Linux-Advocacy Digest #873, Volume #25 Wed, 29 Mar 00 12:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: I don't want to stir up any concerns... (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Opensource article first chapter draft for criticism (phil hunt)
Re: Opensource article first chapter draft for criticism (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Weak points ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? ("Christopher Smith")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 02:53:06 +1000
"Andrew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Chad,
> > I just for fun and because I had a demo cd of W2K installed it and
tested
> > W2K and let me tell you it is still crap. I can not remotely log in and
> > administer a W2K box..this means if I was masochistic enough to install
it
> > on my network of 23 Servers + 6 workstations. I would have to take the
> > systems out of useage to admin the systems.
>
> Perhaps you didn't look at the software hard enough. If you installed
Terminal
> Services you can remotely administer the machine with the full GUI. Yes, I
know
[snip]
Unfortunately you're using the wrong definition of "remote administration".
"Remote Administration" is a pseudonym for "can telnet in".
;)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: I don't want to stir up any concerns...
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 16:54:54 GMT
On 29 Mar 2000 15:15:11 GMT, Matt Chiglinsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 27 Mar 2000 21:47:29 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On 26 Mar 2000 02:51:06 GMT, Matt Chiglinsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Can't win? They've already won big big BIG. All you Linvocates can do
>>>is whine about how much they've won and make idle threats that somehow
>>>they'll fall soon. Well, let me know when computer newbies start
>>>running Linux and Applixware or Star Office or GNUmeric or whatever
>>>other free alternative you propose. Let me know when Gateway's tech
>>
>> In order for a newbie to run such a thing, they have to be
>> exposed to it. That's rather difficult when typically the
>> only thing they are force fed in retail establishments is
>> WinSomething.
>>
>> What is far more likely is that someone slightly above the
>> newbie level will try out Star Office because it's free,
>> might just satisfy their needs, could keep them compatible
>> with inconsiderate twits like you and would keep them from
>> having to constantly re-buy MS Office everytime M$ things
>> it needs a revenue boost.
>
>You're not disagreeing with me except for the "twit" part. I was
>assuming that newbies make up the majority of computer purchases so
>some small number of intermediate users switching to Linux wouldn't
>make a difference. Prove my assumption wrong and you prove my
>argument wrong and MS will fall.
It's a slow war of attrition much like it was before when DOS
had the upper hand. It had the ability to hold out forever
because it was less vulnerable to market forces than any other
option on the market. Now that place is taken by Linux. It will
only continue to grow it's usable codebase and codebase. That
code will spill over onto other platforms making all that free
code exploitable by everyone.
This includes code that deals with Microsoft's vendor locking
formats.
Furthermore, you've got Sun that's actively trying to "cut off
Microsoft's airsupply" at the moment. The Win32 version of
StarOffice is something that WinDOS users appreciate: FREE. This
will cause a slow defection of users bound to Microsoft's cash
cow. They will cease to line Bill's coffers and make it easier
for some other office competitors to win marketshare. The decrease
in general dependence on msoffice itself will undermine the
artifical need to run Windows.
Linux and Sun are right now doing to Microsoft what Microsoft has
been doing to everyone else for years.
Linux can slowly chip away at Microsoft indefinitely.
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that theare the communists, but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Opensource article first chapter draft for criticism
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 17:57:00 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 19:03:15 +0100, Tom Steinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>We live in prosperous economic times. It only takes a casual look at a
>newspaper or magazine to see that a primary contributor to the current
>economic climate has been the rise of information technology. Looking more
>closely it can be seen that the internet share frenzy has actually been
>concealing much more pedestrian progress in other sectors. Entire stock
>markets have been driven up by growth in tech stocks, even as most other
>shares stagnate or fall. The S&P 500 share index rose 21% last year. 31
>mainly technology stocks counted for almost the entire rise. Whitbread, with
>a 3 Billion pound yearly turnover, risks being dropped from the FTSE in
>favour of a tech company with an annual turnover of only 23 million pounds.
>The internet revolution seems set to sweep away old business practices in a
>tide of cost savings and efficiency improvements, converting old business
>profit margins into new economy share value.
I think this opeing paragraph wants to be shortened or bulleted. It's
a bit cumbersome as it is.
>Below decks, a different kind of revolution is quietly but quickly gaining
>ground. These revolutionaries are short on capital, but are dangerously
>armed with a real understanding of the nature of the on-line world. They
>have been around online longer than most e-investors and they have, by and
>large, a much greater level of technical knowledge. Now they think that they
>have discovered something that could destroy the software industry as we
>know it.
No. OSS will not destroy the software industry. Most (c. 80-90%) of
the software industry produces bespokes software for one particular client.
This will be mostly unaffected, the only change will be that programmers will
use open source tools to a greater extent than they do now.
The proprietary shrinkwrapped software industry will probably decline. It
may even go away altogether.
> Their claim is that the best software costs nothing to produce,
Whoever claims this?
> is
>free to distribute and free to modify. Moreover, they claim that the profit
>motive theoretically cannot, and empirically has not produced software of
>the same quality as can be had for free, all over the internet.
Er, much open source software is produced by for-profit organisations,
such as IBM, SGI, HP, Red Hat, etc. I think it is reasonable to assume that
they are motivated by profit.
> They are the
>many individuals who constitute the Open source software community, and
>their standard bearer is Linux.
And Apache.
>If their claim is true, it could mean a huge number of the most highly
>valued tech firms,
Cumbersome writing here.
>those that produce software professionally, are about to
>be faced with competition that they can neither beat in terms of quality or
>price, nor destroy through merger or acquisition.
Unlikely. The only really big firm likely to be harmed by OSS is the evil
empire based in Redmond.
> For major economies
>increasingly built on technology, this poses serious worries. This paper
>aims to assess whether the threat of Linux and opensource to professional
>software is real, and if so, what this means to the software industry and
>consumers.
>
>2 Opensource in theory.
>
>Opensource is, at its most basic, a description of software the original
>source code of which is open for public inspection.
No. That's "disclosed source". Open source is defined at www.opensource.org
>Originating from the
>earliest days of computing, opensource was first implemented as a practical
>way of distributing software in a way which encouraged takeup through
>transparency and low cost.
>It is very common for sucessful technologies of all kinds to use low cost
>and open standards. We see this in the success of vinyl, PSTN phone systems,
>standard paper sizes, film speeds, and many more standards which now
>dominate their fields because of the minimal costs and many benefits of
>compliance. The internet is no exception. Most of the important
>communications standards which keep the internet running today are open, and
>have only achieved their ubiquitous positions through being so .
>Despite the similarities, there is a divergence between the internet and
>normal technological standards. This is becausea large number of the actual
>programs which form the infrastructure of the internet are also open, or
>more precisely opensource. This is very unlike normal technology. We do not
>expect to be given details of the workings of our record player just because
>the format it plays is in the public domain. Nearly 60% of all web servers
>are using Apache, an open source program, to serve web pages with.
I think it is over 60% now.
You might want to give the URL of the netcraft survey.
> It is
>estimated that over 60-70% of email delivery is conducted via sendmail,
>another opensource program which is now nearly 20 years old .
>To explain why such major software applications are open and have not been
>taken over by the private sector. it must be explained why opensource works
>at all. At its heart is an incredibly fluid feedback loop, a virtous circle
>which works at high speed. The process is ( in theory ) as follows.
>
>1) Someone creates a piece of software which is of use to them and other
>people.
>2) This software is released to the public over the internet. The release is
>accompanied by a public announcement in any number of relevant forums which
>a self-selecting group of interested parties will read regularly, like
>reading a newspaper or a trade magazine.
Give URLs.
>3) The 'readers' who are interested obtain the software, also via the
>internet. They download, install, run and use the software.
>4) If the software has a problem, or if the users desires extended
>functionality, they can edit the program themselves, using the freely
>distributed source code which comes with all releases. If they cannot edit
>the program themselves, they can at least post information about the problem
>they have located, or the feature they think would be useful.
>5) The user who has made changes to the software, posts the edited version,
>along with an announcement and a list of what has changed to the same area
>that they got the code from in the first place.
>6) Other people download the edited software, install and use it, and the
>circle repeats.
This is a good explanation.
(There are of course other models for howe OSS gets written; see
Eric Raymond's writings esp. _The Magic Cauldron_).
>There are a large number of factors that make this loop possible and
>sustainable. Some are thanks to the forsight of the initial programmer, and
>some are due to the circumstances of the day. These factors need mentioning
>to pre-empt many possible queries about the practicality of such a system.
>
>1) The public availability of the code means that if there is a problem with
>the program, the user has the resources to with which to mend it. Most
>commercial programs make it as hard as possible to edit the way a program
>functions at a code level, so as not to let people 'steal' the expensive
>work put into the development of the program.
>2) The nature of the internet makes code distribution and re-distribution
>very quick and cheap, and make the collecting together of many people with
>similar interests very easy. If the distributive system was slower or more
>expensive, there would be substantial 'friction' which would damage the
>effectiveness of the feedback loop.
You might want to add that the Internet has allowed OSS to really take off;
although it has existed for a long time previously, it was considered
a backwater by many programmers (including me).
>3) There is a constant demand for software. Most software has problems or
>fails to meet functionality requirements of users. Therefore there is a
>constant demand for software which achieve's its ends more efficiently.
>4) There exists a large and skilled base of people who have a demand for
>software, and who are also capable of creating and modifying it themselves.
>5) Software solutions for an individual's needs tend to take longer to
>create than the individual has time to spend on them.
You might want to add that it is usually easier to modify somethnig which
almost does what you want than to start from scratch.
>6) The only costs associated with the software are obtaining the code. Since
>there is high availability of the code from many sources, the costs are very
>low.
>7) Even those who do not have the skills required to modify code have a
>direct feedback mechanism, through forums and email to highlight what
>problems they have found.
>8) The internet has brought together a 'critical mass' of coders. This means
>that most new projects which could be useful for other users can now obtain
>a sufficient quantity of development effort that they can grow. Once, a good
>idea in the opensource world might simply have died for lack of available
>manhours. Now a good idea is the starting block of the virtuous circle
>described above. Ideas that are not that good, die, and their contributors
>will tend to collect around better ones.
>9) Attempting to restrict software which has been opensource kills the
>public development of the branch of the project which is suddenly
>privatised. People cannot make improvements, and have a strong incentive to
>carry on developing the software from the original original version. The new
>project is likely to be 'out manned' by the available resources of the
>opensource developers.
>10) There are a variety of forms of non-monetary incentives for the
>programmers who put their time and effort into opensource software. Peer
>regard, pride, sense-of-achievement, the feeling of empowerment all mean
>that it is a fallacy to argue that people are working 'for nothing'.
Also it is a form of advertising: "here's a sample of my work, would
you like to give me a job". A loss-leader approach.
>The cycle of development and re-development in the public domain
"Public domain" has a specific legal meaning, which might be confusing.
>is the most
>important aspect of opensource software. Software which grows and survives
>in the brutal world of the internet must be good at what it does, or at
>least have obvious potential to be good at what it does, to survive. There
>are no marketing mechanisms to distort signals about the quality of the
>product,
IOW, programs gain mindshare because they are good, not because they
are backed by lots of adverts. Improves quality of OSS v. proprietary.
>nor any 'investment lock-in' which keeps people using expensive
>products just because it is too expensive and politically difficult to bin
>software which has just been purchased. If a product is good, it is likely
>to be made better very rapidly, pushing it ahead of the competitors in a
>very short amount of time, and ensuring more time and effort is put into
>improving it. Natural selection truly is an apt word.
Another, related effect, is that *anyone* can alter an OSS program, and
can add any features they like to it, regardless of what the original
author(s) (or anyone else) wants. So I could add an animated paperclip
to vi if I wanted. :-( Any features I add will live or die in the
"brutal world of the Internet" as you put it.
With proprietary software, typically only the manager in charge of the
project is alloed to decide to add new features.
So OSS has the advantage of decentralised decision making v. central
planning. Note that this is the reason the West beat the USSR.
>The best single example of the success of opensource is the internet itself.
>As a network it 'beat' the threat of many large and well funded proprietory
>networks ( eg AOL, Compuserve and the original Microsoft Network ) because
>it had open standards ( eg TCP/IP, FTP, DNS ) and cheap and powerful tools
>(eg Apache, perl, sendmail ) many of them opensource.
>
>One correspondant shed some light on what this loop looks like for those who
>take part in it.
>
>"I have worked for a variety of software companies over the last 20 years
>and, I like to think I write pretty good code: not too buggy, not too messy
>etc. I know my
>manager could look at my code, and he might even understand it, but I know
>he he won't. The agreement we have is that I write code that meets the
>design and passes QA tests by <date>. If that happens, everyone's happy.
>
>By contrast, if I were to write some code and contribute it to the Linux
>open sources (say a new device driver), my source code would be crawled over
>by (what?) thousands of my peers all over the world. Do you think my code
>would be better? Are you kidding? I'd go over it with a finetooth comb; I'd
>worry about how it was structured, whether I'd coded this or that loop
>optimally, I wouldn't sleep for a week. And when people spotted problems or
>made suggestions, would I put them in a pile and forget them? No, I'd want
>to incorporate everything I could into the next release - I'd want to
>withdraw the old one, apologize and give everyone a better version as fast
>as possible. I'd consider completely re-coding things that could be done a
>better way, etc.
>
>Back "in the industry" we can't do many of these things. We could do limited
>peer reviews (and this does increase quality) but it's very rare that a
>company can afford to do things like complete re-writes. You can imagine the
>conversation: "So Tom, you're telling me you'd like to recode the XYZ server
>because you've thought of a better way to do it. The current server works
>fine, but it isn't very neat. Is that right?". And then Tom gets redeployed
>on the MkII which adds features rather than fixing the MkI. So Tom spends
>his evenings investing his real enthusiasm on something different; his
>employer gets what's left over. "
>
>At first, this may seem a triumph of form-over-function pedantry. However,
>there is significant evidence that the market model which creates a demand
>for new features before mending existing ones leads to problems for both
>consumers and software companies. Microsoft's operating systems saw a
>systematic decrease in stability over the course of the 1990s. This was
>attributed by most commentators to the persistant piling of new features on
>top an essentially unchanged kernel that was never that stable or bug free
>in the first place. By the late 90s Microsoft realised that they actually
>needed to scrap 'backward compatability' from their system because the
>foundations that this required were so problematic. Now Microsoft is faced
>by the nearly impossible task of programming a new operating system which is
>both wholy new at base and still compatible with most recent software. They
>have managed this for business in the form of Windows 2000,
You might want to add a note about the 63,000 known bugs in Win2000.
> but the more
>widespread consumer version is facing a highly uncertain future . This type
>of problem is virtually unknown in the opensource world where much more time
>is spent ensuring the optimal functioning of existing tasks.
>
>What is Linux?
>
>Linux is an opensouce operating system, first created in 1991 by Linus
>Torvalds, at the time a student in Helsinki. An operating system ( OS ) is
>the most essential piece of software on a computer. It is a collection of
>programs that control the way in which all the individual pieces a computer
>talk to each other, and which provides a platform on which applications can
>run. Operating systems control all the basic functions like collecting data
>from the keyboard, and sending it to the screen, modem, memory and so on.
>The best known operating system is Windows.
>Linux now runs on an estimated 12 million machines,
More than this, I think.
> and controls about a
>quarter of the entire market for servers. Yearly growth is estimated at
>about 50%. It is claimed that most of this growth is due to two factors:
>Linux is free, and Linux is good at what it does.
>
>Why has Linux grown like it has?
>
>Linus Torvalds' initial posts informed a newsgroup that he was writing the
>basics of a new operating system in the mould of Unix, a major but costly
>operating system still widely in use today. He asked people if they were
>interested in taking part in testing and working on it. Using the opensource
>loop described above, and taking advantage of good timing, Linux use
>expanded exponentially and before long was taking major sections of the
>server market away from established players.
>
>There are doubtless several elements of good fortune in the success of
>Linux. About the same time as the first 'Beta' ( public testing release )
>versions of Linux were being made public, the internet was finally becoming
>widespread with over 100,000 hosts . This made it easier to attain a
>'critical mass' of interest which could put enough work into Linux to make
>it not only interesting, but actually better than some commercial solutions.
>Also, Linux tapped into a latent demand for a cheap version of Unix from a
>market of potential users who had previously been priced out of the sector.
>It then maintained a first mover advantage due to the dominant size of the
>community. It also happened that before Linux wa
>s launched there was already a good sized pool of opensource applications
>for Unix , many of them very powerful, but there was no opensource operating
>system to run them on. This meant that as soon as Linux was functional,
>there was quite of lot of software ready and waiting to be ported to it.
>
>The growth of Linux cannot be mentioned without reference to Microsoft.
Boo! Hiss!
> [snip]
Overall, pretty good.
--
***** Phil Hunt ***** send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] *****
Moore's Law: hardware speed doubles every 18 months
Gates' Law: software speed halves every 18 months
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Opensource article first chapter draft for criticism
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 16:59:18 GMT
On 29 Mar 2000 07:37:20 GMT, Dave Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 19:03:15 +0100, Tom Steinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> 1) Introduction
>>
>> [SNIP] Their claim is that the best software costs nothing to produce, is
>> free to distribute and free to modify.
Software costs resources to "engineer", it doesn't cost anything
to "produce". Keep in mind that most people think of "production"
in terms of the generation of physical deliverables. The problem
isn't so much the use of wrong terms but the use of pre-industrial
terms to information age processes.
>
>Who is really claiming that software costs nothing to produce? I can't
>recall ever seeing a serious claim of that nature as part of the writings
>regarding free software and OpenSource.
>
>Because of the above I think you've set the stage for the incorrect
>understanding of the "free" in "free software". As an example, the rest of
>the above sentence reads as if there is no cost in distribution (wrong) and
>no cost in modification (also wrong).
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that theare the communists, but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Weak points
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 17:04:30 GMT
I'm sure you are a nice person Terry and I do respect you for at least
backing up your claims with facts. This group gets emotional at times.
Steve
On 29 Mar 2000 13:35:22 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry
Porter) wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 18:03:09 GMT,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On 28 Mar 2000 11:37:47 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry
>>Porter) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Yeah Yeah Steve, and lemme guess, your sound card has *valves* too ?
>>>(valves just sound better man, pass the mull.. )
>>
>>Nope no tubes on my soundcard, although you can buy several great
>>plugins for SoundForge that do a great job of simulating that "tube
>>sound".
>9/10
>
>>
>>Sorry, but they don't run under Linux.
>9/10
>
>>
>>
>>>Steve, apart from being a Wintroll, you're a muso with no grip on reality.
>>
>>I'm not the one drawing those little lines on schematics all day :)
>9/10
>
>>
>>
>>>Your endless tirades are 99% emotional content, lacking any technical substance
>>>. This combined with your endless name changing, makes you a sad joke Steve.
>>
>>You say that about everyone who disagrees with you, whether it's true
>>or not.
>Hey good rebuttal, another 9/10
>
>>
>>
>>>Get a grip. Who do you think you're fooling ?
>>
>>Not trying to fool anyone. It's pure entertainment for me, just like
>>Jerry Springer, only better.
>dam another 9/10
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Kind Regards
>>>Terry
>>
>45/50 Steve *plus* 5 points for not responding with a tirade of insults.
>
>So Steve gets a full 100% today, well done Steve.
>
>Is this a new tactic, or have you finally figured out I dont hate Wintrolls ?
>
>
>Kind Regards
>Terry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 17:05:37 GMT
On 29 Mar 2000 17:17:07 +0800, Terry Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 21:44:22 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 13:44:32 -0700, John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>George Richard Russell wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What free spreadsheet has equivalent functionality to Lotus 123 from SmartSuite
>>>> 96, the last 16 bit windows 3.1 version?
><snip>
>
>>>See above. Xess is pretty good.
>>
>> Xess is actually quite pathetic. A pox on you for recommending it.
>
>Umm Jedi, I don't quite know how to say this, but I've been using Xesslite4
>for a year and I don't mind it at all :)
...a good demonstration of what I've been saying about no office
application being a "one size fits all" sort of thing. Although,
I would still be quite reluctant to suggest anyone actually spend
money on the retail package without having used it first...
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that are the communists here, but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 03:08:43 +1000
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8btca0$j7l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Andrew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > Chad,
> > > I just for fun and because I had a demo cd of W2K installed it and
> tested
> > > W2K and let me tell you it is still crap. I can not remotely log in
and
> > > administer a W2K box..this means if I was masochistic enough to
install
> it
> > > on my network of 23 Servers + 6 workstations. I would have to take the
> > > systems out of useage to admin the systems.
> >
> > Perhaps you didn't look at the software hard enough. If you installed
> Terminal
> > Services you can remotely administer the machine with the full GUI. Yes,
I
> know
> [snip]
>
> Unfortunately you're using the wrong definition of "remote
administration".
>
> "Remote Administration" is a pseudonym for "can telnet in".
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
<GRAMMARCHECK>
Should be "synonymous with"
</GRAMMARCHECK>
>
> ;)
>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
