Linux-Advocacy Digest #960, Volume #25 Wed, 5 Apr 00 08:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Guilty, 'til proven guilty ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Microsoft Uses NDAs To Cripple Competitors (was: Guilty, 'til proven guilty
(David Damerell)
Re: Guilty, 'til proven guilty (David Damerell)
Re: Guilty, 'til proven guilty (David Damerell)
Re: Guilty, 'til proven guilty (David Damerell)
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Sorry Microsoft, Facts Mean More Than Money On The Net (was: benchmark for speed
in linux / windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: So where are the MS supporters. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Guilty, 'til proven guilty ("Tim Haynes")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: uk.comp.os.linux,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Guilty, 'til proven guilty
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 11:23:00 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 02:28:49 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <amorgado@my-
deja.com> wrote:
> >In article <ubA*[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> >David,
> >
> >You are assuming that it is possible to make more money by selling
> and supporting MS's Application software on multiple platforms than by
>
> Assuming that they coded their applications with portability
> in mind then deploying X other versions won't be that much
> more expensive. Plus, breaking it on a wider variety of systems
> will help expose problems with the reference codebase.
>
But that's a bad assumption. Their applications are not currently coded
with portability in mind. And you haven't addressed the expense of
ramping up to the number of ports the law would require. What about
support?
> >selling and supporting it only on Windows. I believe this to be a
false
> >assumption.
> >
> >First, which applications are you referring to? MS makes a lot more
> >than just Office. Must they port them all? Surely MS Works need not
be
> >ported to Solaris?
>
> If it's portable: why not?
>
I was asking which applications you want the law to require them to
port to which platforms. Not that there's anything more horrible about
Solaris than any other proprietary UNIX.
> >
> >Second, do you have any idea how much money it costs to support
> >multiple platforms? They have to train staff in multiple platforms,
>
> Some of us even have working experience in such things...
How many customers do you have? Millions? Different game. Do your
customers pay money or are you talking about Open Source?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: David Damerell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
uk.comp.os.linux,gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Microsoft Uses NDAs To Cripple Competitors (was: Guilty, 'til proven
guilty
Date: 05 Apr 2000 12:36:18 +0100 (BST)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh good god! Why do people keep listening to Rex Ballard?
>I guess it's the fascinating thing about the Internet, how some old crack
>pot can buy a $500 computer and then proclaim himself as an expert by
>writing a lot of random words.
If he's Jon Katz, he even gets a movie license out of it.
[To be fair, I did find an old article by Katz in which he was not full of
shit; it could, however, be summarised as 'newspapers are not liek the
Web']
--
David/Kirsty Damerell. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| |I hear the fan of a big machine, Two days, I'm in between, break; | |
|---|lost, code fall through, Loop forever then process kill. Hermes is|---|
| | |broken and lyra's down, lyra's down. "Chimaera, my Nameserver"| | |
------------------------------
From: David Damerell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: uk.comp.os.linux,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Guilty, 'til proven guilty
Date: 05 Apr 2000 12:37:39 +0100 (BST)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>port its entire portfolio of software, and it _still_ wouldn't make the
>other software vendors port their software to the other platforms. They
What, you mean like Corel's Word Perfect?
--
David/Kirsty Damerell. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| |I hear the fan of a big machine, Two days, I'm in between, break; | |
|---|lost, code fall through, Loop forever then process kill. Hermes is|---|
| | |broken and lyra's down, lyra's down. "Chimaera, my Nameserver"| | |
------------------------------
From: David Damerell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: uk.comp.os.linux,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Guilty, 'til proven guilty
Date: 05 Apr 2000 12:39:10 +0100 (BST)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>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.
>You are assuming that it is possible to make more money by selling and
>supporting MS's Application software on multiple platforms than by
>selling and supporting it only on Windows. I believe this to be a false
>assumption.
Their increasing support for the MacOS (even though this directly impacts
sales of Windows) says they disagree.
--
David/Kirsty Damerell. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| |I hear the fan of a big machine, Two days, I'm in between, break; | |
|---|lost, code fall through, Loop forever then process kill. Hermes is|---|
| | |broken and lyra's down, lyra's down. "Chimaera, my Nameserver"| | |
------------------------------
From: David Damerell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: uk.comp.os.linux,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Guilty, 'til proven guilty
Date: 05 Apr 2000 12:40:07 +0100 (BST)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I think the open-source community would be V_E_R_Y interested in seeing
>how much of their GPL code is in the MSWindows products. Could explain
Not to mention how much of the BSD networking stack - although that won't
be a reason to call the lawyers...
--
David/Kirsty Damerell. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| |I hear the fan of a big machine, Two days, I'm in between, break; | |
|---|lost, code fall through, Loop forever then process kill. Hermes is|---|
| | |broken and lyra's down, lyra's down. "Chimaera, my Nameserver"| | |
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 11:48:37 GMT
1. Did it on 2 systems, freshly booted. Same or similar results.
2.Did not do repetitive finds because I realize the cache problem.
3. We are talking about several drives (SCSI and EIDE DMA66) which are
some of the fastest on the market. We are also talking about many gigs
of data as well as files.
4. Linux churns away while Windows finds my file very quickly.
Looks to me like Linux has some kind of an I/O problem.
Steve
On 5 Apr 2000 01:32:45 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 21:06:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>>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.
>
>>> ...only if lie about the conditions of the contest.
>>
>>You are the one distorting here not me.
>>
>>Anyone in the group is free to try it for themselves and I'll bet they
>>will have similar results.
>>
>>I just did a find for the file slime.exe (no such file on my system)
>>and it searched all files, drives and folders a total of about 46 gig
>>of storage (12 gig of actual data) in 15 seconds. This is on my
>>smaller, and slower system BTW.
>
>First, this is a totally I/O-bound operation, and its speed
>will vary probably by a factor of 100 depending on whether
>the directory data happens to be in memory in the disk cache
>when the test is run.
>
>Second, for a valid comparison one would have to run each
>program/OS combination on the same CPU, amount of RAM, etc.,
>and on the identical filesystem, cached to the same extent.
>Of course, this would have to be an MS filesystem, since
>Windows can't read Linux filesystems, and then it would be
>testing Linux on a non-native filesystem for which the code
>may not be as well optimized.
>
>Without taking the above into account, any comparison is
>*totally meaningless*.
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 11:49:44 GMT
So it can't find a simple filename faster than Windows can?
pitiful......
Steve
On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 21:32:18 -0500, Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> The question is why is Linux Find so damm slow?
>>
>> Is it the disk i/o subsystem?
>>
>> The OS itself?
>>
>> What is the reason?
>>
>> Why is Windows so much faster at a brute force find a file name
>> search?
>>
>> Steve
>
>it is searching on a crippled filesystem with no concept of permissions, it has
>no concept of filetypes or access times or anything else that unix find does.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 11:51:00 GMT
Windows is actually spanning more disks and searching more files and
it still is far faster.
Linux, in my case is searching one UW SCSI disk that is very fast.
Steve
On 4 Apr 2000 22:09:21 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>The question is why is Linux Find so damm slow?
>>
>> Is it the disk i/o subsystem?
>>
>>The OS itself?
>>
>>
>>
>> What is the reason?
>>
>>Why is Windows so much faster at a brute force find a file name
>>search?
>
>There may be some difference from the physical layout of the directory
>structure - allowing the directory names to be anywhere could make
>a filenames-only search slower but it this have the opposite effect
>on normal access of a few files at a time.
>
>However, you might also have a drastically different number of
>filenames. Under Linux you can tell easily by piping the
>output of find with no search to 'wc -l'. Under windows, how
>to you pipe the output list to some arbitrary program to
>process it?
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 11:53:08 GMT
Pick a file jedi. Any file jedi. It can be on drive C: or it can be on
drive p:
It can be an existing file, or one that does not exist. The results
are always the same.
Linux painfully churns away the ONE drive it has to search and Windows
finds the file, any file much much faster.
Steve
On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 03:41:44 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>On 5 Apr 2000 00:04:15 GMT, David Steinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>: >>Try finding /etc/ppp/options using find from the root directory and
>>: >>see how long it takes.
>>
>>: > It takes less than a second on my box, even using find.
>>
>>: I find that extremely difficult to believe.
>>
>>That's because you're an idiot, Steve.
>
> I bet it was just a bad example and Steve was just talking
> out his ass again. In his ignorance, he chose an example
> that would be returned relatively quickly.
>
>[deletia]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 11:56:17 GMT
On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 03:44:03 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 00:05:33 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 23:39:32 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> No. Windows is inefficient because realistically you have to search
>>> your whole disk for anything. Thus your comparison really isn't
>>> germane to Unix. It really doesn't matter if a whole disk scan is
>>> slow or not. It's simply not necessary.
>>
>>
>>Yea but I can search my entire system, find the file and manipulate it
>>long before Linux even finds the file.
>
> If and only if you restrict yourself to a particular too.
jedi Doublespeak.
>>>>
>>>>The mp3's just happen to be there along with a gazzilion other typical
>>>>files and several drives that Windows has to search to find the file.
>>>>Those drives are not mounted under Linux.
>>>
>>> "that Windows has to search to find the file"
>>>
>>>[deletia]
>>>
>>> Why bother to begin with?
>>
>>Because I need to find a file and Windows does it so fast and Linux,
>>true to form, falls on its face.
>
> No it doesn't. Rather, it doesn't have to. It can avoid the
> inefficient and underoptimized method in favor of something
> more optimized or more organized.
That is slow as molasses.....
Great technology ya got there..
> You haven't even brought up any instance that would demonstrate
> the unsuitability of locate or find (done only on non-sys files).
I'm talking about find -name, not locate. Stop changing the subject.
> If you were a well informed shill, they should just leap out of
> your fingertips.
I posed an experiment, you have yet to prove me wrong but instead
prefer to attack the method and change the subject.
Exactly the same reaction the Linux crowd had after the Mindcraft
(version 2) tests.
Steve
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 11:57:05 GMT
On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 03:47:25 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 00:06:32 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 23:40:31 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 22:00:56 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 21:19:31 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> No, the shill is just abusing the system to the benefit of
>>>>> his little agenda. The sort of find he's doing on Windows
>>>>> should never be necessary on Unix.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Incredible. With every message you go down the drain farther. So now
>>>>because Windows does something better than Linux,(which is usually the
>>>
>>> Windows NEEDS to be able to do that sort of thing faster just
>>> to counteract it's own inadequacies. Unix does not.
>>>
>>
>>Yawwwnnnn....
>>
>>Attacking the technology again instead of the end result.
>
> The end result isn't superior, unless you go out of your
> way to make it such. The tech involved is why this is the
> case.
So finding a file quickly is not superior....
Linux flunked the test.
Steve
>[deletia]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 11:59:46 GMT
On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 03:55:36 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
wrote:
>On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 00:49:48 GMT,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
>>The question is why is Linux Find so damm slow?
>>
>> Is it the disk i/o subsystem?
>>
>>The OS itself?
>>
>>
>>
>> What is the reason?
>>
>>Why is Windows so much faster at a brute force find a file name
>>search?
>>
>>
>>
>>Steve
>>
>>
>>On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 00:44:48 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 14:54:48 GMT,
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED], in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>> brought forth the following words...:
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>Steve
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Use the right tool for the job, use locate.
>>>
>>>For example. I searched for a file a few levels deep in my home dir
>>>
>>>jim@raven:~ > time locate kjSet.py
>>>/home/jim/downloads/kwp/kjSet.py
>>>/home/jim/inwork/Zope-2.1.4-src/lib/python/Products/ZGadflyDA/gadfly/kjSet.py
>>>/home/jim/inwork/Zope-2.1.4-src/lib/python/Products/ZGadflyDA/gadfly/kjSet.pyc
>>>
>>>real 0m0.756s
>>>user 0m0.740s
>>>sys 0m0.020s
>>>
>>>
>>>I'd forgotten about the .pyc file also :)
>>>
>>>So Steve, pick the right tool for the job, and you'll be much happier.
>>
>
>
>You are comparing apples and oranges, Find on linux is a lot more versatile
>than find on windows. If you want a simple filename locator, use locate, that's
>what it is for.
No I'm not. It's a basic concept to find a file. I am interested in
the end result, meaning I have found my file.
Linux is slow as crap which to me means it is less powerful.
A bicycle is more useful to me if I have to go to the store than a
helicoptor because I don't know how to fly a helicoptor. The
technology of the helicoptor may be better but it doesn't do the task
I need to do as well.
> Or should I say that Mutt opens up a lot faster and lets me read my mail a
>lot quicker than Outlook, therefore windows is slow?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Sorry Microsoft, Facts Mean More Than Money On The Net (was: benchmark
for speed in linux / windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 12:03:26 GMT
On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 04:01:11 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
wrote:
>Since all you are searching for is a filename, why are you using
>a tool (linux find) which does so much more? rather than a simple
>filename locator?
Because I don't feel like indexing my files everytime something
changes, even with a cron job.
It will always be behind.
>>
>>Linux speaks for itself. I gave away 2 Linux CD's today. The suckers
>>begged me for copies and I was more than happy to oblige.
>>Just one look at Linux and they'll be back to Windows in a flash.
>>
>
>
>If linux speaks for itself as you say, then why are you here?
Pure entertainment. Nothing more. Nothing less.
It beats the hell out of Jerry Springer :)
>If linux sucks so much, why have you bought (by your claim) over
>50 cd's? Even if you are ftp'ing and burning your own, that's a lot
>of effort for an OS you hate so much...
This is over a year or so. I get a lot of my CD's for free.
>>Linux supporters and Facts are an oxymoron.
>
>Methinks you need to look up the word in a dictionary.
Read some of jedi's comments lately?
>>Where do I collect my check? I could use a few more gadgets for my
>>studio.
>>
>>Steve
>
>Hey, maybe they pay you in Linux CDs, that would explain why you have so
>many of them :)
Ha ha!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: So where are the MS supporters.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 12:06:43 GMT
On 5 Apr 2000 12:22:43 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry
Porter) wrote:
>If you cant keep up with Jedi, thats your problem "Steve".
You have to send me one of those jedi to english doublepeak
translators.
>>
>>
>>Linux would be better off with you on the Windows side.
>Nope, wrong again, Jedi has used Windows and is intelligent enuf to know a
>loosing OS when he sees one.
>
>Unlike "Steve" Jedi's integrity isn't for sale. "Steve" has been a anonymous
>MS Troll here for over 2 years, he's in everyones kill files under several fake
>aliases, and has *ZERO* credibility.
Who cares?
>The last thing "Steve" would want known, is his real name.
>
>Who could trust someone like this, or anything he recommended ???
You don't have to believe me.
Try it for yourself.
>
>>You prove our point about linux every time.
>
>You have no point "Steve", as usual you're flapping around like a blowfish
>on the wharf, that's been disgarded as worthless.
You won't try it because you are afraid your bleoved Linux will fail,
like it usually does.
Same reason there are no TPC benchmarks for Linux.
>>
>>Steve
>>
>>
>>
>>On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 23:45:00 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 22:11:42 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 21:24:29 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Actually, in those days, the hardware was considerably better.
>>>>
>>>>You're kidding right?
>>>>How about CMI drives that self destructed in the original IBM AT.
>>>
>>> The MACINTOSH hardware, shillboy.
>>>
>>>[deletia]
>>
>
>
>--
>Kind Regards
>Terry
------------------------------
From: "Tim Haynes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: uk.comp.os.linux,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Guilty, 'til proven guilty
Date: 05 Apr 2000 13:09:20 +0100
Reply-To: "Tim Haynes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
David Damerell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I think the open-source community would be V_E_R_Y interested in seeing
> >how much of their GPL code is in the MSWindows products. Could explain
>
> Not to mention how much of the BSD networking stack - although that won't
> be a reason to call the lawyers...
This is something I've also been wondering a bit about - if source is truly
Open, then I think the author is operating on the principle that it's more
important that they and their code are doing the rounds, than that it's
making them a quick buck.
Of course, if it's Freeware then any ol' company can snatch it up and use
it with no probs.
If there's GPL'd stuff in there, then credit has to be given... and I guess
that's where worries about M$loth's closets come to bear ;)
The Debian philosophical pages seem to address this a bit - as an
O.S. developer, do you want commercial s/ware to steal your code? - so a
browse around <http://www.uk.debian.org/intro/free> might be amusing.
But who is there to fight for the open-source model when its licenses are
violated?
~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]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
