Linux-Advocacy Digest #885, Volume #25 Thu, 30 Mar 00 21:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: W2K: The "Mr. Creosote" of operating systems ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Gary Hallock)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (mlw)
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (abraxas)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Christopher Browne)
Re: Giving up on NT (Chris Wenham)
Re: Dish Network's site is DOWN if you don't use M$'s browser. (Emery Lapinski)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: W2K: The "Mr. Creosote" of operating systems
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 01:05:48 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
> http://www.montypython.net/showimage.php3?PIC=/pix/meaning/creo.jpg
> http://www.montypython.net/showimage.php3?PIC=/pix/meaning/vomitcln.jpg
>
> Have another DLL. They're wafer thin!
>
> http://www.montypython.net/showimage.php3?PIC=/pix/meaning/explode.jpg
Such a vivid depiction of M$. Monty Python's message was, as usual, years
ahead. :-)
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 16:54:23 -0700
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > Completely obliterating the effects of having a non-root account in the
> > > first place.
> >
> > Then use sudo, instead.
> >
> > As I said, Unix is *SAFER* than NT, if you wish to set it up that way.
>
> Not really,
Yes, really.
> but if you wish to believe that. Where is *nux's discretionary
> access control, anyhow?
What, specifically, are you asking for?
> What about auditing capabilities.
Obviously Linux has auditing capabilities. Which specific thing did you
wish to audit?
> > > As i said. Saying "don't do that" is a bandaid. Not a solution.
> >
> > Yes, you did say that. But you are wrong.
> >
> > How does NT protect me from accidentally taking control over the wrong
> > bunch of files, then permanently deleting them?
> >
> > Answer: "Don't do that".
>
> > If you have a valid point, and I'm not sure that you really do, then NT
> > doesn't fit your requirements, either.
>
> Not necessarily, since in NT, there are a set of complex deliberate
> actions you must take.
Which don't stop you from doing the wrong thing.
> There is no "accidentally" deleting user files,
> where with root, you can have a hay-day without anything stopping you.
Nope. You're wrong. You can accidentally delete files in both systems.
> In NT, you would have to first give yourself permissions, or take ownership
> if you didn't have the "Change Permissions" right on a file/directory.
Yep. How does NT stop you from accidentally taking ownership of *THE*
*WRONG* *FILES*?
> It's hard to accidentally do those things in the order required.
Not at all. I've seen it done.
In the end, the only thing that will stop you from doing the wrong thing
is to think first, and be careful.
> Granted, a malicious user could do it, but an accidentaly mishap is much
> more unlikely.
Which simply means that the administrator gets careless, thereby raising
the probability of an accident occurring.
Surely you've read the latest studies re: "Are you sure you want to do
XXX" dialogs? Such dialogs only keep you from making mistakes the first
twenty or thirty times you see them, then you get so used to 'em, you
just automatically click through them.
If you're tempted to say: "Well, *I* don't just automatically click
through them!", go right ahead, say it. . . ;_)
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 19:09:43 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Christopher Smith wrote:
> What I was saying is that no-one[1] using Unix on a PPC machine is going to
> be interested in plonking NT onto that machine, even if they could.
>
> [1] "No-one" being a somewhat exxaggerated way of saying "stuff all people".
Sorry, I misread your post.
Gary
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 19:07:54 -0500
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Christopher Smith wrote:
> > > It's somewhat unfair to compare a commercial OS (that has to be profitable)
> > > to free OSes like that.
> >
> > Why? If they claim it is portable, then porting it to other platforms
> > should be part of the business model. If the OS is not portable, stop
> > calling it portable.
>
> Come on, mlw, even you're smarter than that.
>
> NT's design is portable. It just isn't compiled and sold for other platforms
> because it didn't sell.
In theory "every" design is portable. The practice is somewhat
different.
>
> It was designed and developed on a RISC platform. Read the article where they
> interview David Cutler.
There is a big difference between being ported and "portable." I argue
that NT can be ported, but is not inherently very portable. Porting NT
to a different platform is a lot of work. Moving something like NetBSD
and Linux to a different platform is much easier. NT is not very
portable. Remember... NT as a whole is a lot more than its kernel.
In a UNIX system, 90% of the code is NOT the kernel, and is 100%
portable because it is the same code as every other UNIX system. In NT
90% of all Windows code is compiled, tested, and has only been run on an
x86 PC.
(Note: 90% is an estimate)
>
> > You mean to tell me that NT on a power PC wouldn't be an interresting
> > market?
>
> Appearently not, as it didn't sell worth crap.
Microsoft has no interest in getting involved with a platform who's
manufacturers can't be put under their thumb. I recall a lot of initial
enthusiasm of PPC NT, but not even Microsoft tried to put their
applications on it. I wouldn't even say it was a serious attempt.
>
> > How about NT on Sun hardware?
>
> That's interesting. However, I'm sure MS's business forcasters are probably
> much better at predicting profitability in various markets. Perhaps they're
> planning it, who knows?
See above.
>
> > These are targets that should make marketing people drool. Maybe not for sales
> of
> > that product, but for the argument that NT is portable and therefore a viable
> option.
>
> It's already proven it's portable. It runs on MIPS, PPC, Alpha, and x86. It
> could
> run on just about anything given the right HAL. However, lest you forget, MS has
> to make money, as those developers don't come cheap. It's not worth wasting
> their
> time on a platform that no one would use.
>
> Besides, consider the support costs. One of MS's biggest expenses is support for
> their products, the last thing they want to do is grow their support costs
> exponentially
> while not increasing their profits by any respectable amount.
If it were truly portable these would be somewhat minimal
considerations.
>
> > As it is now, portability of NT is, at best, a joke.
>
> It isn't supported on those platforms, but it certainly could, and has.
Can it? Think about it. The things that made the NT ports unusable was
the fact that applications could not simply be recompiled and deployed
as in UNIX. The Win32 API is not portable. On the application level,
apps can not be ported easily either.
The kernel is mostly portable, yes, everything above it is a disaster.
>
> Are you really so blind that you forget this? Out of sight out of mind?
Blind? no.
>
> Just because MS doesn't compile a HAL for those platforms anymore doesn't
> mean that it couldn't run on them with not that much effort on MS part.
Hey, it is an argument people have. If Microsoft is serious about the
server business, they should really think about it. A single Sun box can
out perform several PCs.
BTW it is A LOT more than re-compiling "HAL" to port NT. Microsoft
claims that that is all that it is, but it is a lie. There are lots of
core drivers in the NT source tree that use assembler or C with in-line
assembler, this in addition to the amount of work that would be required
to port the HAL layer.
It is a lot of work to move just the kernel of NT to a different
platform. Not to mention that the Win32 API does not suffer bit depth
and/or integer endian changes well. Yes the API can be "ported" but all
the application code using it needs to be checked as well. Don't even
look at what will happen when a "void *" is a different length than an
"unsigned long." Just think what will happen when sizeof(int) !=
sizeof(long) != sizeof(void *).
>
> > > Quite nice ? Just who was making machines that could run it ? How about
> > > software ?
> >
> > Actually SGI was using mips. It was a political move more than anything.
>
> How many MIPS boxes are SGI selling compared to x86 boxes by Compaq, Dell,
> Micron,
> et al? A lot less, you can be assured. How would MS make money on these
> platforms?
The fact the NT could not compare to the UNIX competition was obvious.
Rather than try to compete, MS closed shop.
>
> > > In some ways. It's common, cheap and fast, relatively speaking.
> >
> > x86 hardware is cheap, that is, more or less, its only advantage.
>
> It's fast enough, and it's common, which is the most important point.
> Your Beta player is much better than your VHS player, but good luck finding
> videos for it. Which, in essence, makes the Beta player worthless.
Beta was never "better" than VHS. The two were different. The economy of
scale makes the PC cheap. Aside from volume and cost, the PC has NO
technological advantages over a Sun box or a PPC.
>
> Likewise, MS isn't going to through money away on platforms that don't
> sell well. MS doesn't have any obligations to Intel anymore since Intel has
> taken it upon itself to branch out and screw MS on several occasions, and
> MS has favored AMD on several occasions (albeit, few).
Spending money to back up its claims of portability and trying to open
up more lucrative markets is not throwing money away. They probably
spend more money in marketing costs defending not having ports than it
should be to support them.
>
> If PowerPC became an overnight success and started taking over the market,
> then MS would build an NT/2K port for it because they'd make money on it.
>
> Until then, don't expect any ports.
You believe that, I, on the other hand, do not.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
"We've got a blind date with destiny, and it looks like she ordered the
lobster"
------------------------------
From: <[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 16:42:48 -0800
><sigh> Give me a break. Why must you guys be dicks about this?
Why do you resort to insults and profanity? That is not a valid
subsitution for logic, knowledge, and wisdom. You may accuse
me of using insults as well, but if you will notice I did not originate
any of them, you did. All I did was reflect your jabs and insults
back at you.
>You know you're wrong, you know you've set up a strawman, and you attempt
>to chastize me for not playing along.
>
>The criteria he set up were highly directred and rather illogical.
>
>He didn't really even outline his preferred goals, he just basically
>said "How can I make NT do things with the *nix paradigm?" which is
>obviously a loaded question.
>
The obvious response of a bigot without a clue as to how to provide a
solution to a basic problem, or someone who is unable to accept the
defeat of his favorite position.
>He was trolling, quit bullshitting us and drop it.
More unprovoked insults? The only disinformation in this discussion
is your reactions to your failure.
>If you want a rational debate, then quit with the childish strawmen
>antics.
Perfect advice for YOU to follow.
>And if you want us to outline how NT could perform tasks similar
>to this, then you shouldn't direct your questions towards *nix.
Then you sould have restated it fit into a NT environment. Or are
you unable to do it because you are that unfamiliar with the unix
environment? If so, you are in the wrong thread, you should
admit you short comming and bow out. Next time be more careful
of entering into threads where you are over your head.
>When you're ready to debate like an adult and try to learn something,
>let us know, until then, quit wasting our time, ok?
Speak for youself, I have more experience with more computers
and operating systems than you could ever hope to use.
I hope you keep your job for many years; because, considering the
level of incompetance, uncivility, and bigotry that have demonstrated
in this thread, I would never permit someone like you to be a member
of my team. I am sure that there many others how have noticed your
behavior in this thread who feel the same way, perhaps your own
superiors.
You are unable to admit that you are over your head and and are
unable to admit defeat. I have also noticed that you have ignored
my valid Windows solutions to that stated problems which put the
lie to your position. So I will take pity on you by accepting you de
facto admission of defeat, and end my activity in this thread if you
are willing to let he issue lie. There is no reason for you to make
any more of a fool out of yourself than you already have by
responding to this posting.
Good bye.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 01:01:47 GMT
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000 16:51:32 -0600, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Christopher Smith wrote:
>> > It's somewhat unfair to compare a commercial OS (that has to be profitable)
>> > to free OSes like that.
>>
>> Why? If they claim it is portable, then porting it to other platforms
>> should be part of the business model. If the OS is not portable, stop
>> calling it portable.
>
>Come on, mlw, even you're smarter than that.
Sure he is. That's why he realizes that 'doesnt sell enough' really
isn't a serious issue for one of the biggest software vendors on the
planet. At the very least, reference versions for PPC and Alpha would
serve to ensure that NT remains fairly portable should the circumstance
change and to enforce good engineering practices.
[deletia]
>It's already proven it's portable. It runs on MIPS, PPC, Alpha, and x86. It
>could
It RAN on MIPS, PPC and Alpha. Considering all the new code, it's
rather foolish to presume that the current version of NT is still
as portable as even it's predecessors.
[deletia]
>> > Quite nice ? Just who was making machines that could run it ? How about
>> > software ?
>>
>> Actually SGI was using mips. It was a political move more than anything.
>
>How many MIPS boxes are SGI selling compared to x86 boxes by Compaq, Dell,
>Micron,
>et al? A lot less, you can be assured. How would MS make money on these
>platforms?
Sound engineering of the core product. If that sound engineering
isn't there, and NT really isn't quite as portable as claimed,
then this whole 'it costs too much argument' makes more sense.
Otherwise, it's senseless and self-contradictory.
[deletia]
If it's "too expensive" to port then it's not very portable
now is it?
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: 31 Mar 2000 01:10:36 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8c06fp$14b0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > I have real problems classifying NT as Multiplatform. two or three tops.
>> > Multiplatform is something like netbsd. Linux, although originally
>> > developed for the x86, has been proven to be capable of being
>> > multiplatform. NT has only been ported to alpha, mips, and is Merced out
>> > yet? Mips was dropped. The Alpha's port is on shaky ground (is it on
>> > again or off again this week?)
> It's somewhat unfair to compare a commercial OS (that has to be profitable)
> to free OSes like that.
>>
>> Its off again.
>>
>> They also dropped a PPC port a few years ago. Just when it was looking
>> quite nice actually.
> Quite nice ? Just who was making machines that could run it ? How about
> software ?
IBM was. Software was lacking.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 01:25:06 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Chad Myers would say:
>"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Christopher Smith wrote:
>> > It's somewhat unfair to compare a commercial OS (that has to be profitable)
>> > to free OSes like that.
>>
>> Why? If they claim it is portable, then porting it to other platforms
>> should be part of the business model. If the OS is not portable, stop
>> calling it portable.
>
>Come on, mlw, even you're smarter than that.
>
>NT's design is portable. It just isn't compiled and sold for other platforms
>because it didn't sell.
Did it not sell on other platforms because they were somehow
unsatisfactory?
Or did it not sell on other platforms because, oh, say, Microsoft
never ported MS Office to run on those other platforms?
Where's MS Office for PPC? Or Alpha?
Where's MSMQ for MIPS?
Where's Internet Explorer for anything other than IA-32?
>It was designed and developed on a RISC platform. Read the article
>where they interview David Cutler.
>
>> You mean to tell me that NT on a power PC wouldn't be an interresting
>> market?
>
>Appearently not, as it didn't sell worth crap.
It didn't sell "worth crap" because there wasn't software "worth crap"
to run on PPC. Ditto for MIPS. And the *slightly* better-than-awful
sales of Alpha-based systems appears correlated to the fact that
Digital built some pretty spiffy emulation software to run IA-32 code
on Alpha with a not-TOO-atrocious loss of speed.
>> How about NT on Sun hardware?
>
>That's interesting. However, I'm sure MS's business forcasters are
>probably much better at predicting profitability in various
>markets. Perhaps they're planning it, who knows?
Who knows, indeed. It is as likely that they are *deciding*
profitability as it is that they are merely predicting it.
>> These are targets that should make marketing people drool. Maybe not for sales
>of
>> that product, but for the argument that NT is portable and therefore a viable
>option.
>
>It's already proven it's portable. It runs on MIPS, PPC, Alpha, and x86. It
>could
>run on just about anything given the right HAL. However, lest you forget, MS has
>to make money, as those developers don't come cheap. It's not worth wasting
>their
>time on a platform that no one would use.
It is *NOT* proven that it is "portable," not as far as the deployment
of applications goes. There's a bunch of software that runs on
NT-for-IA-32; there's a little that runs on NT-for-Alpha.
Can you name *any* interesting software outside of NT 3.51 itself that
runs on PPC or MIPS?
>Besides, consider the support costs. One of MS's biggest expenses is
>support for their products, the last thing they want to do is grow
>their support costs exponentially while not increasing their profits
>by any respectable amount.
I don't think you understand the term "exponential." Multiplying the
number of platforms results in a *LINEAR* increase in costs.
>> As it is now, portability of NT is, at best, a joke.
>
>It isn't supported on those platforms, but it certainly could, and has.
>
>Are you really so blind that you forget this? Out of sight out of mind?
>
>Just because MS doesn't compile a HAL for those platforms anymore doesn't
>mean that it couldn't run on them with not that much effort on MS part.
You've got two choices:
Either the important thing is:
a) That NT is running on the platforms, in which case you're talking
about NT being a thinly-veiled replacement for the file/print services
of Novell Netware, or
b) That NT is an application deployment platform, in which case the
problem is *not* of the dearth of MSFT's deployment of HAL, but rather
the utter lack of applications to run on NT-for-MIPS and NT-for-PPC.
Pick one.
>> > Quite nice ? Just who was making machines that could run it ? How about
>> > software ?
>>
>> Actually SGI was using mips. It was a political move more than anything.
>
>How many MIPS boxes are SGI selling compared to x86 boxes by Compaq, Dell,
>Micron, et al? A lot less, you can be assured. How would MS make
>money on these platforms?
The important proposition is *not* of quantity. It is of *VALUE.*
Value = Price x Quantity.
Those SGI MIPS boxes may sell in smaller quantities, but it's pretty
safe to expect that an SGI box with 16 MIPS 10000 series processors
will have a *rather* higher profit margin than a Compaq box with a
Pentium III. Compaq might sell many times more boxes than SGI, and
make less money on the deal.
>> > In some ways. It's common, cheap and fast, relatively speaking.
>>
>> x86 hardware is cheap, that is, more or less, its only advantage.
>
>It's fast enough, and it's common, which is the most important point.
>Your Beta player is much better than your VHS player, but good luck
>finding videos for it. Which, in essence, makes the Beta player
>worthless.
>
>Likewise, MS isn't going to through money away on platforms that don't
>sell well. MS doesn't have any obligations to Intel anymore since Intel has
>taken it upon itself to branch out and screw MS on several occasions, and
>MS has favored AMD on several occasions (albeit, few).
>
>If PowerPC became an overnight success and started taking over the market,
>then MS would build an NT/2K port for it because they'd make money on it.
>
>Until then, don't expect any ports.
Without "W2K" software to run on PPC, there's obviously not going to
be any "success" to the port.
Without development tools to produce "W2K" software on PPC, there's
obviously not going to be any software to run.
THAT is the critical dependancy, and the forcible reason why there
will certainly be no port.
Microsoft has never taken the non-IA-32 ports seriously, and has not
pushed either the development tools or the desktop tools the way they
have on IA-32. They have given lip-service to the Alpha port of NT,
but the fact that MS Office was never ported to it puts the lie to
claims that they considered it strategic.
--
"Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus
handicapped." -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 02:02:48 GMT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On 3/30/00, 4:17:08 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang=20
Weisselberg) wrote regarding Re: Giving up on NT:
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 22:39:28 GMT,
> Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think the idea that a window manager can give you the Windows use=
r
> > interface is deceptive.
> Why don't you say: No, AFAIK you cannot because $X, $Y and $Z?
It is deceptive to say a window manager can give you the Windows user=20
interface, because it's not within the means of a Window Manager to=20
alter the behavior of programs to make them conform to it.
The opportunity for a window manager to have that kind of power has=20
been thwarted by the use of so many toolkits, something I think is=20
unfortunate because it would have made sense to abstract the entire=20
GUI from the application - not just what goes on outside the rectangle=20
it occupies.
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Emery Lapinski)
Crossposted-To:
rec.video.satellite.dbs,alt.satellite.tv,rec.video.satellite.misc,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.infosystems.www.browsers.x,comp.infosystems.www.browsers,comp.infosystems.www.browswers.misc
Subject: Re: Dish Network's site is DOWN if you don't use M$'s browser.
Date: 30 Mar 2000 18:08:52 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Randy Crawford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>But I've changed my mind. If any vendor has the hubris to state
>that they won't serve me unless I CHANGE OPERATING SYSTEMS, or
>that they're unable to master the trivial technology of creating
>web pages that work with more than ONE browser, they clearly don't
>care if they lose millions of potential customers. And of course,
>they're incompetent idiots.
But the *really* sad part is that they spend a lot of money trying
to get people to sign up. From their November Quarterly Report
(http://biz.yahoo.com/e/l/d/dish.html):
"As previously described, we subsidize the cost of EchoStar
receiver systems in order to attract new DISH Network subscribers.
Consequently, our subscriber acquisition costs are significant.
During the nine months ended September 30, 1999, our aggregate
subscriber acquisition costs, which include subscriber promotion
subsidies and acquisition marketing expenses, approximated
$370 per new subscriber activation.
and:
"...we expect that our subscriber acquisition costs during
2000 could increase by as much as $25 per subscriber or more.
Emery
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.panix.com/~ewl/
This post is Copyright 1997 Emery Lapinski and is distributed under the terms
and conditions of GNU's General Public License.
It's what the astronauts drink!
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
