Linux-Advocacy Digest #805, Volume #25 Sat, 25 Mar 00 14:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 14:07:58 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting doc rogers from alt.destroy.microsoft; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 06:56:12 -0500
>Damien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 20:24:24 -0500, in alt.microsoft.sucks,
>> doc rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> | Some of us can like MS _and_ Linux, BeOS, FreeBSD, etc.
>
>> It's been my experience that those who actually figured out how to use
>> *nix-type systems, hated WinXX, and those who liked WinXX, were
>> eigther never exposed to *nix-type systems, or never learned how to
>> use them. I always attributed it to experiences similar to my own,
>> where, discovering the capabilities of a *nix system, I begin to
>> wonder why WinXX doesn't work as great as this system based on
>> 30-year-old technology.
>
>I think this is due to a difference in the sort of people we work with, hang
>out with, etc. (And just in case this would imply this to you, I'm not
>trying to imply that the people I know are any better because of it).
On the contrary, I think you imply that they have more mainstream, simplistic
requirements and expectations. People who think that getting MP3 to work is a
technical achievement. They're not *wrong*, they're just not aware that the
only reason it is difficult at all is due, whether directly or indirectly, at
least in part to the Windows monopoly.
>I can't say that the folks I know _hate_ any OS. Rather, as far as I know,
>I would say that most of us look at them as tools with different flavors, so
>to speak. No OS is "the next best thing to sliced bread" to anyone I know
>personally and no one has been heard expressing anything, or behaving in a
>way overly negative to any OS.
Oh, please. Not the "we're just even-headed normal folk who don't get so
upset out computers" stance. Now, don't get whacked out: I'm not saying
you're not being truthful. I'm saying your mistaken, is all. The only people
who *say* they see OSes as tools with different flavors are all using Windows.
Those who use Unix never *say* that, because it is obvious and goes without
saying. It is the people who learned everything they know about software from
marketing that think there is no reason to hate Windows.
>On the other hand, I can't say that the folks I know hate anything, really.
>But maybe that's me being myopic, because I don't hate anything, and I tend
>to relish variety in most things, almost to a point of
>obessive-compulsiveness.
Well, if you didn't use such a level headed attitude to try to contradict
people with nothing more than the desire for variety in the pre-load market,
that would be saying something. As it is, it seems kind of an empty
statement.
>I'll have to start asking my colleagues and friends if any of them hate
>Windows (or anything else, for my own curiosity).
Better yet, ask them if they like anything or have ever though that something
really useful was "the best thing since sliced bread". I mean, you want to
differentiate between being reasonable and simply being complacent.
Sorry for butting in, BTW. I go through these cycles.... :-)
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 14:07:54 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting doc rogers from alt.destroy.microsoft; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 20:05:25 -0500
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> He's not saying how hard it is to install Windows; he's saying it is hard to
>> install Windows.
>
>Despite reading your sentence a bunch of times and making lots of guesses, I
>was never sure what you meant, exactly.
>
>I'm thinking maybe "how hard it is to install Windows" is a regionalism?
No, I don't think so, but maybe. I'm not sure how much colloquialism is
involved. The phrase "it is hard" seems rather an 'absolute with known
relative connotation' (that connotation being that "hard" must, by nature,
have a relative definition). The phrase "how hard it is" read, to me anyway,
as 'relative with an [imagined] absolute connotation'.
Sorry for the confusion, but subtle word play like this is often very
difficult to express directly. I understood the discussion to be using a list
of procedural steps for installing Windows on a specific system as an
illustration of the premise that installing an OS is difficult and sometimes
extremely intricate, as opposed to an illustration that installing Windows
itself is difficult and intricate, though it often is by reason of the fact
that *all* OSes are difficult and intricate to install in some cases, and
"click, click, done" in others.
A proposition that Windows is particularly difficult to install (in terms of
hardware configuration at least) can be refuted by the number of people with
"click, click, done" experiences. OTOH, a proposition that OSes are generally
difficult to install (and that Windows is no exception to this case, even
despite an illegal monopoly causing it to have more specific and complete
hardware support than others) is unaffected by such examples of times when it
*wasn't* intricate or difficult, as such examples are, by nature, the majority
of end-user experiences.
OK?
>> >Well, I live in New York City and it would work for me to take a trip to
>> >Boston by first flying to South Africa, taking a slow boat to China, etc.
>> >but that's not what I really need to do to get to Boston, is it?
>
>> It is if you have to go by way of South Africa because there's only one
>> airplane and you don't know how to fly it...
>
>The kicker is that I don't need an airplane to get there, though.
Says you. You want to try make your metaphor unnaturally appropriate, you
can. But don't expect me to go along with it.
>I agree
>if you don't know that that you might have to take the airplane. That
>doesn't make it "the way" to get to Boston, though.
I have no idea why you think this refutes my statement. It is possible that
you wish to simply de-rail any productive discussion by concentrating on
entirely unimportant details, like whether the transportation mode "airplane"
is in any way, shape, or form central to the analogy.
My point is, in case you simply missed it, that "the way" is defined by those
who supply the transportation mechanism, not the passenger (which is all a
Windows user is, as MS tends to blame bad drivers for any problems with their
products). [I think it is worth pointing out that I in no way meant the
preceding remark to be a pun, though I gotta admit, it works.]
>> By the way, most OEMs restore disks are entirely irrelevant; this is the
>> procedure to install Windows; the OEM restore disks are a way to reinstall
>> a system state; they cannot be used to reinstall Windows, even on those
>> machines.
>
>Not true at least in every case I've had personal experience with. I've had
>machines, and I've experienced friends machines where something or another
>became really screwed up and we restored with the rescue disk(s). At one
>point, they'll ask you to stick in the Windows disk while you sit back and
>massage your feet or something, but that involved opening the CD tray and
>putting the disk in.
>
>I suppose you could deny my experience, though . . . I can't really stop you
>from doing that.
I don't deny your experience. I deny the validity and importance of your
experience.
>> MS loves this idea, and you parrot how "easy" it is,
>
>Well, I've done it a bunch of times. Would you prefer that I lie about my
>experience just because you don't like Microsoft?
I would prefer that you not use anecdotal evidence at all, actually. I would
like to be able to do the same myself. I admit it is difficult for both of
us. I am willing to believe that there are *millions* of people with
experience contrary to my own who never have any problems with Windows. I am
quite aggravated, however, when someone insists that this is the only valid
experience. Based on my own experience and those of my friends, neighbors,
and customers, Windows and other MML (Microsoft Monopoly Leveraged) software
constantly cause problems which many *other* people don't necessarily see.
I do not deny your good experiences; why do you and others deny so vehemently
others' bad experiences?
>> when the
>> entire discussion is how disfunctional the situation is that prevents
>Windows
>> from being installed by end-users,
>
>Seriously, I've installed Windows many many times and never had a problem
>more complex than having to download a driver from the net.
Either you're lucky, you haven't installed Windows many many enough times, or
your installations were of limited diversity and scope, as is the case with
most "knowledgable end users/PC technicians". Simple truth.
>> whether by intent or by design, and then
>> allows you idiots to proclaim that Linux is not preferable to Windows
>>because its tough to install.
>
>I'm not arguing in this thread about Windows or Linux being preferable
>because of installation.
>
>And in fact, I just recently posted a thread about how I thought the Red Hat
>GUI installer kicked the Windows' installers ass.
>
>I'm just pointing out that Norm's procedure was a bit ridiculous and didn't
>much resemble installing Windows. Even assuming his hardware peculiarities.
Well, then I guess we've found our common ground, then. Because you are
perfectly correct, Norm's procedure is [much more than a bit] ridiculous, and
is obviously an extreme case. Nevertheless, I know Norm's procedure to be
correct and nominally necessary, as ridiculous as it may be. You can blame
Gateway, you can blame 'laptops' in general, or you could blame Microsoft.
I certainly understand why "our regular viewers" (as Roger the Troll is fond
of repeating over and over in leu of providing a useful or valid response)
would expect that I am some foaming-at-the-mouth nut who insists on blaming
Microsoft for everything concerning computers, even when they obviously had no
hand in building the Gateway hardware which requires such difficult
installation procedures. I would hope that if they were, in fact, regular
readers, they would know (or at least be willing to consider) that I am an
exceedingly even-minded person, and am not doing so based on emotional
agitation. I blame Microsoft because they were the ones with the funny
licensing that made it so difficult for Gateway to provide an adequate
installation for that Gateway. I know this to be true because one of the
reasons *I* had such problems with the Gateway laptop is because of a "forced
update" to the Windows distribution which caused bootstrap problems. Gateway
had entirely no options but to use the distribution that MS had authorized.
Now, that's Gateway's fault again for agreeing to MS's ludicrous licensing
requirements. At least according to those who don't understand the law and
justice in a free society, where monopolization which causes Gateway to make
such apparently self-defeating choices in order to stay in business is
considered illegal.
>> Its double-talk and horse hockey, by the way.
>
>Again, what do you want me to do, lie about my experience? I refuse to do
>that for any political point, whether pro, anti or neutral-Microsoft or
>Linux.
What ever gave you the impression I wanted you to lie about your experience?
That isn't what's horse hockey. What I want you to do is to stop acting as if
your experience is universal and comprehensive.
>The problem is that I suspect that some other people _are_ lying, or at
>least grossly exaggerating for the sake of making their political points.
They are not minimizing, that's for sure. There comes a point where this is
natural to do. I would never defend that (and on occasion go out of my way to
point out when someone opposed to MS is doing that), but it is human nature to
do so when faced with such overwhelming opposing force (such as an economic
monopoly of such proportions).
>On the other hand, I've also said in a number of posts that maybe there's
>some other reason that my experiences are so different than whoever's
>experiences that I'm responding to.
You have a more typical experience, I'll admit. But this "if more than 50% of
the people are happy, then a monopoly is OK" idea is what causes me such
consternation.
>Explorer, like it or not, _is_ integrated to a large extent with the rest of
>the OS, especially in Win2K.
That word "integrated" has far too much weight with most people. Its a
smoke-screen. Explorer isn't "integrated to a large extent"; its "welded in
so as to be intentionally unremovable and essentially irreplaceable in order
to allow Microsoft to do what they specifically signed a legal contract with
the U.S. Government promising they wouldn't do."
>> Microsoft is the one who insists that Explorer is part of the OS, I'd say
>> that's more doubletalk and horse hockey from the MS-lovers camp.
>
>I don't have a real opinion on it. It doesn't really matter to me if they
>consider it part of the OS or not, frankly. On the other hand, it also
>doesn't bother me at all that it is installed with all the recent Windows
>OSs.
Do you also think it doesn't really matter if your car needs the engine
overhauled every six months, and don't get bothered at all if it is because of
the very large billboard that the manufacturer bolted to your cylinder heads?
[GET THIS EVERYBODY. MAX JUST USED A CAR ANALOGY. OH NO!]
IOW; your complacency is duly noted, and much appreciated by those who wish to
rip you off some more.
>> > > As I mentioned earlier, I am not asking for advice (not that any has
>> >> been given other than emotional rants about how I am incompetent and
>> >> don't know what I'm talking about).
>
>> >I seriously thought it was written as a joke. It sounds like something I
>> >would write if I was trying to be humorous through mockery and
>>exaggeration.
>
>> I think that was the point, and you missed it.
>
>Well, he claimed to have no idea why I was LOL'ing, and keeps arguing that
>it is the actual procedure he has to go through. I've come to believe that
>he's serious.
So you got the point now. But, yes, the fact that his procedure seems so
entirely the product of an unreasonable newbie is the reason it is serious.
>In other words, presenting that account with the implication that it is the
>standard method of installing Windows isn't factual.
Nah; we just got at cross-odds because you seemed to be intentionally ignoring
anything but your personal experience. Sorry for the flames. He did not,
AFAIK, implicate that this was a standard method of installing Windows (on
anything other than that specific hardware), though he was trying to use that
to contradict the assumption that all Windows installs are "click, click,
done" as you seem to be insisting.
>I would say the same thing if you posted a similar account of Linux in order
>to make a political point.
I'm told the Red Hat installer in the current versions is quite good... :-)
>> >> BOOT DISKETTE
>
>> >If the SOLO 2X/51/91 is Gateway's Rescue Disk floppies, you don't need a
>> >Windows boot floppy. Gateway's Rescue Disks would boot the Windows
>> >installer.
>
>> How helpful. I mean useless.
>
>Do you think that my statement is false?
No, I think that your statement was useless. Which is why that is what I
said. Had I though it was false, I would have said so. :-/
[...]
>Well, I've offered to do this with a bunch of people here so far for various
>different disagreements, yet no one wants to take me up on it. How about we
>work out some means through which we can do a little experiment, in this
>case, installing Windows on a bunch of different machines?
>
>I'm not being rhetorical or joking. For the sake of offering factual
>information, let's get a bunch of PCs together, install Windows, and record
>exactly what we have to do to get it installed.
>
>If you live far from New York City, I'll try to arrange some way we can do
>this long distance.
I seriously wish I had the time and energy to do this. I learned years ago,
however, that modern PCs are far more intricate and potentially even
non-deterministic than is required to make such an attempt useful. Of course,
if modern PCs weren't so intricate and potentially even non-deterministic,
then such an attempt would not be necessary.
In most cases, using a pre-integrated hardware platform, installing Windows is
"click, click, done". In most cases, using a pre-integrated hardware
platform, installing any OS is "click, click, done". How meaningful or useful
these statements are is a matter of context.
>I'm not trying to give anyone shit for its own sake, I seriously have had
>experiences nothing like Norm is reporting or like you are defending. Maybe
>all your experiences have been like Norm's. If nothing else, that
>fascinates me because of the discrepancy, and I'd be curious to try to
>discover why that discrepancy is the case.
I'm not trying to give anyone shit for its own sake, either. I am quite happy
to hear, now that you realize it was not a joke, that you are intrigued by the
issue. While there may be many many people with your experience, I think
there are many more people than you expect who have experiences like Norm's.
That's one of the problems with a monopoly: if a given very low percentage of
people have problems, it is very difficult to determine if the situation would
be any different given some other alternative being available.
One final note, Doc: feel free to delete the comments in the original message
which you are not responding to. These mega-posts are huge enough as it is.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 14:08:02 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting doc rogers from alt.destroy.microsoft; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 07:50:02 -0500
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Thank you for the clarification. If your system did what his and my
>system
>> did not, they most obviously could not have been either "the same" or "the
>> equivalent", though it certainly could have been "similar".
>
>
>But Windows would be the same, so you are saying it was a hardware problem.
Such a simplistic understanding is not useful in this context. And, no, in
fact, Windows wouldn't necessarily be the same. It was partially due to a new
version of Win95b (with updated CardBus and USB support) that we have such
problems with the system. Note that there was no differentiation in the
labeling; Gateway had to ask me which disks I got with my system in order to
know which distribution I had of "Windows".
When it comes down to it, "hardware" is software in hardware, and "software"
is hardware in software. The computer doesn't really care a bit about the
difference.
Now, were there other widely implemented OSes which we could compare, we might
be able to *statistically* distinguish between the hardware problems caused by
Windows/Microsoft versus the hardware problems caused by hardware and/or other
OSes/developers. Which is why we discuss this issue ad infinitum.
>Well, at the moment I'm trying to check whether Gateway actually says that
>all 2600's need voodoo. If they do, doesn't that seem like a hardware
>problem, since I've never encountered any other system that needed voodoo
>like that?
I already know the answer to that. Not all Gateway 2600s need voodoo.
However, unless you have some metaphysical ability to restrict what Gateway
calls a 2600, you are barking up the wrong tree.
Once again, I'll point out that whether you have encountered a system which
requires "voodoo like that" is more indicative of the scope and nature of your
encounters than it is of how many such systems may exist.
>> Either way, your statements appear to be either contradictory or simply
>> pointless.
>
>I don't think his statements appear to be contradictory--he didn't say "All
>2600's need voodoo" and "No 2600's need voodoo."
>
>Rather he was claiming that what someone else said was incorrect. That's
>the usual starting point of a disagreement of this sort.
He certainly *seemed* to be saying "No 2600s need voodoo", since he used "I
had a 2600 and it didn't need voodoo" in refutation of the statement "my 2600
needs voodoo".
>> Perhaps you'd honor me with more clarification as to which one it
>> is?
>
>> >> The last statement simply doesn't make any sense.
>
>> >Yes, it does.
>
>> I'm sorry, I'm the one that said it didn't make sense. Since it doesn't
>> make sense to me, the only real response would be "No, it doesn't",
>
>If we were in that other universe, perhaps. On this one, the way we talk is
>the way he responded. It's understood that it doesn't make sense to you.
>Wrapped up in that claim outside of a "to me" explicitly added by you is a
>claim that it isn't a coherent statement. He is saying not only that it
>makes sense to him, but furthermore, it is a coherent statement. That's how
>our language works.
Well, you caught me. You're right; I was being disingenuous. My remark was
meant to point out that he was providing no information at all except three
word contradictions, and that this was utterly useless to me or anybody else.
I wasn't really dealing with how the language works, but how we use it. It's
understood by me at least that saying "no, its not" and "yes, it does"
without any addition or clarification is even less useful than no response at
all.
>> but that would
>> be ALMOST as stupid as your original response to my statement to begin
>>with.
>
>Do O'Reilly, Hallacy, et al. actually think it's kosher that their manager
>of research & educational services for managed services post on the usenet
>with a stress on ad hominems?
O'Reilly, Hallacy, Lewis, et. al, would be hard pressed to identify me by
name, and certainly couldn't pick me out of a line up. I don't consider it an
"ad hominem" when you call a troll a troll (or call a troll anything else,
either.) Sorry; I simply need to vent my frustration at people who make a
habit of being disingenuous and purposefully dense.
>Interesting bosses, if so.
Oh, by the way, such a statement adds at least four points (though I would
give you no less than six for that one, and others would insist on far more)
on your troll score, Doc. You're reaching the yellow zone again.
>I agree that it's not something I would think, but it's not that important
>to me that he thinks that. On one view, all commercial and *nixen OSs are
>overkill if you only use them to play MP3's. I don't really care about
>that, though.
Nothing in the world is less useful than someone telling you what they don't
care about. This would be mitigated if you continued by describing what you
do care about (within the context of the discussion), but you missed that
chance. Another point or two.
>> >> Better yet, listen to people who have even more experience than they do.
>> >
>> >You'd be well advised to do so, sir.
>>
>> Ha. Give me one tiny speck of a reason to even begin to believe that you
>> have more experience than I do. Please.
>
>Down, testosterone, down.
It may be hubris, but it beats empty posturing.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 14:08:11 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting doc rogers from alt.destroy.microsoft; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 07:11:57 -0500
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Quoting 5X3 from alt.destroy.microsoft; 13 Mar 2000 01:25:04 GMT
>> >You didnt have to go through all that partition crap. Theres a lot of
>> >partition software out there thats much easier than what you used. You
>> >also didnt have to remove the pcmcia stuff to install.
>
>> Yes, you do. On the Gateway 2600, those steps are absolutely 110%
>essential;
>> I know that without a doubt. In fact, my procedure (which goes a bit
>further,
>> but dates from a couple years ago, and may have been dealing with
>different
>> hardware or software revisions) went farther; I had to rip out the whole
>damn
>> PCI Bus in order to get "Windows" to install with all the drivers working.
>
>I'm not saying that this is necessarily a parallel, but that reminded me of
>something that happened to one of my friends.
>
>They bought an ABS computer. It came with a dual head video card, but my
>friend had never used a dual head video card before. She hooked everything
>together, the system powered up, but nothing appeared on the monitor and the
>red light on the front panel remained on.
>
>So she called ABS. The help desk guy had her open the case, and walked her
>through pulling off all the cables then reattaching, pulling off the
>processor and reattching, the video card, etc. After about an hour of this,
>the help desk guy put her on hold. When he came back, he _finally_ asked
>her to check which monitor port she had plugged the monitor into. That was
>the problem. It should have taken five minutes at most, as he looked at
>what hardware she had and realized that she had that dual head video card.
>
>The only implication this might have is that the solution in the case of
>installing Windows on the Gateway might have been a lot more simple than
>pulling out the PCI bus . . . a lot of times we go through a complicated,
>difficult series of steps to do something that might have been solved in a
>minute with one easy step if we'd looked at it in a different way, or had
>known something we didn't know.
A quite useful illustration of why you suspect the installation procedure is
accurate and valid. I am very familiar with such "wave a dead chicken"
methods, and I assure you (though at this point you have little else,
admittedly) that it is not the case in this instance. I spent literally
hundreds of hours battling the Windows install on my laptop, and am thoroughly
convinced that [almost] all of the steps described are essential. The slight
caveat is simply because, when you have such an intricate and problematic
process, you will normally do a few extra things to be sure (like checking the
BIOS before re-installing, even if you don't remember changing it since the
last install).
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
