Linux-Advocacy Digest #937, Volume #25 Tue, 4 Apr 00 12:13:10 EDT
Contents:
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
("LShaping@...")
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
("LShaping@...")
Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine!
Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine! (Tim Kelley)
Re: So where are the MS supporters.
Re: 10 things with Linux I wish I knew before i jumped ("Brian")
Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: For the WinTrolls - incredible (No Name)
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows (JEDIDIAH)
Re: BEOS 5 the new star in OS's (JEDIDIAH)
Re: BEOS 5 the new star in OS's (JEDIDIAH)
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters. (Bob
Hauck)
Re: linux users group? ("BadMan")
Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine! ("Leonard F. Agius")
Re: Guilty, 'til proven guilty ("Tim Haynes")
Re: Linux mail/news application questions (Hal Burgiss)
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters. ("fmc")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "LShaping@..." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS
supporters.
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 10:09:10 -0500
"Leonard F. Agius" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"LShaping@..." wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>><snip>
>>
>> >>Believe that whatever the government does, MS will come out on top of
>> >>it all. Checked your phone bill lately? Deregulation did wonders for
>> >>us all in that market :(
>> >
>> >Long distance rates within the U.S. used to be about 30 cents
>> >a minute, and now they are 5 cents. It's amazing how this
>> >guy just pours the lies out so glibly and hopes that we will
>> >believe them.
>>
>> Before AT&T was broken up, long ago, long distance rates were
>> approaching one dollar per minute.
>> LShaping
>
>So what?
So what what?
>Now we have multiple local and near zones, where it is now more
>expensive today to dial a number on the other side of town (at least in
>Detroit, Chicago, and other Ameritech locations).
That sucks. My big city doesn't have any such zones. Our phone bills
are low, for unlimited calls. Maybe you should take that up with your
city. Of course, it could be worse, you could have all of that and
one dollar per minute long distance rates.
>It's cheaper for me to call one of my siblings out of state than to call my
>parents fifteen miles a way.
Sounds like a personal problem.
Bye Jack,
LShaping
>Degregulation did cause long distance rates to fall, but what you
>may not have realized is that in the bad ole' days of one Ma Bell, the long
>distance rates were subsidizing the local service. Now it doesn't. I'm not
>making that up, either. The Michigan Public Service Commission (which
>regulates local utilities) stated that fact two years ago.
>
>I can't speak for you, but I make a hell of a lot more local calls than I
>do long distance, so in the end, deregulation costs me more in the way of
>higher over all phone bills.
------------------------------
From: "LShaping@..." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 10:14:52 -0500
Oops, I don't mean to post to Microsoft advocacy groups. Will cancel.
LShaping
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 15:22:33 GMT
On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 15:00:12 GMT, Leonard F. Agius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>What planet are you living on?
>
>Just how many small & medium business are going to chuck their
>investment in an off-the-shelf software/hardware stategy to start all
>over again with Linux or BEOS. What small business can afford to
The same companies that discover that running W2K requires 20 times the
hardware investment as linux.
There's a reason MS software is very rarely used for websites.
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine!
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 10:23:03 -0500
"Leonard F. Agius" wrote:
>
> What planet are you living on?
>
> Just how many small & medium business are going to chuck their
> investment in an off-the-shelf software/hardware stategy to start all
> over again with Linux or BEOS. What small business can afford to
> automate their office with an OS that has almost no retail applications
> writen for it and needs a dedicated MIS department to maintain it? What
> small business can afford to write their documents in a format that is
> in any way, shape, or form incompatible with their customers office
> suites and OS's?
Where did I state they they "needed to reinvest"?
You fail to note that if everyone simply keeps whatever they have
from MS, and simply does not buy anything NEW, MS will make
$0.00, except from support, which they don't have a monopoly on.
NEW purchases will NOT be limited to MS as they have in the
past. That is the point.
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: So where are the MS supporters.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 15:24:37 GMT
On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 06:43:58 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> Ok I'll bite..........
>>
>> Can't stand Gates, although I admire a self made millionaire, unlike
>> some liberal Kennedy slime that inherited it all.
>
>Well, Gates is not a self-made millionaire, that is propaganda from the
>MS machine. Bill's father was a very wealthy man, with lots of contacts,
>to begin with. Bill is by no means "self made" at all.
If it wasn't for his business partner (I forget his name), MS wouldn't be
any more recognized than digital research.
------------------------------
From: "Brian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: 10 things with Linux I wish I knew before i jumped
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 08:24:54 -0700
Craig Kelley wrote in message ...
>Just stay the HELL away from their Oracle books.
Why?
I haven't checked them out; what is your experience?
What Oracle book(s) can you recommend?
Best regards,
Brian
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine!
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 15:29:41 GMT
On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 15:00:12 GMT, Leonard F. Agius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>What planet are you living on?
>
>Just how many small & medium business are going to chuck their
>investment in an off-the-shelf software/hardware stategy to start all
>over again with Linux or BEOS. What small business can afford to
>automate their office with an OS that has almost no retail applications
It's not the "investment" in the software, it's the inability
of their people to adjust to different but equivalent interfaces.
In terms of $$$, they'll likely save money with a Linux migration.
They just might get themselves off the upgrade treadmill.
[deletia]
This whole "must switch to word" problem is just one of the
many reasons severe penalties need to be levied against M$.
If law firms can't be free to choose what they view to be
the best product, who can...
--
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] (No Name)
Subject: Re: For the WinTrolls - incredible
Date: 4 Apr 2000 15:03:41 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, I don't see how it is different from releasing software
with "issues".
The Linux programmers at least don't pretend that their software
will cure all diseases (and this, after hearing one of the MS
representatives in the UK, will look like the aim of MS, argh!),
And of course you forgot to mention that is the attitude of some,
not all, of the developpers.
The Linuxes, Perls, Apaches, gcc, etc, etc ,etc that try to
show with their version numbering how things progress don't
exist.
......
...
On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 09:53:40 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>On 4 Apr 2000 09:01:28 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (No Name) wrote:
>
>No. The Linux community hides behind .99 releases for years at a time
>to frightened to commit to a version 1.0.
>This way when the program sucks, and most Linux programs do suck, they
>can claim "what do you expect it is still being developed".
>
>Steve
>
>
>
>
>>At least the Linux community calls things by their name, and when
>>there is a bug, bug it is called.
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 15:33:56 GMT
On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 10:06:08 -0500, Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> How about using find under Linux and find under Windows and see what
>> happens.
>>
>> Linux churns away for an eternity and Windows has the result in a
>> couple of seconds.
>>
>> I'm not talking about FastFind either, just the normal find that comes
>> with Windows.
>>
>> Windows wins by a large margin, searching a similar number of files.
>
>I would wager that typically windows "find" is sifting through a
>LOT LESS than linux is. If you are just looking for a filname
>and specify something like "/" or even "/usr" linux find is
>probably looking through a GB of files, even more, perhaps >2GB
>if you installed one of the modern wiz bang distros and installed
>everything.
>
>That said, any comparison of GNU "find" and its pathetic
>counterpart in windows is, well, naive.
>GNU find is to windows find like the sun is to a little star.
Nevermind, there is always locate. Unix and MacOS have the
advantage of filesystem indexes that don't cripple the
system necessitating their deactivation.
Plus, Unix is actually ORGANIZED. Thus, you should never have
to do a raw find against a mountpoint like /usr. Actual user
files should be tucked away in a relatively small part of the
disk.
On Unix, you will have less files to search through. The end
result (based on all relevant characteristics, rather than
just the one that artificially makes M$ look good) will favor
Unix.
--
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] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: BEOS 5 the new star in OS's
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 15:40:24 GMT
On 03 Apr 2000 23:33:20 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) writes:
>
>> On 03 Apr 2000 16:45:54 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Sascha Bohnenkamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>> >> > It is unix-ish under the hood.
>> >>
>> >> more or less
>> >>
>> >> > It's kind of interesting to play with,
>> >> > if you have the spare time. It really shines with threaded multimedia
>> >> > applications
>> >>
>> >> which? name three
>> >
>> >You're not really interested.
>>
>> He's rather justfied. Be may or may not live up to the hype.
>> Based on your response, it doesn't. That's a shame really...
>
>Welcome to your own private Slippery Slope(tm) argument, Jedi.
>
>It wasn't long ago that this same thing was said about
>$YOUR_CURRENT_OS.
I'll gladly steer any musician in the direction of Be.
I'll also gladly admit that most of the codec
implementations on Linux rather blow. That's a good
deal of the significance of "That's a shame really...".
A decoder for even unencrypted VOB files would probably
be rather sweet on BeOS.
However, without the same sort of user-programmer community,
Be can manage to lag even in it's core strength areas. Media
relevant devices can go unsupported despite the availability
of specsheets or sourcecode.
[deletia]
Where's the BeOS one(s)? Xmovie is available for this task
under Linux. Other projects are under development as well
(see http://gdxr2.havoknet.com/).
--
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] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: BEOS 5 the new star in OS's
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 15:43:42 GMT
On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 08:50:16 +0200, Sascha Bohnenkamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> You're not really interested.
>
>no I am interested.
>If there ARE some apps which run better on BeOS than on
>Linux I want to know which and WHY.
>(maybe Linux could be patched than :) )
I'd imagine that a BeOS equivalent of LinDVD or Xmovie would
illustrate the point quite nicely. You could just feed both
VOB files and note the framerates.
--
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] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Date: 4 Apr 2000 15:44:00 GMT
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 14:51:03 GMT, Leonard F. Agius
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>So what? Now we have multiple local and near zones, where it is now more
>expensive today to dial a number on the other side of town (at least in
>Detroit, Chicago, and other Ameritech locations).
It is interesting that you point that out. The reasons for it are a lot
more complex than "break up bad, regulation good". Part of the problem is
that some things are still highly regulated while others are not regulated
at all. Part of the problem is the political power of the RBOC's. And
part is the slow pace of change in the telco industry.
Ameritech still has a monopoly on local residential service, as do the
other RBOCs. The only real competition is for high volume business
customers (ISP's, telemarketers, large corporations). That's why your
local calls haven't come down. OTOH, prices for things like PRI and DS3
service _have_ come down quite a bit. The reasons for this are complex
and include a desire by the competitive carriers to serve high-profit
markets first, foot-dragging by RBOCs regarding access to the local loop,
and state PUC's that want to protect the "universal service" concept.
What should have been done was to divest the physical plant (cabling and
such) from the value-added services. This would have provided incentives
for competition in residental and small business services and prevented a
lot of the foot-dragging that goes on regarding access to the local loop
that is an important reason for the lag in competition in residential
service.
>may not have realized is that in the bad ole' days of one Ma Bell, the long
>distance rates were subsidizing the local service. Now it doesn't.
In the bad old days of Ma Bell, the phone company was a huge inefficient
bureaucracy where it was difficult to tell who was paying for what. In
general, business subsidized residential and long distance subsidized
local, but the whole thing was inefficient as hell.
It is probably true that regulated residential customers who have only
basic service are getting the short end of the stick today. One reason is
that the telco's are putting most of their resources into their
non-regulated businesses. Residential customers are basically a captive
audience while business customers increasingly are not.
In addition, residential service probably isn't as profitable as business
service, which is one reason that the competitive phone companies aren't
going there yet (another being the intransigence of the RBOCs WRT the
local loop). However, it is not true that residential is unprofitable,
especially in cities and especially if you get to sell value-added
services like Internet access. Don't let them convince you that they're
losing money on residential. They seem to have convinced some state PUC's
of this, but it isn't true.
All those $7/month charges for voicemail and call forwarding are hugely
profitable even if the basic $19.95/month rate isn't. And even that is
questionable, since at least in my neck of the woods US West is offering
incentives to get a second line for fax and Internet. They wouldn't do
that if each line lost them money.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.bobh.org/
------------------------------
From: "BadMan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: linux users group?
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:51:00 -0400
Daniel O'Nolan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> www.mylug.org
I tried, but the URL did not work, then I tried to trace it but the host
could not be resolved
------------------------------
From: "Leonard F. Agius" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine!
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 15:57:57 GMT
JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 15:00:12 GMT, Leonard F. Agius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> >What planet are you living on?
> >
> >Just how many small & medium business are going to chuck their
> >investment in an off-the-shelf software/hardware stategy to start all
> >over again with Linux or BEOS. What small business can afford to
> >automate their office with an OS that has almost no retail applications
>
> It's not the "investment" in the software, it's the inability
> of their people to adjust to different but equivalent interfaces.
> In terms of $$$, they'll likely save money with a Linux migration.
> They just might get themselves off the upgrade treadmill.
>
> [deletia]
>
> This whole "must switch to word" problem is just one of the
> many reasons severe penalties need to be levied against M$.
> If law firms can't be free to choose what they view to be
> the best product, who can...
>
That's true, but please keep in mind two things:
1) Business purchases of software, from the large firm that's finally moving away from
proporitary solutions to off-the-retail-shelf solutions (like Ford Motor Company did
moving
almost everyone from a proprietary e-mail system that couldn't even handle simple file
attachments to Outlook 98/2000) to small businesses automating and upgrading their
offices
and plants, buy as much or more software and hardware as regular Joe Blow consumer.
Look at
Dell - they practically own the PC market at Ford, and it's all running Windows 98 or
NT.
Compaq has similar status at GM. And they, and their suppliers are all using Windows &
Office.
2) Even if a better solution presents itself, the same mentality that twenty years ago
said
"I'm not paying for the data storage space to record years in four digits...make do
with
the last two digits of a year" and subsequently gave us Y2K.......that same mentality
is in
charge of the purse strings in most of American Business. Does anyone really think
after
paying for Windows based PC solutions, and training the average
I'm-so-scared-to-death-of-computers employees on Windows & other Windows apps, does
anyone
think they are going to even look at another solution that involves spending A) A dime
on
software and B) a dime of actually money or a dime worth of time learning a new
product?
The only way I see that they will is if it an exact carbon copy of a Windows app. No
differences AT ALL. Not just close. Close, but no cigar means NO SALE. Exact duplicate
of
all functions and file formats. Then and only then will the Bean Counters and MIS
Managers
even look, and I mean ONLY LOOK at another solution.
Until that happens, even a "broken" MS would still own the majority of the market.
--
Fight SPAM!!! Remove the _nospam from the above address to send e-mail.
The opinions expressed are my own.
------------------------------
From: "Tim Haynes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: uk.comp.os.linux,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Guilty, 'til proven guilty
Date: 04 Apr 2000 17:02:06 +0100
Reply-To: "Tim Haynes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
David Damerell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tim Haynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Is splitting them up into a lot of monopolies all specialists in several
> >areas (particularly if they're all part of the "M$loth Group", or whatever)
> >any good?
>
> If their applications division is separate from their OS division, they
> no longer have the same interest in having their applications only run on
> Windows; they can maximise their profit by porting them everywhere.
And will Orifice 2001 "for linux" be written to use GTK+? (Or QT for those
who absolutely have to be so inclined :) Or will it be basically a port
like *Orifice where the interface implementation bloats all usability out
of the underlying desktop?
> Arguably, the suddenly not completely crap MacOS support we've seen
> recently is in preparation for this.
Interesting idea (says me, with powerbook on the way soon, I hope ;)
> Likewise, the OS division maximise profit by ensuring that everyone's
> apps run well on their OS.
>
> In the long term, of course, they make less money than they would from an
> unholy alliance (like the situation at present) where Windows-specific
> apps make one run Windows, and the fact that Microsoft apps work better
> on Windows than (say) Corel's apps do makes one buy those; but they see a
> short-term profit boost if they defect, and...
Sounds frightfully confuddling, and still rather "80s" commercial (as in
commercial-multiple-UNIXen, not just NT.v.world).
I'm still sort of wondering about whether a true open-source fan will note
the OS-independence and take up porting windoze apps to everything or
whether some bigotry is allowed. Or indeed whether there's not already too
much of the "linux *is* 'open-source'" opposite at the moment.
I feel like the Sourcerer in PTerry's 'Sourcery'... world just not big
enough for the philosophies... ;|
~Tim
--
| Geek Code: GCS dpu s-:+ a-- C++++ UBLUAVHSC++++ P+++ L++ E--- W+++(--) N++
| w--- O- M-- V-- PS PGP++ t--- X+(-) b D+ G e++(*) h++(*) r--- y-
| The sun is melting over the hills, | http://piglet.is.dreaming.org/
| All our roads are waiting / To be revealed | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hal Burgiss)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Linux mail/news application questions
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 16:04:35 GMT
On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 13:57:35 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Yes, agreed. Mail and news are essentially text mediums, so why weight
>>it down with a pretty face. The only limit to what can be done with
>>mutt + procmail is imagination.
>
>That was prob the most polite response in favor of simply using those
>applications.
I don't think anyone was intentionally rude. So little time ...
>And FYI, I didn't start using linux w/ Redhat 4.2, I started to use
>Linux in 1991 or 1992, when I had to download 50+ slackware disks on my
>14.4k modem. I am completely, fully, totally aware and able to use
>text based applications, but my fiancee, who will also be using my
>computer, cannot.
'Nuf said! Whatever floats your boat.
--
Hal B
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
------------------------------
From: "fmc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 16:07:54 GMT
"Mark S. Bilk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Linux truely speaks for itself. For every geek that loves the control
> >there are 500 normal users that need to accomplish tasks that require
> >software that simply is not available under Linux. Or if it is
> >available, it is so crude and ugly looking it is not worth mentioning.
> >Or it's simply not compatible with what the rest of the free world is
> >running.
>
> The true situation is that applications fulfilling the
> requirements (with the exception of games) of most Windows
> users are *now* available under Linux, almost all of them
> at no cost.
Most people have some requirements that go beyond the standard
WP/Spreadsheet/Browser. I need a financial app like Quicken or MS Money, a
tax preparation program like TurboTax, TaxCut, or TaxSaver, and project
management software like MS Project or CA-SuperProject. These don't exist
for Linux. I also can't manage my bank accounts online. That requires
either Windows or Mac.
For myself, I'll wait to try Linux again until solutions for my needs become
available. It will be a long wait if I have to rely on the open source
community to provide them.
fmc
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
