Linux-Advocacy Digest #870, Volume #25 Wed, 29 Mar 00 07:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Open Software Reliability (Donal K. Fellows)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 06:26:57 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting doc rogers from alt.destroy.microsoft; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 16:17:53 -0500
>
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Quoting doc rogers from alt.destroy.microsoft; Tue, 21 Mar 2000
>20:05:25 -0500
>
>> >> 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'.
>
>Uh, well that explains it . . . to someone, maybe. That doesn't make
>anymore sense to me, though. "Absolute with known relative connotation"
>sounds almost meaningless to me, although you might be able to explain why
>it isn't.
Well, it certainly requires quite a bit of [convoluted] thought to work it
out, I'll admit. Not that it was a very well put together statement to begin
with.
>I agree that hard, as in difficult, is relative to the person applying the
>term. I don't agree that that makes "Absolute with known relative
>connotation" make sense.
I'll agree with that. Do you have a point?
>As for "Relative with an imagined absolute connotation," I vacillate between
>thinking it makes more sense (at least it wouldn't have to be contradictory)
>and even less sense.
>
>As if _that_ makes sense, lol.
>
>> Sorry for the confusion, but subtle word play like this is often very
>> difficult to express directly.
>
>I can appreciate that. In terms of formal education, I'm coming primarily
>from analytic philosophy.
That's certainly not relevant. I guess the point is that if you can't
understand the difference in the connotation of the phrases "how hard it is"
and "it is hard", then it doesn't help to ask. :-/
[...]
>Oh, you just mean that you took it to be that "Windows is hard to install on
>my machine" rather than "Windows is hard to install on all machines."
Not quite, but you're getting warmer.
>I didn't think that was his intent, though I could be wrong of course. I
>read Norm to be implying that his machine was a typical case, since he
>posted in the context of a general discussion of ease of installation of
>Linux vs Windows and he said something like, "You think that Windows is easy
>to install??! Here's how you install it, straight from Gateway."
This doesn't makes sense to me. I can see no reason why Norm, by providing an
example of Windows being difficult to install, would have silently implied
that his example was typical. It seems far more likely (so likely, in fact,
that I suspect, correctly or not, that you are being obfuscatory in your
response in interpreting it otherwise) that he was pointing out that an
assumption that Windows is easy to install in all cases or that other OSes
(ostensibly Linux) are hard to install in all cases is specious.
> > 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.
>
>Right.
>
>> 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.
>
>Well, a statement about what is generally the case would depend on a survey
>of all known cases, or at least a "representative sampling" (if there indeed
>is such a thing, I agree it is arguable) of the population in question.
I don't believe that "what is generally the case" can be considered
illustrative when the case is being used to consider a monopoly situation.
That's like thinking that all OSes similar to Windows because Windows is the
most common OS. The debates I have seen on these issues tend to focus on "all
cases" and "exceptions", and this is, in some regards, appropriate, for the
reason I've stated.
>
> > OK?
>
>Okay.
Okay.
>
>> >> >Well, I live in New York City and it would work for me to take a trip
>> >> >Boston by first flying to South Africa, taking a slow boat to China,
>> >> >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.
>
>No, says facts about the way the world is. I can easily show that I don't
>need to get on an airplane to go from New York City to Boston.
Sorry, that's an entirely inappropriate and senseless extension of your
analogy.
>> You want to try make your metaphor unnaturally appropriate, you
>> can. But don't expect me to go along with it.
>
>"Unnaturally appropriate?" Once I understand what that means, I'll ask you
>to explain why my example is unacceptable.
Don't bother; your example is unacceptable because you want to assume that
there is a relationship between geographic travel and a software procedure
which extends beyond a linear relationship (legs of a trip for steps of a
procedure). This analogy was quite illustrative in your original point, but
you want to insist that all aspects of the software procedure (my metaphorical
"if there's only one airline and that's the route they fly") have a
corresponding aspect of geographic travel ("I don't need an airplane".) I
used the tortured phrase "unnaturally appropriate" (which I still find highly
understandable, but then, I would, having written it) because *your analogy*
involved flying. When I pointed out that if someone else controls the means
of transportation (regardless of what you wish to transmute it to), then you
have to follow their route, regardless of what the means of transportation is.
To consider that you could use "some other means" may be appropriate for the
analogy, but is unnatural for the relationship you are trying to illustrate.
>> >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.
>
>I have no idea why you think that, necessarily, either (that is, that it's
>really supposed to refute your statement). I was pointing out that if you
>only know of one way to go to Boston (the airplane) then that might be the
>way you have to go (which coheres with your statement), but your not knowing
>that there are other ways to get there doesn't make it the case that there
>aren't other ways to get there, and doesn't make your way to get there "the
>way," meaning the "only" or the necessary, or most direct, etc. way to get
>there.
Yes, this illustrates well where we crossed wires. Your choice of an airplane
as an example of your first hop was meant to correspond to...?
I assumed it was meant to correspond to the path, while you now seem to be
saying it was meant to correspond to the mode of transportation. As long as
you want to keep both variable, the analogy is rather useless, IMHO. Either
way, my point is quite valid: it is not the passenger, but the one who
controls the transportation, regardless of mode, who determines the path. It
seems apparent that you did not mean for the path and mode to be controlled by
a monopoly, which is a shame, because we are discussing a monopoly.
[...]
>If you thought that pursuing the analogy was unimportant in the first place,
>I'm not sure why you'd bother further discussing it. You can choose to cut
>all this stuff out of your reply if it want. It doesn't matter that much to
>me either way.
I may have only hinted at it before, so now I will be direct. I find the use
of apathy as a discussion technique to be quite frustrating and useless. If
it didn't matter that much to you, why did you bother further discussing it?
Personally, I "bothered" further discussing it because I find inappropriate
use of analogy to be one of the most common difficulties in discussing
Microsoft. From cars to six-packs, they have been mangled so badly and abused
so routinely that I think it is quite important to point out when this is
occurring.
I will admit, however, that I misread your original response to my statement
concerning this specific analogy. Allow me to try to recoup the lost ground:
"No, you're right, that *doesn't* make it 'the way to get to Boston'. But it
does make it the only way available to this particular passenger."
>> like whether the transportation mode "airplane"
>> is in any way, shape, or form central to the analogy.
>
>We could have used a boat, I suppose :-)
We are all "free" to avoid using Windows. In the amoral world of business,
Microsoft is free to try to make it hard for us to avoid using Windows. In
the immoral world of anti-trust violations, Microsoft has abused that freedom
by locking up the pre-load market and leveraging everything off that monopoly.
>My point was that Norm's way was not wholly a necessary way as it stood.
My point was that this sentence needs to be tagged with "as far as I know".
>The way is defined by how it is possible to get to the destination. When
>you take a long way around, but it's not necessary, then it's wrong to imply
>that it is necessary.
Well, you take the long way around the curve of the planet when you go from
New York to Boston no matter how you get there. Why don't you take the
*straight path*, as you seem to be indicating that it is beneficial to do so?
It isn't *necessary*. You could *tunnel*.
Because it is infeasible, of course. As is trying to change the path of the
airline, as is trying to change the convolutions you must perform to install
Windows on a Gateway 2600.
[...]
>> I don't deny your experience. I deny the validity and importance of your
>> experience.
>
>The issue is reinstalling Windows. Rescue disks are one way to do that.
>Hence, it's valid in terms of relevance to the issue. I would also say it
>is important to the issue, since we're discussing what is necessary to
>install Windows and the possible ways that one can do that.
Rescue disks, even if they were relevant, are not "a way to reinstall
Windows", regardless. They are an entirely different process, method, AND
RESULT from "reinstalling Windows". Very similar, I'll agree. Substituted
for reinstalling Windows on a large number of systems because it is easier for
unknowlegable end-users, PC manufacturers, and Microsoft. But that doesn't
mean they are the same thing, and I think the difference is crucial in this
discussion.
>> >> 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.
>
>Why? I thought we were talking about facts about how one installs Windows.
>You need some empirical evidence to make an accurate statement.
You would like some empirical evidence, as it would make your statements more
accurate. But it is the very same conditions that makes such empirical
evidence problematic which also prevents such evidence from providing
accuracy. You can either talk about statistical truth, or you can talk about
reality, but the two are not really the same thing.
Besides, I said "anecdotal evidence", not empirical evidence. These are
contradictory concepts. You may think of your experience as empirical
evidence, but it is not. It is anecdotal unless you have controlled
conditions AND repeatability. No amount of repeatability makes up for a lack
of controlled conditions, and no amount of controlled conditions make up for a
lack of repeatability.
>> I would
>> like to be able to do the same myself.
>
>Of course you could, and have, introduce empirical, anecdotal evidence.
Did you say you had formal schooling in analytic philosophy? And you don't
realize that the phrase "empirical, anecdotal evidence" is self-contradictory?
>That was the whole idea behind my suggesting doing some actual research on
>this, as well.
You would end up deriving only statistical values, not empirical evidence.
>> 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.
>
>Sure. But who was insisting that? Pointing out that your experience is not
>the only one isn't insisting that the others' experience is the only one.
You appear to have inverted your point, but I'm not sure. Your statement
seems as convoluted as your defense of your analogy.
Every anti-anti-MS advocate who posts insists that their experience is the
only valid experience when it is used to contradict those who don't share it,
IMHO.
You have gone to some lengths to point out that this Gateway install is
contrary to your experience. That is direct and understandable. But you also
seem to be taking pains to indicate that this isn't a typical case, and have
based your argument on the assumption that your experience defines a typical
case. Do you see what I'm saying? The question is not "can you find someone
else to blame besides Microsoft?" The question is "can you blame Microsoft?"
>> 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.
>
>That could be. That's why I say things like "Maybe we hang out with
>different sorts of people," or "Maybe there is some regional difference,"
>etc. I believe that your experiences are that and I know what mine are. It
>makes me curious what causes the different perspectives.
But you don't seem to be offering any hypotheses, so I'm unsure how curious
you actually are. I believe the different perspective is that you think of
rescue disks as re-installation of Windows, and it isn't. It is a similar
difference in perspective between software code and software product. Also
conceptually related, IMO, to the perspective of whether monopolies are
illegal because they are by nature harmful, or whether monopolies are only by
nature illegal when they become harmful.
I admit it is problematic for me to try to relate the reasoning which leads me
to see these concepts in such a related light. But it is not predicated on my
experience, though it certainly isn't contrary to it.
> > I do not deny your good experiences; why do you and others deny so
> >vehemently others' bad experiences?
>
>I didn't. I just said that I disagreed that all of Norm's procedure is
>_necessary_ to install Windows, that it all describes installing Windows as
>opposed to configuring the system to his tastes, and that that's anywhere
>near necessary for everyone to install Windows.
And once again I have to point out that you are incorrect in this. The
procedure described installing Windows; not configuring the system to his
tastes, but configuring the system to simply be functional. With the caveat
that there were certain "safety" steps and the one concession to partitioning
the disks. But to derive such lengthy discussion from such specific
exceptions appears to be little more than quibbling. Avoiding/ignoring those
specific exceptions does not magically make Norm's procedure "simple and
easy".
>I don't doubt that that is what he actually does to install Windows on his
>machine.
I thought you just said that you did doubt that, as you characterized it as
"what he does to configure the system to his tastes", which is not
semantically identical to "what he does to install Windows"? Granted, I am,
myself, playing a word game, but it is *the same word game* that you (and
others) have been playing all along. It is most certainly the same word game
you play (unwittingly) when you consider "using the recovery disk" to be
identical to "installing Windows".
[...]
>I don't know if I'm lucky, but I've done well over a thousand installations,
>I would approximate. When I install, I purposefully limit the scope--just
>like writing code. I generally make the install cover as few bases as
>possible to do what we need the machine to do, and I separate other issues
>from the actual install. You run into less problems that way, and you can
>tackle whatever you need to as an additional issue that is also limited in
>scope.
In other words, you change the definition of "install Windows" in order to
make "installing Windows" seem easy. Since we are talking PC OS software, we
could play this game forever. All you do is copy the code to the hard drive
to get the system to boot. I don't consider that "installing Windows", and I
believe it is little more than hand-waving when the issue of discussion is
what we have to do after Windows proves again to be an unreliable and
if-it-wasn't-a-monopoly-it-would-be-unacceptable operating system.
[...]
>It could be that I've never come across that update. Was it around for
>long?
Who the hell knows? That is my point.
>If there was such a serious problem with that distribution, it seems (a) the
>re would have been a patch right away, and (b) you'd seek out an alternate
>(older or newer) distribution on subsequent installations to work around the
>problem.
There was no problem with "that distribution". It was MS tap-dancing on
Gateway's head because of restrictive licensing. Yea, Gateway was stupid
enough to lay down on the floor, and yea, I was stupid enough to walk in the
room, but neither instance of stupidity makes MS anything but the source of
the bruises. A) It was patched "right away"; that was the problem with "that
distribution". B) There is no older or newer distribution; Gateway's and
Microsoft's answer was the same as most of the pro-MS idjits here: don't buy
that laptop.
>> 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.
>
>If you think I'm acting that way, I'd think it's because you are making
>assumptions about language that aren't intended. I'm the last person to
>claim that anyone's experience is universal, and the reason I'm pointing out
>my contrary experiences is to ensure that no one else assumes that anyone's
>experiences (like Norm's) are universal, either.
Have you checked your newsgroups line? Who exactly do you expect to make this
assumption? I submit that you are, in fact, taking great pains to pronounce
that your experience is contradictory to Norm's. Why do you suppose you think
that is relevant?
All right. I quit. NORM might have though his experience was universal and
comprehensive. You were simply correcting him, and I butted my argumentative
ass in uninvited. Can we leave it at that?
[...]
>I think monopolies are okay even if _no one_ other than the people in the
>monopoly like it.
I guess not.
> I'm not a fan of a majority being able to decide what
>others are allowed to do. I think people should be allowed to do anything
>consensual, regardless of how strongly anyone else is offended by, or takes
>issue with it.
Just how do you resolve the cognitive dissonance caused by these conflicting
beliefs? If you're not a fan of the majority being able to decide what others
are allowed to do, then why are you a fan of a monopoly being able to decide
what others are allowed to do, using the fact that the majority is satisfied
with that situation?
Are you making the assumption that a monopoly arises by consensual mechanisms,
rather than by economic force? Do you believe that contracts have more power
than law? What does 'offense' or 'taking issue' have to do with it?
>Well, it's certainly arguable that since Explorer is what the Win2K file
>system functions within, at least in terms of user interface (which a lot of
>what OSs are all about, anyway), it is part of the OS.
Not "a lot of what OSes are all about". The shell. ONE thing the OS is
about. "A lot" of what an OS is about is making *applications* (by
definition, that software code which is not OS) as independent as possible
from *hardware*. Windows fails miserably at this, and much more so now that
an *application* is inextricably welded into it for Microsoft's benefit (with
the shallow and inconsistent excuse that it benefits the user interface). And
it bears pointing out that the context of the discussion is *Internet
Explorer*, not the "file manager". It also is worth mentioning that the
concept that IE and Explorer are somehow related ('web browser, file browser,
what's the difference?') is simply ludicrous.
>I'm not saying that to make it justifiable that MS is incorporating it. I
>have no problem saying something like, "They are not allowed, per the
>government's ruling, to incorporate that into the OS." It's just that I
>could care less about such a ruling. In my opinion, they shouldn't be
>restricted from incorporating anything they'd like, whether it's realted to
>the OS or not.
They certainly shouldn't be. Nor should they be allowed to maintain a
pre-load monopoly, but I guess that's more cognitive dissonance for you to
respond to with apathy/ignorance/denial.
And it wasn't the government's ruling; it was the contract that they signed
(in order to avoid the government's ruling).
[...]
>> Do you also think it doesn't really matter if your car needs the engine
>> overhauled every six months,
>
>I wouldn't like that, but if it needed that, and there was no other car
>available, I certainly wouldn't try to have other alternatives legally
>enforced.
You've got to be kidding me. Just what do you have in your mind when you say
"there was no other car available"? By your choice, the monopoly's choice, or
the majority's choice?
>> and don't get bothered at all if it is because of
>> the very large billboard that the manufacturer bolted to your cylinder
>heads?
>
>Well, that would be how the car is. If the manufacturer doesn't want to
>make it otherwise, that's their choice. I certainly don't think they should
>be forced to make it otherwise. If they want to, they should be able to
>make the car with a unremovable porno viewer on the inside windshield and
>with square tires made of bricks.
I asked if it would bother you. You insist you would be apathetic. I hate to
sound like I'm putting you in a catch-22 situation, but that certainly seems
to hint at cognitive dissonance. WHY WOULD THEY WANT?
>In the IE case, at home, I use IE more than any other app. I also like IE
>better than any other browser. Further, I don't have system problems
>because of it. So if we apply that to the car analogy, it would be like my
>liking the billboard a lot, looking at it more than I look at or use any
>other part of the car, and the car not having any problems because of it.
I've been through this stupid routine too many times before. Your position is
too ludicrous to debate.
>If I was in the IE/MS hater camp, in the analogy, I'd probably walk.
Sure you would. Either that, or you would deny any problem and insist you
don't see any reason why a car shouldn't have the engine overhauled every six
months, if that's the way the manufacturer decided to make it.
>> [GET THIS EVERYBODY. MAX JUST USED A CAR ANALOGY. OH NO!]
>
>We have lots of them here, lol.
Not from me.
>> IOW; your complacency is duly noted, and much appreciated by those who
>> wish to rip you off some more.
>
>Ripping someone off is pretty subjective, though. If I like something and
>don't mind paying the money I have to pay for it (which is very little for
>me in MS' case . . . you just have to be a little creative), I'm not really
>getting ripped off.
So as long as you can convince yourself you're not being taken, you're not
being taken. Fair enough.
BTW, five will get you ten that your "creative" method is a violation of your
license agreement.
>> [...]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 could have read him wrong, sure. Hermeneutics, anyone? :-)
I'm not familiar with the term. My contention is that you read him wrong
purposefully because you have a deep inner need to contradict anti-MS
statements in order to maintain your state of apathy/denial.
>> [...]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.
>
>I think if we assembled a large enough quantity of them it might produce
>some valid results, but I do agree with you that the more PC's you use, the
>more non-deterministic you realize they are. It's not something one would
>think at first, but it seems to be the case.
Once again, two statements in direct opposition. Do you practice that?
>Hey, at least it keeps a lot of techs in work :-)
>
>>Of course,
>> if modern PCs weren't so intricate and potentially even non-deterministic,
>> then such an attempt would not be necessary.
>
>Good point.
>
>> In most cases, using a pre-integrated hardware platform, installing
>> Windows is "click, click, done".
>
>Though speaking of indeterminism, I've even had experience with quite a few
>machines where you attempted a simple procedure (including installation) and
>the machine did something completely bizarre. Most of the time, the
>solution was to reset everything and repeat the procedure--the weird
>behavior wouldn't occur again. Most of the time, at least :-/
Ah, the armor of ignorance and denial begins to crack...
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Open Software Reliability
Date: 29 Mar 2000 11:41:49 GMT
In article <8arkct$i3ao$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ Coding standards, etc. ]
>: /* A bad function */
>: void testfunction(struct yy *xx)
>: {
>: int t = xx->count; /* Save count */
>: xx->sum = xx->value; /* Get first value */
>: while(xx->count--) /* Loop until done */
>: xx->sum += xx->sum;
>: xx->count = t; /* Restore count */
>: }
>: The above functions is bad code, although no coding standard or quality
>: suite can tell you why. I have seen code like that in the real world,
>: really!
>: int testfunction(struct yy *xx)
>: {
>: xx->sum = (1<<xx->count)*xx->value;
>: }
>: The is the equivalent functionality done "right."
The really scary thing is that I have seen the equivalent of the above
code done *worse*. A quick scan back through my archived code (hey, I
just inherited the stuff) gives the following horror (adapted for
relevance and brevity of layout):
int testfunction(struct yy *xx) {
xx->sum = xx->value * exps[xx->count];
}
Where exps is a global array of powers of two. Only 15 words long of
which only the first 13 are filled. (You don't want to know how
bit-testing was done!) And, to make things better, the filling is
done partway through main().
> I used to work at a place that forced me to write bad code so that
> I could stay within their standards. Luckily, I escaped.
I wish I'd known this particular individual's code was so bad when he
still worked here, since then I'd have told him about the various bit
operators in C. More amusing is that I know where he's got a job now!
Donal (merrily following his own coding standards since 1983.)
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- The small advantage of not having California being part of my country would
be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel on our
borders. -- David Parsons <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
