netcom.com
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 21 Mar 2000 10:54:22 -0700
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And chmod is useless against root. If you have root, you can do whatever to
> a file whether you intend to or not. You cannot protect a file from
> accidental modification or delete from root without removing everyones
> ability to do so.
alias rm='rm -i'
Erik, you're holding on to this lame argument by a strand of a
thread. An NT Administrator is functionally equivalent to a UNIX root
user; end of story.
Nothing, short of a good backup system, will save you from disaster on
either system.
At least UNIX comes with sane file permissions in a default
installation....
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 20:01:22 +0200
From: Nico Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: I'm back!!! with reasons why U shouldn't use Linux...
piddy wrote:
> 1. It's buggy.
Compared to 60 000 odd in W2K...
>
> 2. It's ugly.
http://kde.themes.org
>
> 3. It's slow.
This one is highly controversial. The same PC I'm using now used to be
NT. It's now Linux. The performance difference I feel in the end user
role is that Linux is faster ( printing and net surfing especially - I
get average 2.5 times faster )
>
> 4. Netscape is owned by AOL
How about KFM... It is the end users choice.
>
> 5. It has no useful GUI
KDE, GNOME etc....
>
> 6. Programmers who work free are bad programmers.
Compared to the 60 000+ bugs the "great" programmers coded in "the
world's ultimate OS"
>
> 7. Corel makes a version
So what?
>
> 8. No one has ever made money on it.
I have - Training & Support...
>
> 9. No one will ever buy Linux apps.
I believe RedHat will differ from you there!
>
> 10. Greenspan wore a green tie on St paddies day
So what?
>
> 11. Apple is about to release OSX
Apple is for Apple lovers. I have never ever even slightly convinced any
Apple user to switch to anything else, so obviously they are happy.
> 12. Beos is about to release 5
I have no experience in BeOS so I can not comment here.
>
> 13. Windows 2000 is....
....crappie
>
>
> Hope this helps
>
> piddy
A very pleasant reminder to us all why we have Linux instead of M$
products...
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: I don't want to stir up any concerns...
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 21 Mar 2000 10:57:09 -0700
"Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Matt Chiglinsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> : Microsoft making software for someone else's OS? Nothing new. Didn't
> : they do that a long time ago with Apple? It will only promote
> : standardization. If they would only port Word to Linux then Linux
> : would finally be a decent desktop OS.
>
> I wouldn't expect such a thing to happen. Microsoft writes apps for
> Macintosh computers, because they don't entirely compete against
> Windows... they compete mostly against PC vendors.
>
> Linux on the other hand, is in direct competition with Windows.
Enter DOJ... :)
--
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: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux on the Desktop...TODAY!
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 17:48:06 GMT
In article <7LAB4.72288$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In contrast, Gnumeric is *quite* impressive, vastly moreso than the
> "vaporware" that is kspread at this point.
Why is it vaporware? You can download it today, and you could have
downloaded it any day for over a year.
> The Koffice web site may have screen shots of kword, but not of
> kspread...
What are you talking about? Did you actually go to the website? If you
follow the clearly visible link that says "KSpread" you get to a page
where it says "Screenshots", and lo and behold...
http://koffice.kde.org/kspread/screenshots.html includes two screenshots
(rather old, though) showing KSpread embedding stuff (which shows,
anyway, that this embedding stuff is not precisely new).
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
