Linux-Advocacy Digest #158, Volume #26 Sun, 16 Apr 00 15:13:10 EDT
Contents:
Athlon ("Ralph H.Stoos Jr.")
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! ("Tim Mayer")
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! ("Tim Mayer")
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! ("Tim Mayer")
Re: .DLL not present in W2K, MICROSOFT GUILTY OF COVERUP! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Windows IS the dominant corporate OS (David Shaffer)
Re: Windows is scary all right (Roger)
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! (George Graves)
Re: MICROSOFT IT THRU! MICROSOFT IS THRU! (Alois Treindl)
Re: MICROSOFT IT THRU! MICROSOFT IS THRU! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: MICROSOFT IT THRU! MICROSOFT IS THRU! (News-Only)
Re: MS caught breaking web sites (Robert Hampf)
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary (Jim Richardson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ralph H.Stoos Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.hadrware,comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Athlon
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 13:13:29 -0400
To all you Linux fans,
I have heard rumors and propaganda regarding the Athlon processor and
Linux.
Recent info says that you might need a special kernel for Linux to run
properly on this CPU.
Does anyone know conclusively is this is true? I want to buy Athlon
just to keep Intel from running the whole show and of course run Linux
on it to keep Microsloth from owning the show and theatre both.
Let me know if you would be so kind.
Please respond to the group but add this address too:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanking you prematurely,
Ralph
------------------------------
From: "Tim Mayer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 17:32:56 GMT
"James L. Ryan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> in article wukK4.42391$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Tim Mayer at
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 4/16/00 10:54 AM:
>
> > How does the Mac handle printing one document while you edit another?
>
> Just fine! The document to be printed is placed in a print queue and while
> this queue is being serviced you are free to do whatever else you wish,
> including editing other documents or running other applications.
>
Does it send the document to the queue in the background? (i.e. what if it's
a big document and takes a long time to be queued)
Tim
------------------------------
From: "Tim Mayer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 17:42:20 GMT
"Michael Sims" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:38f9ebb1.3031436@news-server...
> On Sun, 16 Apr 2000 06:45:17 GMT, ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> At least in part. I think the other big advantages of multiple
instances
> >> over multiple docs per instance are stability related.
> >
> >That's true, but I can't say any apps I use regularly crash enough for
> >it to matter.
>
> Besides that, even with multiple instances of IE in Windows,
> if one IE window crashes, it takes all the other instances of IE down
> with it. (At least on my system, with IE 4.01/Win95 OSR2).
That happens with multiple windows (File-New or Ctrl-N) which are all
threads of a common process. But that doesn't happen with multiple instances
(selecting the IE icon several times) where each has a different process. I
tried to confirm this, but have no predictable way of getting IE to crash.
Tim
------------------------------
From: "Tim Mayer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 18:00:25 GMT
"C Lund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <9ClK4.42523$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Tim Mayer"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > But does the one app (or folder) actually contain several sheets of
paper
> > (documents), or are they all scattered about on the desktop? IMO, by
> > creating multiple windows for a single application, where each window
> > represents a single document that are both connected yet divorced is
> > confusing.
>
> Why would that be confusing? It's no more confusing than holding several
> pieces of paper in one hand. It's actually less confusing, since the app
> normally has a menu called "window" that allows the user to select the doc
> he's looking for at the moment. (although that isn't usually necessary
> unless some of the windows obscure others or there are a very large number
> of them)
So on the Mac, do you look at an application that contains documents, or do
you just look at documents?
On the PC the trend is toward the looking at documents, although some MDI
applications still exist. The fact that on the Mac you would select the app,
and then select the document from within the app using the "window" menu,
tells me that it uses the other. But this application centric. Do you really
prefer the application centric model?
Tim
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.security,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: .DLL not present in W2K, MICROSOFT GUILTY OF COVERUP!
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 18:02:58 GMT
This is the Chad from a short few messages ago.
>Subject:
> Re: MICROSOFT IT THRU! MICROSOFT IS THRU!
> Date:
> Sat, 15 Apr 2000 21:57:44 GMT
> From:
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Organization:
> Road Runner - Texas
> Newsgroups:
> comp.os.linux.development.system, comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy, comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,
> comp.os.linux.networking, comp.os.linux.security,
> comp.os.ms-windows.networking.tcp-ip, alt.conspiracy.area51
> References:
> 1 , 2
>You know the funny thing about this post is that there is no back door,
>and it's been proven by several parties and reported from several reliable
>news sources. I expect you'll see a retraction by WSJ monday if it hasn't
>happened
>already.
><sigh>
>I have a feeling this is going to be one of those topics that the ignorant
>zealotous anti-MS morons (such as Charlie here) will continue to bring up over
>and over and over again, even though it's been proven false.
>Kinda like the Kerberos thing, or the _NSAKEY thing, or any number of other
>BS topics.
>Oh well..
>-Chad
Yes, Oh well Chad.
And this was before we got a chance to communicate with him.
He hasn't even heard the first arguement.
And now he writes.
Chad Myers wrote:
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Since the .dll in question was not found in Windows 2000 release, then
> Microsoft
> > was
> > aware of .dll and took it out of release. Appearently Microsoft just FORGOT
> to
> > warn us and the rest of the world about their ILLEGAL BACKDOOR.
>
> Charlie, it's one thing to be an idiot, but a completely different thing to
> outright
> blatantly lie.
>
> How many times do I have to say this? THERE IS NO BACKDOOR! It's been proven and
> verified by many sources. Why can't you accept the facts?
>
> > This makes them guilty of a consipiracy against Netscape Corporation as
>
> How was it a conspiracy against netscape?
>
> [SNIP More ignorant babble and flat out lies and falsehoods]
>
> -Chad
Well Chad. As the press release indicates, Microsoft used this Illegal .DLL to
FUD over
thousands of Netscape Server sites running on Microsoft Operating Systems.
BTW, there has been NO retraction of ANY of this since your started creating these
pantloads of logic Chad.
If I were to ask 1000 NT server administrators what permissions they've set on
their NT boxes
they would tell me NONE. It's assumed by most sys administration folks that
Microsoft will
at least take the TIME to burn them a CD for a default/safe install to begin with!
As far as the password "NETSCAPEENGINEERSAREWEENIES" are concerned, I'm going
to take it that you TOTALLY DENY THIS PHRASE "NETSCAPEENGINEERSAREWEENIES"
ever appeared in any Microsoft code then! Is that correct Chad. Will you
DENY this for everybody.
Don't give me any more of your silly bullshit. Just DENY it was ever there!
Shit Chad. I've been writing WIN API since before you were probably born. 20
years experience
including mainframe time. You, your a GD systems administrator for Road Runner
Cable it looks like.
What the shit do you know about writing software?
This .DLL didn't have any function within the system what so ever. It was never
intended to be
seen by NON-MICROSOFT Eye's. This .dll had but only ONE function. IT's function
was to allow
them to disrupt service on the OS.
There will be a retro-binary examination made on all CD runs they find this .dll
on. There will be
several compiled versions back across time. A different date and time will be
noted for this .dll
across several CD's and the impact of service packs will also be accounted.
As the FUNCTION of this .dll was never clearly defined by Microsoft, it's function
is obviously secret.
All they can say is delete the .dll or as Chad has suggested, change permissions on
the thing and
turn it into another DISK WASTIN PEICE OF SHIT.... That's effectively the same as
deleting it
though, no matter how he put's it. You can effectively change the permissions on a
file so that it's
not executable or writable or readable anymore thus turning it into BAD PACK SPACE.
I can't believe this was your suggestion dumbshit. How many people do you actually
think will
take such stupid advice Chad.
Chad, why don't you just hang it up here. Your just another dumbass Microsoft
systems administrator
or worse. You don't have a clue what your talking about and your likely never
going to.
You've never written a peice of software in your life and I doubt you actually know
what the function
of a .dll is in an operating system.
Why don't we try something simple. Tell me what a .dll stands for.
Next go tell me how setting a privilage on a .dll will make it all right! Get it
you fucking idiot!
That's right, nobody can execute a .dll on their own son! It's called by a parent
program!
OH Chad, I guess your forgot that. So now you look like a double dumbass in the
respect that
your telling people to set privilages on files which only OTHER executables CAN
launch and if
another EXECUTABLE tried to launch it guess what you would have next!
It's a BIG BLUE SCREEN with lots of hexadecimal figures on it!
Now go back to your TROLL HOLE and quite putting ROAD RUNNER CABLES
commercial VENUE all over every message you send out the door!
Don't come back until you've grown some brains son!
Charlie
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Windows IS the dominant corporate OS
From: David Shaffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 12:07:06 -0600
in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Craig Kelley at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 4/15/00 9:58 AM:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich) writes:
>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Robert Morelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Joseph Wong wrote:
>>
>>> The CORBA distributed object model is not only used in the enterprise, but
>>> it's been eating COM market share for breakfast. The last I heard, CORBA
>>> was used in more than 2/3 of the market and growing. In fact, there's been
>>> considerable discussion of this fact, and Microsoft's reaction to it, in
>>> the
>>> press.
>>
>> I wonder if M$ might eventually come up with some "enhanced"
>> M$-CORBA ..
>
> It's called DCOM.
well.. DCOM being Distributed COM. it is obvious that is what is being
discussed above. and, yes, DCOM is dead.
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Windows is scary all right
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 18:20:08 GMT
On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 05:50:46 -0400, someone claiming to be Aaron
Kulkis wrote:
>craig wrote:
>> So I suppose corporate e-mail is not mission critical -
>> see(http://www.microsoft.com/exchange/55/news/Fortune1000.htm)
>Typical microsoft-apologist -- attempting to redefine terms to
>include microsoft as "ready for prime time"
>
>Will business come to a halt if your corporate e-mail balks?
>
>NO?!?!?
>
>then it's not *MISSION* *CRITICAL*
For some businesses, it would and it is.
>Did you know that IBM mainframes are so stable that most don't even
>have an on/off switch?
>
>It's expected that if you are gonna actually turn the machine off, it
>must be time to move it to a new location.
It's also expected that if you need to make anything beyond trivial
changes to the software or OS, it must be time to replace it. Your
point?
------------------------------
From: George Graves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 18:24:43 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (C Lund) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>George Graves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >But all is
>> >not lost , I think with OS X the Mac will finally crawl out from
>> >under the rock a bit.
>> A BIT! It should leave that Windows crap so far back in the dust, that
>> M$ will be struggling for years playing catch-up and copying OSX
>> features and look-and-feel.
>
>Hrmff..
>
>"Windows2002" will sport a new and "innovative" GUI that coincidentially
>resembles the Aqua interface. Underneath this "groundbreaking" new
>interface, the same old WindowsX will be lurking. The result will be yet
>another kludgy, ugly OS from Microsoft, and the Wintrolls will be all over
>CSMA telling us how much better it is than the lousy ol' Mac because it
>supports the floppy drive or some such thing.
>
>OS X will probably leave Microsoft in the dust, but don't think for a
>second the WIntrolls will admit it.
Don't worry, I won't. I have learned that the only thing that Apple
could ever do to please Wintrolls who post on CSMA is to roll over,
belly-up and die. With Apple gone, they wouldn't have that little
nagging voice in their head that keeps saying "did I choose the wrong
platform?" Because with no Apple, there would be only ONE platform and
the Wintrolls could sleep secure in their beds with no nasty Apple
confusing them with that pesky Macintosh.
--
George Graves
------------------------------
From: Alois Treindl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.linux.security
Subject: Re: MICROSOFT IT THRU! MICROSOFT IS THRU!
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 08:29:23 -1000
Chad Myers wrote:
> Knows what? That there is no backdoor. Perhaps you should get a clue like the
> rest of us?
>
> THERE IS NO BACKDOOR OR SECRET PASSWORD.
Microsoft says in
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/fq00-025.asp
What’s the scope of the vulnerability?
This is a buffer overrun vulnerability. Microsoft
has verified that a malicious user could use this
vulnerability to cause a web server to crash, in a
denial of service attack. Microsoft is
investigating the possibility that the vulnerability
would allow a malicious user to run code of his
choice on the server as well. When the results
of the investigation are known, we will update
the bulletin to provide additional information.
The original version of this bulletin
discussed a file access vulnerability in this
component. Why aren’t you discussing it
anymore?
The scope of the buffer overrun vulnerability far
exceeds that of the file access vulnerability that
originally was reported. The original vulnerability
allowed certain users to view files on the server;
the buffer overrun vulnerability potentially could
allow a malicious user to perform any desired
action on the server, including viewing the same
files. We have therefore modified the bulletin to
discuss only the buffer overrun vulnerability.
---- quote ends ---
They are saying that there is a backdoor "allowed certain users to view..."
but they stopped discussing it as they have found another bug "allowing users
to execute arbitrary code..." which could be much worse.
This gives them a good and welcome excuse to stop discussing the issue of
the secret 'netscape weenies' key, and it falls into the routine strategy to
confuse and to through fog over the area, so that they can slip out.
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.linux.security
Subject: Re: MICROSOFT IT THRU! MICROSOFT IS THRU!
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 18:35:33 GMT
Alois is smarter than I as he actually posts the stuff HERE for CHAD to read thru!
Chad.
#1. Remove Road Runner Cable from your E-mails so as to not cause Road Runner
Cable any trouble.
#2. Applogize to all groups you've mailed to. Tell them in your OWN WORDS your
full of shit.
Never, Never argue with a programmer/analyst of any kind.
I'm glad we got that clarified by even MICROSOFT. Now it's over!
Charlie
Alois Treindl wrote:
> Chad Myers wrote:
> > Knows what? That there is no backdoor. Perhaps you should get a clue like the
> > rest of us?
> >
> > THERE IS NO BACKDOOR OR SECRET PASSWORD.
>
> Microsoft says in
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/fq00-025.asp
>
> What?s the scope of the vulnerability?
>
> This is a buffer overrun vulnerability. Microsoft
> has verified that a malicious user could use this
> vulnerability to cause a web server to crash, in a
> denial of service attack. Microsoft is
> investigating the possibility that the vulnerability
> would allow a malicious user to run code of his
> choice on the server as well. When the results
> of the investigation are known, we will update
> the bulletin to provide additional information.
>
> The original version of this bulletin
> discussed a file access vulnerability in this
> component. Why aren?t you discussing it
> anymore?
>
> The scope of the buffer overrun vulnerability far
> exceeds that of the file access vulnerability that
> originally was reported. The original vulnerability
> allowed certain users to view files on the server;
> the buffer overrun vulnerability potentially could
> allow a malicious user to perform any desired
> action on the server, including viewing the same
> files. We have therefore modified the bulletin to
> discuss only the buffer overrun vulnerability.
>
> ---- quote ends ---
> They are saying that there is a backdoor "allowed certain users to view..."
> but they stopped discussing it as they have found another bug "allowing users
> to execute arbitrary code..." which could be much worse.
>
> This gives them a good and welcome excuse to stop discussing the issue of
> the secret 'netscape weenies' key, and it falls into the routine strategy to
> confuse and to through fog over the area, so that they can slip out.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (News-Only)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.security,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.tcp-ip,alt.conspiracy.area51
Subject: Re: MICROSOFT IT THRU! MICROSOFT IS THRU!
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 16:53:19 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <pgkK4.94$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote...
> THERE IS NO BACKDOOR OR SECRET PASSWORD.
If this is the case, then what exactly has Microsoft admitted to and why?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Hampf)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.security,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.tcp-ip,alt.conspiracy.area51
Subject: Re: MS caught breaking web sites
Date: 16 Apr 2000 21:47:22 +0200
Boris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> hélt þessu fram:
: Can you post your BS on linux newsgroups. That's were it belongs right. Just fuck
:off NT
: newsgroups you idiot.
Why? It hasn't got anything to do with Linux.
rh
: "wisdom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: > WELL WELL WELL!
: >
: > For all of you butt-bumping suckbuddies of Mr. Bill who have
: > been assuring us that there are no network "backdoors" in
: > Windows you, along with your evil master, are fucked now.
: >
: > Microsoft just acknowledged (see attached CBS article) that they
: > installed secret code in Windows to sabotage webservers
: > by allowing "backdoor" unsecured logins for hackers. The
: > code was apparently intended to be used against Netscape
: > based on embedded comments in the file.
: >
: > Microsoft is blaming this on "rogue" programmers, whom
: > they are promising to fire.(Now tell me the one about the easter bunny)
: >
: > The timing of this admission couldn't be better... Just when Judge
: > Jackson
: > is considering whether Microsoft deserves to be broken up, it turns out
: > that
: > their market dominance was aided by deliberate sabotage...Hmmmm
: >
: > Let's all hear a rousing chorus of "Breaking up is hard to do".
: >
: >
: >
: >
: > Microsoft Acknowledges Hidden File
: > Secret Message Was Aimed At Rival
: > Manager Will Fire Those Responsible
: > No Reports Of Hackers So Far
: >
: > NEW YORK
: > (CBS) Microsoft Corp.
: > engineers
: > included a secret password in
: >
: > Internet software that could
: > be
: > used to gain illegal access
: > to
: > hundreds of thousands of Web
: > sites, The Wall Street
: > Journal
: > reported Friday.
: >
: > The rogue computer code was
: > discovered in a
: > three-year-old
: > piece of software by two security experts. Contained
: > within the code
: > is a derisive comment aimed at a Microsoft rival:
: > "Netscape
: > engineers are weenies!"
: >
: > Steve Lipner, who manages Microsoft's
: > security-response center,
: > described such a backdoor password as "absolutely
: > against our
: > policy" and a firing offense for the as-yet
: > unidentified employees.
: >
: > There have been no reports of site access through
: > the code, but the
: > affected software is believed to be used by many Web
: > sites.
: >
: > The file, called "dvwssr.dll" is installed on
: > Microsoft's Internet-server
: > software with Frontpage 98 extensions. By using the
: > so-called
: > backdoor, a hacker may be able to gain access to key
: > Web site
: > management files, which could in turn provide a road
: > map to such
: > things as customer credit card numbers, the Journal
: > reported.
: >
: > One of the security experts, Russ Cooper, says the
: > risk is bigger
: > with commercial Internet hosting providers, which
: > maintain
: > thousands of Web sites for a slew of organizations.
: >
: > It was apparently programmed by a Microsoft employee
: > when
: > Netscape and Microsoft were at war over their
: > version of an internet
: > browser, according to the Journal. Eventually
: > American Online Inc.
: > acquired Netscape.
: >
: > The Journal reported that an engineer from Netscape
: > called the
: > hidden file a "classic engineer rivalry."
: >
: > Microsoft urged customers to delete the file and
: > planned to warn
: > customers with an e-mail bulletin and an advisory
: > published on its
: > corporate Web site.
: >
: > Copyright 2000 CBS Worldwide Inc. All Rights
: > Reserved. This
: > material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten,
: > or
: > redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to
: > this report.
: >
: >
:
:
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 23:28:20 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 16 Apr 2000 05:26:26 GMT,
Christopher Browne, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Jim Richardson would say:
>>>How can you be an anarchist ans support capitalism at the same time?
>>
>>How could I be an anarchist and oppose it?
>
>I thought that anarchism formally _was_ somewhat antagonistic towards
>the notion of "capital."
>
>Or am I perhaps missing the _degree_ of antagonism?
an-archos, without a ruler, neither pro nor anti capital, but
orthogonal to it. I am opposed to being oppressed by anyone, whatever
their professed political leanings.
>--
>Lisp Users:
>Due to the holiday next Monday, there will be no garbage collection.
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
