Linux-Advocacy Digest #957, Volume #25 Wed, 5 Apr 00 04:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit. (R.E.Ballard ( Rex
Ballard ))
Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit. (david parsons)
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters. ("fmc")
Re: BEOS 5 the new star in OS's (Sascha Bohnenkamp)
Re: BOOKS ON LINUX ? (Steve)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit.
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 06:55:21 GMT
In article <W_bF4.1387$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8c39ki$phj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <jiwE4.804$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message
> > > news:8bt8jj$2vv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > IE does *NOT* ship with viewers for powerpoint,
> > > > > word, or excel. You need to download those seperately.
Correct. The viewer interface is downloaded post-install.
> > > > True, but a very large portion of this software is already
> > installed
> > > > into the standard windows distribution. The viewers are merely
the
> > > > "face" of the application that has already been embedded.
> > >
> > > Backpeddling already? You claimed that IE installed these
controlls
> > and
> > > that it did so to make Office's footprint seem smaller. So are
you
> > now
> > > admitting you were lying?
> >
> > The bottom line is that when Microsoft was forbidden to bundle
> > Microsoft Office with Microsoft Windows, Microsoft bundled all
> > of the DLLs, infrastructure code, and binaries required to
> > implement Office, and then provided a free viewer - This is
> > yet another attempt to maintain and sustain the "Applications
Barrier
> > to Entry". Microsoft attempted to userp the public standard by
> > making it's proprietary standard freely available - as a viewer,
> > making it's control of Office a strategic product - keeping the
> > value of MS-Office artificially higher than it would have been
> > if the public had widely accepted Netscape Communicator or other
> > third party products capable of generating public standard formats
> > such as HTML, SGML, and TeX.
>
> So, in other words.
> You lied when you said that Microsoft shipped them with IE.
Splitting hairs. Yes - my information was partially accurate,
but you are correct that Microsoft didn't "ship" the Office
document Viewers (the interfaces) - but rather used IE and
the preinstalled DLLs to "leverage" the downloads - using
free downloads of the final interfaces which were a fraction
of the size they would have been if Microsoft hadn't stacked
the deck in it's favor.
> > > > > And which protocols might those be?
> > > > > There aren't many of them.
> > > >
> > > > TCP/IP, IP, DNS, HTTP, HTML, MIME, TCP/IP over PPP, Frame
Relay,
> > and
> > > > ATM, arp, smtp, nntp, snmp - in all over 3000 RFCs covering
> > everything
> > > > from the IP address to multimedia.
> > >
> > > No, which PROPRIETARY protocols from MS would that be?
ActiveX, MS-CHAP, originally SMB, originally Lan Manager,
originally DHCP, and currently they are pushing for the
inclusion of OLE objects within XML.
Lets not forget their proprietary enhancements to Java, Front Page
Extensions, and VBScript.
Then there is DVD-CSS and USB PnP protocols. Also the PCI PnP
protocols and handshakes.
> > Protocols and File formats which are sent across Internet links.
> > These would include MSWord documents, Excel Spreadsheets,
Powerpoint
> > Presentations, and anything else capable of passing an executable
> > OLE/COM object embedded within the document.
>
> So now it's protocols AND file formats.
When you transfer a document across a network, especially the
internet, it effectively becomes a protocol. The distinction
is that you would normally be able to access the document from
any server platform using any client platform. Microsoft's
proprietary protocols are designed to support ONLY Microsoft Windows,
and are sometimes even designed to favor NT.
> I'll ask again. which *PROTOCOLS* are proprietary only to
micorosoft?
>
> File formats are not protocols.
> And Microsoft itself publishes the specs to
> it's file formats.
To which standards bodies, and without any restrictions
in terms of nondisclosures.
I realize that Microsoft publishes many of it's standards
to MSDN, but protects this information from Linux developers
with nondisclosure agreements.
> I know of very few that are MS proprietary.
> Consider that many of those
> protocols were co-developed with other vendors.
True. In some cases, Microsoft even approached standards groups
and asked all members to sign nondisclosure agreements before they
would agree to participate (USB, DVD, XML).
> > Again, in a competitive Market, customers wouldn't tolerate the
> > passing of "black wire" - binaries that cannot be audited for
> > the nature of the content. Even encrypted content can be audited
> > once it is decrypted.
>
> Oh really? You're assuming that most people care.
> They don't. The ones that do would not accept it, true.
> But that is a small minority.
But if the system administrators accountable for security
were to block access to the proprietary technology, users
would have to stop e-mailing explore-zip loaded documents
because the message wouldn't be allowed to sneak through.
As a result, you would have to send an open standards document,
either RTF, HTML, XML, or line-feed delimited ASCII text.
> Trust me, if MS's customers started to care about these things,
> MS would bend over backwards to meet their needs.
Publishers were aware that they had to stick with Kosher HTML,
but Microsoft attempted to demand that they include ActiveX controls,
FrontPage Extensions, and VBScript on their pages - knowing that
this content would not be processed by IETF compatible browsers
including Netscape, Hot Java, Mosaic, Arena, and Cello/Viola.
Even when the corporate market pushed back and insisted on using
Netscape (replacing IE post-install), Microsoft still tried to force
other ISPs to keep using the proprietary protocols/file formats.
> Microsoft knows how fickle the customer is.
Microsoft really doesn't care. Microsoft's primary customer is
the OEM. The customer must accept the preinstalled software as
part of the total "package". When PC customers staged a campaign
to get their money back for Windows software they weren't using,
Microsoft not only refused to give refunds, they also forbid the
OEMs from giving refunds.
Even when applications such as Partition Magic, Boot Magic, and
Linux are selling in the millions - Microsoft has demanded that
the OEMs make no alteration of the boot sequence from power-up
to final display of the desktop.
> > > > One of the reasons ARPA formed what is now the IETF in the
first
> > > > place was to prevent the unfiltered proliferation of executible
> > > > binaries across the internet.
> > >
> > > Funny, I thought it was formed
> > > to promote open protocol standards.
It was. The reasons for promoting open standards are described
above.
> > Actually it was both. The primary concern of ArpaNet was that
> > if they couldn't control the protocols, that people would be
> > sending messages designed to damage the system. One of the big
> > contriversies was the TN3270 protocol. Eventually, the issue
> > was resolved with the implementation of TN3270 under the BSD
license.
>
> The Tao of IETF mentions nothing about binaries.
Read archives of net.protocols (the 1984 version of
what is now comp.arch.dcom.protocols). This archive
discusses why ARPA should encourage the publication
and proliferation of open standards.
The military was worried that the students of USENET
(previously a UUCP network) would start pushing
binaries that would be downloaded and executed.
In 1988 standards had been relaxed, and the "Internet Worm"
virus knocked out thousands of computers concurrently in
a matter of less than an hour.
As a result of the Internet Worm, the internet administrators,
especially Henry Spencer, worked much more vigorously to end
the distribution of binaries and executables.
> I can also find no reference whatsoever to the
> prevention of binaries being a primary reason
> for the formation of the IETF.
You need to find documents that predate searchable usenet
archives. - Much of the debate was covered on Byte (BIX),
Datamation, and NetWorld.
> So, are you lying again?
As usual you are operating from a base of information that
goes no further back than 1994-1995. My base of information
on this topic goes back another 10 years.
> Why doesn't the documentation support your assertion?
>
> > The real issue, for the purposes
> > of a DOJ settlement, is that Microsoft
> > uses it's file formats, whether stored on files, or passed across
> > the internet, to protect it's Application Barrier to Entry.
>
> Then why does Microsoft publish those
> formats (in fact, they've published
> them since the beginning of the MSDN).
The very first step in joining MSDN is to "sign" (click) a license
agreement which includes a comprehensive nondisclosure agreement
which restricts what you can publish, what you can do with the
information, and what you must do to get Microsoft's permission
to use the information.
Novell once asked me to sign an agreement which would have given
them control over my ability to discuss TCP/IP. Since I had spent
6 years doing TCP/IP development, I refused to sign, I told my
employer that I wouldn't sign the agreement. Eventually we went
back to Novell and negotiated a much less restrictive agreement.
When I was asked to sign the MSDN agreement, I found that there
were numerous terms which I could not accept (because they would
have limited my ability to support UNIX and Linux). To this day,
I work with people who have signed the MSDN agreements, but I have
not signed the agreement.
> > In the competitive IT markets such as UNIX, most vendors conform
> > to open and published standards. Microsoft refuses to conform
> > to these standards.
>
> Strange that Windows 2000 has more
> standards compliance than ever before then.
True. But then again, this is a comparison based on previous
versions of Microsoft Operating Systems. Compared to Linux
or UNIX, Microsoft is still very proprietary.
Windows 2000 supports Posix level 1, but not Posix Level 3.
Microsoft still refuses to support X11 (Linux distributors
are now including complementary X11 servers). Microsoft
still refuses to support NFS. They have chosen to do their
own "Active Directory" instead of X.509/LDAP. They have
chosen to promote VBScript instead of PERL. They have
chosen to stick with IIS instead of supporting Apache.
They have jazzed up IDE ever since it hit the 512 megabyte
limit with kludges like larger clusters, LBA, and Fat32,
and have ressisted migration to SCSI.
Microsoft has been twisting standards for twenty years,
starting with the insertion of carriage returns in line-feed
dilimited text.
> Given that, as you say "Microsoft refuses to conform to these
> standards".
> How can it be that Microsofts security model is based on
> Kerberos, a publishes standard.
Is it Kerberos or "Based on Kerboros". MS-CHAP is "based on CHAP",
but was forced onto all ISPs who wanted to use NT as a terminal
server (AOL, Compuserve, Prodigy...). MS-CHAP prevented the use
of Trumpet Winsock, Linux, or KA9Q TCP/IP - even though these
stacks had been instrumental in the adoption of TCP/IP.
In some cases, Microsoft has introduced a standard with the
intent of driving out competitors. Once the competitors are
driven out of the market almost entirely, Microsoft will publish
the standards.
> How can it be that Microsoft worked closely
> with the standards body to extend Kerberos
> in a standards compliant way.
Whe have discussed Microsoft's "Embrace and Extend" tactics
for years on this group (and in numerous other groups).
They agree to adopt a standard, then they join the standards
body, then they get the standards body to endorse the ability
to add proprietary extensions, then they introduce proprietary
and undocumented extensions that destroy the very compatibility
that the standards body was chartered to create. Remember,
most of these standards bodies had originally been formed to
make it possible to have common standards that could be shared
by UNIX, MS-DOS, MS-Windows, MAC, VMS, MVS, and VM/CMS, along
with numerous other operating systems. Microsoft has tried
to subvert this interoperability - making the "standard" useless
to anything other than Microsoft Windows variants.
> (And don't bring up the issue about
> not-documenting the data format of the
> extension fields. Nothing in the standard
> requires that they do so, it's
> merely a good will gesture).
Not originally! This is the very issue. It took Microsoft
several years to get the Kerboros group to accept the
concept of proprietary extensions. Again, Microsoft's
extensions completely destroy the compatibility that the
original standards body was originally chartered to create.
> > Microsoft must provide sufficient detail of the protocols and
> > file formats to facilitate GPL reference implementations, and
> > under the terms of the GPL - - especially if they want to
> > put that format across the internet.
>
> Which protocols fall under the GPL
> liscense that Microsoft is using?
Most of your internet protocols are implemented in reference
implementations written and supported under Open Source
Licenses. The original Mosaic license was very similar to
GPL, the original HTTP server was also similar to GPL. Mosiac
traces it's origins back to Viola, which was GPL, and Lynx,
which is BSDL.
> And why "must" they do so?
I'm suggesting that this should be a requirement of any out
of court settlement. The whole point of this exercise was
to prevent Microsoft from excluding competitors in either
the Applications arena, or the Operating Systems arena.
> > Again, the goal here is to create a
> > competitive environment in the PC
> > market that is as competitive as the current UNIX market, where
> > Microsoft may be the dominant player, but is no longer a monopoly.
>
> Haven't you heard? Judge Jackson says
> that the Unix market is not the same
> as Microsofts market, and that Linux
> and others are not considered
> competition.
Specifically, Microsoft's Monopoly is over the desktop operating
systems market. Microsoft is a minor competitor in the server
market and has no monopoly in that market, but uses it's monopoly
over the desktop to attempt to manipulate the server market.
The fundamental issue is that Microsoft used it's control of the
operating system used by 95% of all PC users to drive competitors
out of the marketplace. Now Microsoft controls what applications
are installed, what user interfaces. This control of the applications
then forces to use Windows. Microsoft even found that this was
a problem when it released NT 3.5 and Windows NT 4.0
> > Once the competitive market is achieved,
> > Microsoft can do whatever it
> > wants. If customers would really rather pay $600 for an Office
> > Suite made by Microsoft for the $400 Operating System made by
> > Microsoft, in a competitive market (because it's easier
> > to Learn and Use), it doesn't mean that those who want the $100
> > Office Suite for the $40 Operating System will automatically be
> > excluded from all corporate communication and economic opportunity.
>
> So your answer is to require Microsoft
> to play by the same rules as Unix,
Yep
> which has hampered the development
> of Unix for the last 20+ years.
Actually, Microsoft has hampered the development of UNIX
desktop applications. In many cases this includes contracts
with companies like SCO and Novell which prevented them from
entering the desktop market.
Keep in mind that SCO had an integrated Office Suite (Open Desktop)
nearly 3 years before Microsoft released Microsoft Office.
Furthermore, Dell originally offered SCO UNIX on all of it's PC
platforms until Microsoft gave Dell a "choice" of Microsoft everywhere,
or Microsoft nowhere.
Ironically, you perceive UNIX as being a failure. Ironically it was
the choice of the Linux and UNIX community to encourage the use of
Web Browser interface rather than force users to switch to Linux
or UNIX to access the internet.
LYNX was written for UNIX. Viola was written for UNIX back in
1992. Cello was a port of Viola to Windows intended to make it
easier to let users have the option of switching from Windows to
Linux or UNIX. The servers were originally all UNIX.
The success of the internet is almost entirely due to UNIX. Microsoft
didn't even have the Internet on the radar screen until after
UNIX had built up a market 10 times larger than any other "Windows
Only" service.
> That's stupid.
> The Unix market has been fragmented for years and took the creation
> of bodies like Posix to make it even mildly interoperative.
Microsoft and Mainframe people advocating proprietary technology
love to make a huge deal of the "fragmentation" of UNIX. In
reality, 90-95% of the system was compatible - for example BSD
ran nearly all Version 7 applications. System III was AT&T's
attempt at a fully proprietary version of UNIX that totally
bombed. When SysV included the ability to run nearly all BSD
applications, it was much more widely accepted.
When Sun jumped the gun and claimed that they would be the
exclusive licensee of UNIX, the OSF was formed to implement
an alternative kernel. One of the key goals was that the
OSF kernel had to run all BSD and SysV applications.
> The IETF was
> created because of Unix's fragmentation,
> not because of Microsoft.
Actually, the IETF was created to prevent companies like IBM,
Novell, and DEC from trying to take control of the network
with their proprietary protocols. In 1988, many venders were
giving TCP/IP lip service, but would covertly try to push
their proprietary protocols. For example, Dec supported TCP/IP,
but once a few vaxen were installed, they would push the VMS
administrator to use DecNet instead - in some cases critical
functions wouldn't run without DecNet. In some cases,
we even found that people were using bridges across WANs
and causing routing loops because the administrators didn't
realize that the routers and the bridges were clobbering each other.
> > The key is that if Microsoft tries to return to "Black Files and
> > Black Wires" in an environment where 60% of the market is using
> > Open Standards and Open Source based products, Microsoft users
> > would have a very hard time having that proprietary content
> > accepted by Managers, coworkers, clients, customers, and vendors.
>
> 60% of the market?
60 percent of the server market. My mistake. I should have been
much clearer.
> Wow. Where did you pull that figure from?
www.netcraft.com
> The DOJ says Microsoft has 90% of the market.
Microsoft has 90%, perhaps even 95% of the Intel
based Desktop Operating system market. One pundit
quoted 95% and Microsoft tried to claim that Linux had
10% of the market. The Judge gave Microsoft the benefit
of the doubt on that point. When asked however, Microsoft
was unwilling to provide a basis for their claim that Linux
had 10%. That 10% was appearantly based on the total number
of UNIX and Linux users identified at MSN, MSNBC, and Microsoft.com,
divided by the number of copies of Windows 95 sold in that year.
Unfortunately, Microsoft has never provided the basis for their
claim - the DOJ didn't object or demand proof, therefore the Judge
had to accept the possibility that Linux had 10% of the market.
It may have been that Netscape was afraid that Microsoft might
have been able to generate that proof.
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 1%/week!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (david parsons)
Subject: Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit.
Date: 5 Apr 2000 00:04:00 -0700
In article <7gqG4.36961$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Or it may be a good example of how they tried *to help people.* After all,
>free software is supposed to be *a good thing*. Also, how much did the
>government *help people* whose 401Ks took a hit yesterday?
I suspect if you look at almost[1] any stock offering[2] out there,
and if you look at the fine print of almost[1] any brokerage
agreement[2] you will make, you'll see a comment along the lines of
``stock is volatile and there are no guarantees of any sort of
profit when you invest in it.'' It's may be a shame that a lot of
people have lost imaginary money when some big investors panicked
and dumped their MS stock, but as a general rule the US government
is not in the business of ensuring that stock investments will
always increase in value over time (if they were, there's a small
matter of the drop in RH stock value, and I'd like to know where to
make the claim for compensation because the stock didn't stay at
US$300/share.)
MS broke the law, and your investment in MS is not immunized from
suffering the consequences of Microsoft's (stupid, from an economic
point of view) abuse of their monopoly status.
____
david parsons \bi/ Gee, their stock is down to what it was in, when,
\/ August 1999?
[1: I'm sure fly-by-night slime don't bother to warn you about the
volatility of the worthless paper they're shilling.]
[2: In the US, at least; it's possible that there are bourses in
out of the way corners of the world where the local regulations
allow outright fraud.]
------------------------------
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: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 07:41:23 GMT
"Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 16:07:54 GMT, fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"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.
> They sure do.
> Thinks like, multi user, remote admin, stability, and freedom.
Multi user and remote admin are required by a small minority of the people
who use a desktop. Probably about as many people who use, or who will ever
want to use "a software package Judge Jackson has termed a 'fringe'
product".
>
> > I need a financial app like Quicken
> Then use Quicken, your money your choice.
> > or MS Money,
> Ms Money is crap, I purchased 2 versions. Now I use CBB and I'm happy
> at last. CBB for Linux is excellent.
MS Money IS pretty crappy. Quicken is the class leader. I can do online
banking with either one. Can CBB? Is that the one that was still rolling
out a Y2K fix as 2000 began? No thanks, I want better support for the
software that maintains my financial records than "a round tuit". Of course
it IS free. The only way people can get Quicken's bugs fixed is to buy the
software. I guess money does have its uses.
>
> > a
> >tax preparation program like TurboTax, TaxCut, or TaxSaver, and project
> My accountant does that in 10 mins, with the summaries I give him from
CBB.
He probably uses Kiplinger TaxCut on Windows. They might have a Mac version
too. Linux, ah... no.
>
> >management software like MS Project or CA-SuperProject. These don't
exist
> >for Linux.
> No Linux does not make MS Project oe CA-SuperProject.
What, no PBB (Project Book Balancer) for Linux? Does your accountant do
project management as well?
>
> >I also can't manage my bank accounts online. That requires
> >either Windows or Mac.
> Not for long.
I guess that answers my question about CBB.
>
> >
> >For myself, I'll wait to try Linux again until solutions for my needs
become
> >available.
> Hey keep waiting, waiting is a cargo cultists speciality.
I'm not seriously waiting. Unlike a cargo cult, I KNOW Linux will never
provide the apps I need. Wanna-be clones with unreliable support, maybe,
but not the real thing.
>
> >It will be a long wait if I have to rely on the open source
> >community to provide them.
> The Free Software community have better things to do than design software
> for you.
>
> Please feel free to continue to pay the Windows tax.
I pay 8 bucks in tax every week when I fill up my gas tank. That's $400 a
year. For comparison; Windows NT came free with my PC; TurboTax was $10
after rebate; TaxSaver free after rebate; StarOffice was free; my company
provides CA-SuperProject; Quicken cost around 20 bucks after rebate; and
there's lots of free stuff for Windows on the net.
>
> >
> >fmc
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Kind Regards
> Terry
> --
> **** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
> My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
> up 2 days 17 hours 38 minutes
> ** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: Sascha Bohnenkamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: BEOS 5 the new star in OS's
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 09:55:25 +0200
> Go for it:
> http://www.be.com/products/freebeos/
well there is not much, an no prof. software ...
maybe more than for linux ... ok, but mostly these are
windows-ports.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.alpha,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.portable,comp.os.linux.powerpc,comp.os.linux.security,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: BOOKS ON LINUX ?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 5 Apr 2000 08:54:45 GMT
On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 00:09:37 +0200, Luca Marchese wrote:
>ALL THE BOOKS ON LINUX IN THE WORLD ARE HERE
>
>SCIENTIFIC PUBLISHERS GUIDE
>
> http://scientificpublishers.virtualave.net
>
Are they all written in block capitals?
--
Cheers
Steve email mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee 0 pps.
web http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~sjlen/
or http://start.at/zero-pps
1:02am up 1 day, 3:36, 5 users, load average: 1.15, 1.12, 1.09
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
