Linux-Advocacy Digest #941, Volume #25 Tue, 4 Apr 00 16:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Rumors ... ("John W. Stevens")
Re: DID BILL GATES HAVE COSMETIC SURGERY?????? (Ron Reeder)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Rumors ...
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 13:07:28 -0600
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > The fault in your logic is that MSFT doesn't control PC hardware.
> >
> > That was an analogy. MSFT doesn't have to control the PC hardware to be
> > a monopoly . . . however, the PC95 standard suggests that they would
> > *LIKE* to control the hardware!
>
> What about the dozens of other vendors (hardware and software) that
> participated?
Participation being, of course, a relative term.
> MSFT makes an OS for PCs that a lot of people use, wouldn't you think that
> everyone would like to have their input?
Of course! And don't you think that input will be designed, at least in
part, to benefit MSFT?
> What about 3Com,
Nope. They create hardware that speaks to a standard network
communications standard, one that many other manufacturers can, and
already have, created hardware to speak to . . . in short, you can hang
both a 3COM card and a Kingston card on the same cable, and they will
talk to each other.
> Intel, AMD,
You kinda disproved your own point, here.
> Dell, Compaq,
Both of which make PC compatibles, right? Again, you kind of disproved
your own point, here.
So follow along here:
I can run the exact same copy Windows on any number of computers
produced by different, independent manufacturers. Who else produces an
OS that I can run the exact same copy of MS Office on as I run on
Windows?
In short, where Dell is Compaq's competitor in the PC compatible market,
where is MS competitor in the Windows market?
> and the dozens of others? Are they
> not monopolies as well?
Nope. If for no other reason than none of the above do not control a
significant market.
> Anyone can join in the spec if you have something useful. Just because MSFT was
> there doesn't make them a monopoly.
I never said that being there made MS a monopoly. I said that they were
definitely interested in controlling the hardware.
> > "Monopoly" takes on a different meaning in the IS world. For the
> > purposes of this discussion, having a set of interlocking secrets would
> > not be a monopoly, per se, if these secrets had nothing to do with a
> > "shared resource", which is exactly what an OS is.
>
> So, MSFT has a monopoly over it's own OS, why shouldn't it? GM has a monopoly
> on it's cars?
You missed the point: GM doesn't have a monopoly on the 1/2 inch nut, or
gasoline, or the tire, or the steering wheel . . . the cost of switch
from a GM car to a Ford is minimal, since all such vehicles conform to
known, open specifications.
Switching from Windows to some other operating system is like switching
from a GM car, to riding a horse or flying a jet aircraft.
> Do you see Ford engines in GM cars? Or Crysler transmissions in Ford cars?
Do you see both Ford's and GM's on the same road?
On the other hand, do you see both MS and non-MS boxen acting as domain
controllers? (Well, not yet, of course, but maybe soon, as the Samba
team is pretty good at reverse engineering, never mind the fact that MS
tried to get reverse engineering OUTLAWED!)
> What about Texaco fuel pumps at Exxon's stations? Of course not.
Can you use both Texaco and Exxon gasoline in the same car? Is the
brand of car independent of the company you choose to use as your
gasoline supplier?
You just don't get it: the ability to mix and match the way we do in the
automotive field indicates at least some measure of competitiveness.
This ability to mix and match is based on open, standard "interfaces".
The *LACK* of ability to take a program from any random vendor, and run
it on any random OS indicates a problem in our field. The fact that
there is *NO* other "road" that you may run your "MS Office" vehicle on
except Windows (please do not play red herring games re: Office for the
MacOS, you know better), indicates a lack of competitiveness in the
Windows market.
And, indeed, MS Windows must be defined as a complete, and wholly
separate market precisely *BECAUSE* they control the "interfaces". Any
other proprietary OS that uses proprietary interfaces (such as the
MacOS) would automatically run the risk of become a monopoly if the
vendor ever gained control over a significant market. Apple was saved
from being served papers by the simple fact that the MacOS market is not
deemed significant, and the simple fact that the MacOS API is much, much
more stable than that of Windows.
Unices, of course, do not and in general cannot be the subject of such
attacks, as there is indeed a Unix market that includes multiple
competitors. Note that what allows for a truly competitive Unix market
is the existence of, and adherence to open standards, such as SMTP,
TCP/IP, POSIX, etc.
Had MS adhered to open standards, and *STILL* gained control over a
significant market, then I'd say that the DOJ suit was invalid. But
since they didn't, they are most clearly a monopoly.
> MSFT should be able to control their OS however they like.
Nope. Any business person will tell you that the government has a valid
interest in regulating business.
> If you don't want to
> work with them, then don't.
If you don't want phone service, don't sign up with ATT (before the
break up, of course).
True, but impractical.
However, I will admit that you sound like a Libertarian (which, coming
from me, is a compliment).
> There's nothing stopping you from working with any
> of the other dozens of OSes or hell, even creating your own.
Indeed. There was nothing stopping me from building my own telephone
network, or prospecting for, finding, refining, and distributing my own
gasoline, either . . . except certain well know financial facts, of
course.
You sound like you don't believe that monopolies are even *POSSIBLE*.
Is that the case?
> It's not like a
> national telephone cable network,
> it's software. Anyone with a keyboard and
> a compiler can make their own.
Really? I invite you to demonstrate just how easy, fast and cheap it is
to write an OS that is compatible, and there for competitive with MS
Windows. . .
> The only barrier to entry is intelligence,
You need to read the findings of fact in the US vs MS anti-trust case.
There are more barriers to entry than simple skill or ability. And
those barriers are quite high.
> > Since this shared resource is indeed kept safe by keeping secrets, then
> > MSFT, plus their control over a significant market, is indeed a
> > monopoly.
>
> They have significant market share, but that doesn't make them a monopoly.
Their actions, plus control over secret information, plus their control
over a significant market do indeed make them a monopoly. Of course, I
am sitting in the cat bird seat, since I am writing this *after* the
ruling has been handed down . . . the ruling that MS is indeed a
monopoly.
> You're stretching here, and it's rediculous.
Nope. MSFT is a monopoly. The ruling has been handed down.
> They have neither a vertical nor a horizontal monopoly. All they control is
> their own OS, and there are plenty of competitors.
Once again: please post the URL, address, or telephone number (or any
other contact information you might have) of a company that sells an OS
that I can use to replace Windows on my computer, WITHOUT ALSO being
required to replace all of my applications, and to convert all of my
data files . . . please?
> > But Exxon isn't pumping out the only gas in the world that will run 90%
> > if the cars in existence.
>
> But even if they were, Exxon is not the only person who makes fuel.
The market for kerosene is a separate market from that of the market for
gasoline. It is possible to be a monopoly if all you control is the
market in gasoline, you do not need to control the market for every kind
of fuel in the world to before you become a monopoly.
It is you who is "stretching" here.
> With software, it's easy and not terribly costly to produce and there are no
> barriers to entry because there's no limit.
The barrier to entry is "secret and proprietary information".
Which is why patents exist in the first place: to provide a safe way for
companies to benefit from their work, while at the same time encouraging
competition.
> If MSFT controlled the hardware, it would be completely different, I agree, but
> they have no control over hardware,
Tell that to the hardware manufacturers. If a particular hardware
platform doesn't run Windows, it had better be for a very good reason.
> they have no control over ISVs
Not true. Just ask any independent software vendor what happens when MS
decides to change Windows.
> and IHVs, they have no monopoly.
MS has been found to be a monopoly.
> > On the other hand, if I decide to switch from Windows to Solaris
> > tommorow, not only do I have to change gasoline vendors I have to, in
> > effect, buy a whole new car and drive on a different set of roads.
>
> And this makes MSFT a monopoly how?
See above.
> If you don't like GM cars, you have to buy
> Ford cars.
Right. But there is no "tie in" between roads, gasoline suppliers, oil
suppliers, tire suppliers and car manufacturers.
There *IS* a "tie in" between MS OS'en, MS applications, MS services, MS
tools, MS . . .
Do you see?
> Should GM then make all their parts (engines, suspension, exhaust)
> comptatible with Ford,
Where it counts, they already do. Both Ford and GM cars are compatible
in lubricants (GM may prefer for you to buy your oil from them, but you
*can* just buy Quaker State and stick it in, and it will simply work).
Both Ford and GM cars are compatible in terms of tool sets, fuels,
roads, user interfaces, and on and on and on.
> so that when you buy a Ford you can just buy the chasis
> and body, but you can use all your parts fromt he GM? Of course not.
Straw man.
> The only problem with switching to Solaris, or Linux, or other OSes is that
> there is not good application support,
Incorrect.
> because these companies make it difficult and backwards for ISVs to develop.
FUD.
> MSFT's biggest advantage is that they make it super easy for developers to
> develop
> on their platform.
MSFT makes it easy to develop for their platform so long as you define
easy as: "Being required to use MSFT's tools, and being required to
change and reissue my software any time MS decides to change the OS,
which they do without even soliciting any input from me."
> The MSDN Library is the most comprehensive and easy to follow
> documentation of any OS, and it's free to everyone who wants to look at it.
Opinion. One that I strongly disagree with.
> What is Solaris and other OSes doing for their developers?
Providing a stable, well documented, standard interface that allows a
developer to develop a program that can be run on a wide range of OS'en
supplied by a wide range of independent vendors.
More specifically, if you've never actually investigated just how much
support a company like Sun gives to developers . . . you really should.
>From your comment, I'm guessing that you've never actually investigated
this.
> There's a huge learning curve and the development tools are sparse and complicated.
That actually describes Windows development (if not *MORE* so) just as
much as it describes developing for any other system.
Just how much of the huge and baroque Windows API have you memorized?
> MSFT makes it easy as pie.
Opinion. One which I strongly disagree with. Developing for any form
of Unix is far, far easier than developing for any MS OS.
For one thing, the MS API is overly complex and convoluted. For
another, they have released a series of services to solve similiar
problems, but each new service has an interface that is incompatible
with the last service of its type. The list goes on. . .
> If other competitors would give developers an incentive to move over,
They have. The result was a flurry of anti-competitive actions from MS,
combined with the usual mix of puffery, FUD and outright
misrepresentation of MS'es products.
> you would see larger diversification of ISVs. However, they don't, instead they'd
>rather
> bitch and moan to mommy (DOJ) about how mean and cruel MSFT is, when in fact, it is
> they who are incompetent in both marketing and support.
Occam's razor cuts again . . .
> > Nothing, except illegal and monopolistic practices that reduce or
> > eliminate the number of those other platforms. You know, things such
> > as: licensing restrictions that greatly increase the cost of your
> > license if you, as a hardware vendor, choose to preinstall other OS'en
> > besides an MS OS on you boxen?
>
> MS did this, and they should be punished.
And they will be.
> However, there was nothing stopping
> the OEMs from dumping MS.
Nothing except the cost of constructing a competitive replacement for an
OS that had a fair number of hidden, secret pieces, and whose public
interface was regularly and deliberately churned to increase the cost of
duplicating said OS.
> They would get greater profits by sticking with MS,
Considering that the cost of this unnecesary churning is very, VERY
high, ISV's would find higher profits in writing for a platform that has
a more stable, and MUCH more open interface.
The cost of sticking with MS is offset, in part, by the fact that MS is
a monopoly, and therefore guarantees their "partners" a very large
market, and the rest of the cost is offset by passing the costs of these
secrets and unncecessary churning along to the customer.
> MS was once the underdog and had to compete against big software companies.
Wrong. MS came along at that magic moment when a brand new market was
being created. They did not have to attempt to enter a market that was
already established, which a number of large competing companies already
had a stake in.
> Successful marketing, good dealmaking, and savvy contracts helped them get
> where they are.
All euphisms for "backstabbing, anti-competitive practices, deliberate
obfuscation to drive change (planned obsolecense) . . . ".
> Other OS vendors seem completely incompetent at marketing
> and providing support for their products.
> And they seem to not value their
> customers like MSFT does. Is this MSFT's fault? Of course not, yet somehow
> MSFT must pay for incompetent competition?
The magic of textual discourse: you couldn't possibly have written the
above with a straight face, but thanks to the fact that this is a
textual discourse, nobody will ever know that you fell out of your chair
laughing after every other word. ;->
> > Like there is nothing from stopping you from buying a telephone that
> > requires different signals and standards than that of those developed by
> > ATT . . . other than the simple fact that, once having bought that
> > telephone, it would be useless.
>
> However, there are multiple LD carriers that provide that same signal,
Only *AFTER* *THE* *BREAK* *UP*!
(I fall laughing out of *MY* chair at reading this . . . he actually
tries to argue that MS is not a monopoly and should not be broken up by
refering to a benefit gained by recognizing and deconstructing *ANOTHER*
monopoly! ;-)
> you argument is unclear and irrelevant.
As opposed to trying to argue that MSFT is not a monopoly by refering to
one of the recognized benefits of breaking up *another* monopoly?
Chad, are you like, really tired or something? Your logic and debating
technique is usually much better than this.
To recap: it is clear that, after breaking up ATT, that internal
documents that described the network standards would become available to
the little Bells. Combine that with some of the additional requirements
placed on ATT during the breakup, and we get independent hardware
manufacturers who suddenly have the information and the legal ability to
create telephony hardware that can be attached to the telephone
network. The benefits of this are very clear, and very, very large.
The only logical analogy would be to the scenario of breaking up MS, and
in the breakup requiring MSFT to release full and complete documentation
to all of the interfaces to their system, thereby giving independent
manufacturers, for the very first time, the ability to construct and
sell components that can be attached to an MS network (such as Cisco
being able to sell an integrated firewall/router/domain controller box).
> You have a choice of LD carriers,
Because, and *ONLY* because of the break up ATT, and a combination of
public, open standards, and FCC regulation.
> you have a choice of hardware vendors,
Again, because, and *ONLY* because there is a reasonably open and public
standard that describes the interfaces (Such as ISA, EISA, PCI, AGP,
etc.) to the "IBM Compatible PC".
> OS vendors,
Pretty much, only Unix is a true OS market. . .
> and application vendors.
All of whom (except for Unix application vendors) must deliberately, and
with terrified aforethought, tie themselves to a particular OS vendor. .
. which pretty much means giving a fair amount of control of your
business to another company . . . and being required to pay them for
this loss of control, to boot.
> > But by your own reasoning, there was nothing stopping the competition
> > from creating their own network, right? So why declare ATT a monopoly?
>
> Yes, there was huge barriers. Building a cable network requires huge contracts
> with the government and localities, building a huge nationwide service area,
> billions in fiberoptics and routing equipment, etc.
And the cost to building a Windows compatible OS is equally huge.
> Whereas, with an OS, or any software, a college student can create one in his
> dorm room, as evidenced by Linus Torvalds.
Your example actually proves *MY* point, not yours. Note that Linus
created a clone of the *ONLY* useful OS in existence that actually has a
*real* market: Unix.
And Unix is the only OS that has a real market, because partially by
luck, and partially through the attempts of the various Unix vendors,
Unix has a reasonably complete set of open and public interface
standards.
> There are few barriers to entry with software,
There are few barriers to creating software that doesn't have to
interact with any other existing software systems. . . but that isn't
the case when you are talking about competing with MS in the Windows
market, now is it?
> Is this MS's fault?
Yep. More so: it was a deliberately anti-competitive action on their
part.
> Why should they be responsible for making sure that there
> are plenty of smart kids to develop OSes to compete against them?
Straw man.
> > In this case, the "cabling" is the secret protocols used by their
> > networking products . . . so MSFT does indeed control the "cabling".
>
> MSFT controls their own cables, but not ALL the cables. Your analogy
> is wrong.
Your response would be reasonble and valid, *IF* MSFT had never used
their monopoly in one area, to leverage another area. If the domain
controller and domain client software were independent of the Windows
OS, then you'd have a point.
As, indeed, they are *NOT* independent of Windows, and as it has been
made abundantly clear that MSFT has a monopoly in the Windows market,
therefore your point is incorrect.
> > Unless, of course, you are prepared to point me to complete and usable
> > documents that describe such things as the exchange client/exchange
> > server protocol, or the domain controller protocols. . . ?
>
> Don't use Exchange. Use Notes. Don't use NT domain controller, use NIS, or
> StreetTalk, or NDS, or any of the myriad of domain authorization protocols.
All invalid suggestions in the contex of this dicussion.
> Or even Kerberos!
Now there, you may have a valid point. . . which brings me back to a
question I've already asked several times: MS promised to make Kerberos
Version 5 at least one of their new network security options in NT 2000
. . . but early reports indicated that they intended to "embrace and
extend" Kerberos, thereby making it non-standard, and therefore
incompatible with other implementations of Kerberos.
Has anybody attempted to, say, mix a Linux box running Kerberos V5 as
the domain controller (in Kerberos parlance, the Linux box would be
running the KDC for that domain) with an NT 2000 client? Or using an NT
2000 box as a domain controller for another domain, where the structure
allows for
hierarchical domains? Or some other combination?
If so, did the boxen work and play well together?
> MSFT controls it's own cables and gas pumps. They control which engines
> go into their own cars. This doesn't make them a monopoly.
Controlling the road and the fuel supply makes 'em a monopoly.
> GM doesn't have to provide specs for putting Ford engines in their cars and
> neither should MSFT have to disclose how it runs it's networking protocols.
Bad analogy. Both GM and Ford have to design their vehicles against a
public, open standard for "roads".
If MSFT controlled the POSIX compliant OS market, then I'd agree with
you, they wouldn't be a monopoly. But they don't, so they are a
monopoly.
> > MSFT definitely controls the software.
>
> But only it's OWN software,
Nope. They control the software of every ISV that wants to write
applications that run on their OS'en.
> > Ask Novell and DR about how willing MS was to let them "tap into their
> > cables or services". Or ask the Samba team just how willing MS is to
> > let them "tap into their cables or services". . .
>
> Oh, so now it's MSFT's responsibility to make sure Novell and DR are successful?
Nope. It's MSFT's responsibility to publish a public, open standard.
If DR or Novell still cannot compete, then that isn't MSFT's problem.
But, of course, MS hasn't released that standard, now have they?
> What was preventing Novell from making a client?
Proprietary and secret knowledge.
What allowed MSFT to put Kerberos into NT 2000? An open, public
standard.
Do you get it yet?
> What was preventing Dr from
> innovating and making it's own GUI?
What prevented DR from running under Windows 3?
> Novell and DR were bottom feeders from MSFT
Ah. Name calling and demonization: the attempt to win with emotion,
where logic fails to prevail.
>, and MSFT had no responsibility to
> ensure their success.
Actually, wrong again. The statement that the primary responsbility of
any corporation is to maximize their profits is *TOTALLY* wrong. The
first responsibility of any corporation is to the public good. In point
of fact, the protections granted to corporations by the government are
in exchange for this responsbility: regulating their actions in
accordance to the public good.
> Novell and DR were stupid for betting their entire existence on another
> competing company's niceness.
Hmmm. I'd say that Novell and DR were stupid for paying another company
to take at least some control over their products. . .
> It'd be like Ford got all it's transmissions from GM. Suddenly, GM changed it's
> transmission spec and they weren't compatible with Ford anymore. Why should
> GM be forced to ensure Ford's success? Why doesn't Ford go out and make it's
> own damend trasmissions?
Make the scenario apply properly, and its more like: It'd be like MS
owned 95% of the roads in the country, and suddenly changed 'em all so
that Novell's cars would no longer run on their new roads. Why should
MS be required to publish and maintain an open, public standard that
describes their roads?
Answer: because it is in the public interest to do so.
> Likewise, Novell and DR were shortsighted and they got nailed because of it.
Yep. I'd agree with that. That's why I only use OS'en, services and
applications that are completely based on open, public standards.
> In that same breath, Sun should be forced to make sure that Windows runs
> on SPAC machines. Otherwise, they're a monopoly!
Sun would probably be no more adverse to supplying MSFT with the
necessary information to allow Windows to run on their hardware, than
they were to allowing the entire industry access to NFS.
Sun went so far as to give away RPC and some NFS reference code.
After all, NT running on Sun hardware would increase Sun's sales
significantly. Why would Sun mind that, other than a certain moral
repugnance directed at MS?
> > So, the analogy is indeed relevant.
>
> Hardly.
I've proven otherwise, and the ruling that MSFT is indeed a monopoly
kind of closes the argument.
> > Yeah . . . and of course, that *IS* the case (Instant Messaging,
> > anyone?) and now it's not just MSFT that's the bad guy . . . AOL should
> > be taken out back and given a strapping, too.
>
> Well, it's the same deal. MSFT and Yahoo were whining because AOL wouldn't let
> them into their private network.
Yep. AOL ought to be spanked for that one.
> On no accounts should AOL be forced to allow MSFT and Yahoo to profit from this
> service that AOL innovated and is capitalizing on.
Nonsense. AOL should in no wise be allowed to close their system to
well behaved traffic. To allow them to do this, would be like one of
the baby bells to suddenly change the signal and protocol requirements
to something proprietary and secret on their lines, then force everybody
to buy equipment and services from them.
Hence the FCC regulation of the telephony industry. . .
> MSFT and Yahoo should harness their own damned customers. AOL spent millions
> developing customers and use IMs as a means for soliciting customers, now they
> should be expected to just ditch that investment and let everyone profit from
> their intellectual property?
Nonsense. AOL should act as a responsible corporation: they should act
in the public good. AOL should simply create, publish and conform to an
IM protocol. If MSFT and Yahoo cannot implement IM software that can
compete successfully after that, then that's their problem, but AOL
should not be allowed to use proprietary and secret information to lock
their customers into their services.
Which is why the FCC may have to step in here: network protocols are the
modern day equivalent to the kinds of things that the FCC regulated back
when the primary means of communication were radio, voice telephony and
television.
If American corporations are unwilling to fulfill their primary
responsibility (acting in the public good), then they must be reined in
by government.
> There's nothing preventing AOL clients from downloading MSN Instant Messenger
> or Yahoo's client and using it on their respective networks.
Riigghhhttt!! (I'm sorry, son, you can't call Grandma from here. She
subscribes to Bell south, and we subscribe to US West, and the two don't
talk to each other.)
> Sure, it'd be _NICE_
No, not just "nice", the public interest is served by creating and
conforming to a standard. This good outweighs the rights of any
individual company, just as the public interest in a standard, public,
open set of telephony standards outweighed the interests of any single
company.
> to have all three work together, but AOL shouldn't be forced to do it.
Yes, they should.
> > > MSFT is not a monopoly,
> >
> > Yes, it is.
>
> No it isn't,
Yes, it is. The announcement has been made, and the ruling handed
down. MSFT is a monopoly.
> and no one has yet to give a good definition why.
Other than the pages and pages of "findings of fact", you mean?
> The DOJ has
> strained and contorted facts to get to that definition.
More emotion rather than reason.
> MSFT objected several
> times and made several motions against these lame and biased definitions, but
> the Judge turned them down every time, even though they were legitimate claims
> every time!
Legitimate? That's a matter of opinion.
> Talk about bias!
There is no bias that I can see: both sides seem to be about equally
unhappy, which usually serves as a good rule of thumb (heuristic) when
attempting to judge the fairness of the outcome of a court case.
> > And it won't let anybody else attach third party equipment to their
> > cables.
>
> Why should it have to?
See above.
> Why don't the cable providers beef up their systems
> or make them better?
Already discussed.
> Why don't we just ditch this darned unfair democratic capitalism
Point of fact: Democracy and Capitalism are two separate systems. You
can have one, without the other.
Capitalism is, in fact, inherently unfair. Which is why in a free
society, Capitalism must be regulated.
> and go with Communism, I mean, it's more fair!
Whether or not Coummunism is more fair is an intereting, but
unfortunately unanswerable question: Having never been tried, we have no
information from which to draw conclusions. In all likelihood,
communism will never be tried in a purer form than that practied by the
Amish. . .
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Ron Reeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DID BILL GATES HAVE COSMETIC SURGERY??????
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 13:14:49 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> He looks rather bloated to me especially around the face, like he
> might be on some steroid type drug?
>
>
Crips, next people will say he's doing full body blood transfusions.
He's just an aging geek who never get's any sunshine or exercise.
Look to the obvious.
-
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Ron Reeder | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
| Denver Technical Support | Phone: (303) 389-4408 |
| Western Geophysical Company | Fax: (303) 595-0667 |
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
