Linux-Advocacy Digest #218, Volume #26 Sat, 22 Apr 00 14:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Grasping perspective... (was Re: Forget buying drestin UNIX...) (mlw)
Re: Sell Me On Linux (2:1)
Re: Grasping perspective... (was Re: Forget buying drestin UNIX...) (mlw)
Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system. (Streamer)
Re: DCOM versus CORBA, some history (mlw)
Re: New Linux User Question ("Dan J. Smeski")
Re: Unix is dead? (mlw)
Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system. (John Jensen)
Re: which OS is best? (Craig Kelley)
Re: Sell Me On Linux (SeaDragon)
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (Craig Kelley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Grasping perspective... (was Re: Forget buying drestin UNIX...)
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 12:57:20 -0400
"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>
> I think it's silly that some people use an operating system just to "get
> away from Microsoft" or other such nonsense. Use of an operating system
> should be dictated by one's tasks, tastes, and lifestyle, and not the
> other way around. Any other reasoning beyond that is simply mental
> illness, AFAIC.
Actually I have to disgree, but not for the reasons you may want to
hear. Windows is unreliable. Avoiding Microsoft to avoid unreliable
software is a reasonable position.
There are other things too. If people think that something is "wrong"
many times people boycott products and companies in an effort to change
the corporate behavior. This is also a reasonable position.
Microsoft has been ruled a monopoly, has been proven to use its monopoly
position to hurt competition. It is a perfectly reasonable and rational
position to avoid MS for that sort of behavior in an attempt to effect
change.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
"We've got a blind date with destiny, and it looks like she ordered the
lobster"
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sell Me On Linux
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 18:13:39 +0100
SeaDragon wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 20:39:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Runs on more hardware (IBM mainframes, Dec Alphas-64bit, apple hardware,
> >Sun hardware...)
>
> Buying an IBM or an Alpha to run Linux is about as smart as buying
> a Porsche to drive around in first gear.
Can't say I agree. Ultrix can be quite shitty sometimes.
> >MS is limited to Intel x86 -- MacOS to apple.
>
> Incorrect.
Last time I lookes at an NT CD, it came with a PowerPC and Alpha install. I know
a bloke who tried it for a laugh. It wouldn;t even install properly. Secondly,
there are no apps compiled for NT on anything but x86, so NT is limited to x86
hardwaer in practice.
> If you want to talk about hardware vendor support, Microsoft has _many_
> more hardware vendors supporting it, and you have _much_ more choice in
> choosing a vendor for an MS system than you do for a Linux system. There
> are literally thousands of PC clone vendors, who support Microsoft. A
> tiny portion of them support Linux.
That's only limited choice. You are choosing a brandname. They are all the same
architecture (and a pretty shitty one at that), have the same chip, the same
useless 16bit subsystems, and generally run the same software (MS). So you get to
choose the sticker on the case. Nice.
> Linux runs on more _architectures_ than Windows, but that is irrelevant:
> people are interested in what more vendors offer solutions, and clearly,
> Windows users have a _much_ bigger choice for hardware vendor.
It is relavent, since for servers, there are much better machines than x86s, such
as ones that don't have 20 year old designes sitting in them somewhere. Besides,
for servers (I'm not talking about really obsure flakey cards here), Linux will
run on most PCs.
> Don't like Intel? Then support a vendor who sells AMD, Cyrix, IDT, Rise,
> or one of the multitude of the IA-32 clones available.
>
> >Stable command structure (minimal retraining every time a new version is
> >released).
>
> 1. A new Windows version is not released frequently. It appears that the
> flagship version is released every four years, and this does not warrant
> frequent expensive retraining as you suggest.
So you have to wait 4 years to get bugs fixed? They release various fixes which
make changes, which it is generally good to install. Applying one of these every
6 months is no different from upgrading the kernel every 6 months.
> 2. Linux commands, especially with respect to administrative tools,
> vary drastically from version-to-version, and especially from
> Linux distribution-to-distribution.
I haven't found that to be the case really. They are very similar.
> 4. Linux training locks you into Linux; I have met many a person
> who learned Linux and was mystified when using a Sun or HP machine
> (so moving from Unix flavor to Linux to Unix flavor costs mega-bucks
> in retraining).
Windows training, on the other hand locks you in to nothing ?!
> >Runs the most common Internet apps (sendmail, Apache...).
>
> Yes - sendmail - the application which singlehandedly brought down
> the internet in 1987. A program which I REALLY want running on
> my servers. I am so jealous...
That bug was fixed. And what about Melissa, which brought down 1000s of MS
systems. Now, I really want *that*.
> > Proven remote management.
>
> Proven to suck. When you disconnect from your remote session, and
> then reconnect to it, does Linux even bring you back to your previous
> session or does it restart, losing your old work? It does the latter,
> even though almost every OS built since 1970 (including Windows) does the
> former. Another example of Linux slipping further and further behind the
> technology curve.
Er, if you use sessions in X (most new WMs do that) then it does. So you're
wrong.
> >Large number of file systems supported.
>
> Ah yes. Exactly which filesystem do you need to read on Windows that
> you can't? This would improve your daily productivity in what way?
> Do you really find that sneakernet is faster than 1 GB ethernet?
The point is it makes swithing easier. Linux can read many FS, so if you switch
to linux, it is easy to read all those old files.
It looks like you are
1 Stupid
2 A troll
3 Misinformed
4 All of the above.
Many of the things you have said are plain wrong.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the oldest known rock is the famous Hackenthorpe rock, which
is over three trillion years old?
-The Hackenthorpe Book of Lies
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Grasping perspective... (was Re: Forget buying drestin UNIX...)
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 13:13:31 -0400
SeaDragon wrote:
>
> On 21 Apr 2000 05:01:52 GMT, Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >I think it's silly that some people use an operating system just to "get
> >away from Microsoft" or other such nonsense. Use of an operating system
> >should be dictated by one's tasks, tastes, and lifestyle, and not the
> >other way around. Any other reasoning beyond that is simply mental
> >illness, AFAIC.
>
> Correct. One thing you will find in some of the less technically incline
> people, is people who (e.g.) favor Unix, and favor Mac (or MVS), and
> like both better than Microsoft. Microsoft is a pretty good middle
> point between Unix and Mac (or MVS), and e.g. provides consistent,
> easy-to-use interfaces like the Mac (or MVS), and on the other hand,
> pretty good access to most of the system, and a command line, and simple
> files (like Unix). (OS X need not apply). There is a certain straggling
> line of people who are so confused, and so technically ignorant, that
> the like Macintosh AND Unix but not Windows. So they are so far gone,
> so full of Microsoft hatred, that they don't even realize their mistake
> and believe that they have some sort of technical justification for
> this. It is clear that they have a highly non-technical agenda, and
> are interested in hating Microsoft, and joining the militant, trendy,
> buzzword-slobbering, fashionable anti-Microsoft army, but not interested
> in in technical superiority in any way.
Boy are you out in left field. From a technology perspective, Windows is
a disaster. I will argue any technical position you may take, debate the
pros and cons on an aggregate basis. The single thing that NT does
better than Linux, is processor affinity linking to I/O devices with
SMP. This one feature has little effect in 99.9% of the applications
which one would deploy using x86 hardware.
So, you made the erroneous remark that UNIX is technically inferior to
UNIX, so I will let you frame the debate. You put out some facts, you
have some right?
>
> >I would suggest that users of any OS try (or at least, read/research info
> >about) other operating systems. You just might find a better way to do
> >what you're doing now.
>
> One thing you have to keep in mind is that most of the Linux users are
> extremely new to computers.
This is very untrue. Most Linux users have a great deal with computers.
> Many of them are so ignorant that they
> believe that "operating systems" means "different flavors of Unix".
Different types of UNIX are different operating systems. This does not
say that NT is not also an operating system, however something like
Windows is debatable because the OS is really DOS and Windows is an
extension, so it is debatable. But like a tomato can be called a
vegetable, I guess Windows 9x can be called an OS.
> If
> you set them in front of a machine running Windows, Macintosh, OS/390,
> TOPS-20, whatever - their reaction will be the same: "It's not Unix". But
> not in so many words. They will try to make it emulate Unix and will
> never really learn the new system, but just how well it does Unix. They
> won't succeed in that and will conclude that they system sucks. Unix is
> so ingrained into people especially at that collegiate level that most
> people involved in Linux have no serious knolwedge of any system. Many of
> them have never even logged in to a IBM mainframe. Your push to teach
> them that other systems even exist will not be a fruitful exercise -
> teaching Linux users that other computer systems are viable is about as
> easy as educating fundamentalist Christians in evolutionary theory.
This is sort of funny. I have used and developed software MANY operating
systems, various UNIX's, CP/M, DOS, Mac, VMS, and some embedded
products. It is BECAUSE of my experience that I can say, having seen
what is out there, that UNIX is probably the best general purpose OS
design there is. Linux is a pretty OK UNIX like OS too.
Linux's process model is almost as efficient as Windows NT's threads,
but yield a more robust server paradigm. Linux has a very good threading
implementation if one still wants to use threads. Linux can run with NO
GUI, NT must run a GUI which is implemented in kernel space. Linux has a
proven uptime record that exceeds that of NT. There are lots more points
to make too.
If you want to debate these points with facts/statistics please go
ahead.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
"We've got a blind date with destiny, and it looks like she ordered the
lobster"
------------------------------
From: Streamer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system.
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 12:23:39 -0500
Matthias Warkus wrote:
> It was the 22 Apr 2000 04:29:12 -0700...
> ...and test@myhome <test@myhome> wrote:
> > I wanted to install some rpm package
> > to try some application. ok, i do
>
> > it tells me it needs 5 others packages
>
> > now this one tells me that i need 3 other packages.
>
> > now this tells me i am missing 2 packages.
>
> > is this really the modern way of installing sw?
> >
> > we make fun of MS, yet, on windows, i never had to do this sort of thing.
> > double click on setup.exe and all is done.
>
> Yeah. That's because on Windows, software ships in huge packages,
> complete with all the dependencies, which will mercilessly overwrite
> already installed libraries and dump DLLs all over the system anyway.
>
> Can you get a mail client, a text editor or a file manager for Windows
> in a package that's less than a megabyte in size?
But Matthias, What good is a package that's less than a megabyte if you can't
use it because you don't have any of the other components you didn't know that
you needed?
This is one of the few areas in Linux that I believe complaints to be
justified....RPMs. Like the poster, I have had hair-tearing experiences in
installing packages, and it isn't fun. RPM is very bad about telling you that
you need lib.x or file.y without a clue as to where it can be found. And it
does get worse when the other packages that also have to be installed have to
have other packages that, again, you don't know where to get them. It could
always be claimed that those other packages must be installed anyways for
other programs, but think about it.....You already have RedHat installed;
those other packages weren't installed because they weren't needed at
installation. RPM is also very bad about telling you that you have package
conflicts with other packages NOT installed. It seems foolish to me that if I
don't have any XYZ.rpm packages installed, but I have XYZ-1.1.1.rpm and
XYZ-1.1.2.rpm on the hard disk, that I actually get a conflict package
message when I try to install XYZ-1.1.2.rpm and I have to do a 'force' option
on RPM.
I really feel the RPMs installation area, while technically better than
install shield, needs large improvements for user. It would be a big help if
rpm had options to go search for other RPMS to find the missing files. It
would also be a nice service if RedHat made a list, either in their manual or
web site, that listed all programs and files in each RPM package, and arranged
the list alphabetically by file name so that a user, seeing he needs another
package, can look up and see that if he needs libX123.so, he can find it in
the X456.rpm package. GnoRPM could really be improved in that it does look
for packages that include a file you specify, however, it won't search outside
of the RPM database...it would be nice if it would search in other directories
and find packages in other directories. In fact, it would be nice if GnoRPM
would let you get information on any RPM package, not just those installed.
And I'm looking forward to a GnoRPM that doesn't crash after 1 or 2 package
inquiries like it does on my machine (RedHat 6.2 package). I can't say if
kpackage does any better since I've not used it.
So, sorry, I can't just dismiss the original's posters claims here. RPM is
good, but it still needs some significant improvements in the user
department. I think some of the suggestions I give up above are very
appropriate for both novice and expert users....I don't know of a single
expert who would complain if he could find very quickly where to get the
missing pieces needed for his RPM packages.
Regards...
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DCOM versus CORBA, some history
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 13:25:12 -0400
SeaDragon wrote:
>
> On 20 Apr 2000 14:36:26 GMT, Donal K. Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >The main reason that apps for X have not typically supported anything
> >other than plain text is the lack of agreement on how the data should
> >be represented.
>
> They should give you some sort of an award for stating the obvious. The
> whole problem with X is that there is no agreement on anything. You have
> just restated the symptoms of the problem by stating its cause. You
> have contributed no insightful point to the discussion.
>
> This is a fundamental flaw in free software which has been identified
> years ago by the critics of free software. The advantage of a single
> vednor who defines standards is that they can control the standards.
Yes, so the single vendor can change the standards at will and force
competitor's to always be playing "catch up with MY new standard." And
we've seen these standards too, haven't we. DDE? OLE? DPMI? WinG? All
tributes to Microsoft's design expertise at making scalable standards.
> You
> lose this when go to free software because the programmers are generally
> less professional and less experienced, and want to do things in their
> own, hackery way, instead of working of the fundamental problems.
This is sort of laughable, isn't it. BSD is free open source software,
yes NT's own IP stack is based on the BSD implementation. Mach is open
source software, and wasn't the threading model of NT derived from
portions of Mach? The whole internet runs on open source software.
Sorry, again your point is false.
> Superior,
> more robust systems such as Mac and Windows do not have such glaring
> limitations as the more fragile systems such as Linux and Unix have.
I get a kick out of this one: "more robust systems such as Mac and
Windows" somewhere the word "robust" must have had its meaning
reassigned. Windows9x is very unreliable. Even Microsoft knows it. The
first thing they tell anyone that connects to tech support is to reboot
the computer. At which point the problem will go away until the next
time, then reboot again, right? That is not reliable or "robust."
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
"We've got a blind date with destiny, and it looks like she ordered the
lobster"
------------------------------
From: "Dan J. Smeski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New Linux User Question
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 12:21:11 -0500
Wow! I am proud of this group! If you would have asked this same exact
question a year ago, you would have been flamed to bits! I guess Linux
community is beginning to learn that to gain respect and more users, hate is
not a way to go!! Excellent!
Dan
"Tobias Adrianse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:NJoK4.17580$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I am interested in making the transition to Linux as my OS. I currently
run
> Win98. If this is a bad newsgroup for this post please direct me to one
> that is better.
>
> What are the basic advantages for running Linux. ( I am looking into red
> hat)
> What are the basic disadvantages for runnig Linux?
> Will my programs run the same even if they are meant to be run under a
> windows 98 OS?
> Will I still be able to use Internet Explorer and programs that I
currently
> have.
>
> I apoligize ahead of time for my ignorance, I know absolutley NOTHING
about
> Linux.
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Unix is dead?
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 13:33:57 -0400
SeaDragon wrote:
>
> On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 16:45:59 -0600, John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Nope. Linus was inspired by Minix, but did not "base" Linux on Minix
> >any more than Windows NT is based on Minix (IE, all modern OS'en share
> >some pretty general architechtural concepts . . .)
>
> You must be really new to Linux. Minix was much more than "inspired" by
> Minix. It was originally intended to be "a better Minix than Minix".
> Early versions of Linux were binary compatible with Minix, and the
> original filesystem for Linux was the Minix filesystem (which some
> Linuxers claim is still the best filesystem for floppies under Linux).
> So you are completely clueless in stating that Linux had no more
> similarities to Minix aside from what all operating systems have in
> common.
Actually, more accurately, Linux was "boot-strapped" with Minix. Linux
is not based on Minix. It shares little or no code and very few, if any,
concepts unique to Minix appear in any way in Linux. (Are there any
concepts unique to Minix?)
Minix was a very very small UNIX like environment for teaching OS
design. It was just a convenient environment in which to run the new
kernel. Just because it can read the Minix file system no more means it
is based on Minix than Linux's ability to read FAT files systems implies
it is based on DOS.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
"We've got a blind date with destiny, and it looks like she ordered the
lobster"
------------------------------
From: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system.
Date: 22 Apr 2000 17:50:14 GMT
test@myhome writes:
: lets talk a little about the broken way of installing software on linux.
: it is most certinaly is a broken system now.
: a simple example. I wanted to install some rpm package
: to try some application. ok, i do
: rpm -Uhv foo.rpm
I used to feel a lot worse about rpm. I can generally make it do what I
want now, but I also think I stay away from things that I know would be
trouble. My rules of thumb:
- if you are going to be doing a lot of rpm loading, update your
full OS to at least the current major revision (ex: RH 6.X)
- if you are trying an rpm upgrade on an older base system, try
either to find a package that dates back to that older revision
or build from source-rpm
- source-rpms are actually pretty nice to use, and when you get
trapped in a spot that would require lots of upgrades otherwise,
re-building a package to match your installed libraries can
be the easiest way out.
I think we will see further improvement with over-the-net upgrades.
Someone will start selling subscriptions for an always-current system. It
probably won't appeal to the cutting edge developer, but it will help
normal users stay a little more in sync.
JOhn
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 22 Apr 2000 12:02:59 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On 21 Apr 2000 18:40:45 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
> wrote:
>
> >>Did I say domain controller? No - I said NFS and SMB sharing. And
> >>for sharing in WinXX, click the device to be shared, click SHARING...,
> >>and away you go. It's far simpler than Linux.
> >
> >OK, try again. Which button did you click on NT to get tha
> >NFS sharing done and how long did it take to find?
>
> NT doesn't come with it. The objective is to get OS-native sharing
> going - somehow, anyhow, with a minimum of fuss. NT (and 95/98) do
> that very well. Linux doesn't. Editing /etc/exports for NFS, for
> example, isn't my idea of fun. ksysv and such make the automation of
> such things easier, but I don't consider it 'easy' by any stretch.
So use Linuxconf. You can't complain about the lack of tools which
exist.
[snip more oh-my-god-I-have-to-use-a-text-editor stuff]
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SeaDragon)
Subject: Re: Sell Me On Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 18:01:50 GMT
On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 08:11:38 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>No one in the world cares about integer arithmetic, it is a direct
>function of the cpu clock.
Incorrect. For example, the EV6 has roughly double the performance of
EV5 in integer performance at the same clock speed. Most benchmarks
increase linearly with clock speed. Most normal work that most people
do is integer work.
>What matters is I/O and floating point.
I/O, yes, floating point, huh? You think all of the corporate customers
you run web sites, run word processors, do programming need floating
point? What are you talking about? It's only application is in simulation
which is in the scientific and engineering fields.
>The x86 hardware has some of the worst I/O in the industry.
Proof? FYI, Willamette will have a 400 MHz bus which will be the
fastest in the industry. K7 already has the same bus frequency
of the EV6.
>Right now they have inched up to a 133 mhz front side bus. That is very
>slow when compared to other systems.
The EV6 has a 200 MHz FSB. Same as K7! So how is the K7's bus "very slow
when compared to other systems"? I am extremely interested in hearing
this, especially which systems you are talking about.
>So, while the CPU may be clocked at 800 mhz, it can only read data from
>ram at 133mhz.
No shit sherlock? You mean all of those 1 GHz machines should be using
1 NS memory? Where do I buy it? Man, get a clue. Have you ever heard of
a thing known as "cache"?
>This means that unless all your processing can take place in cache,
>your effective CPU clock is 133 mhz.
But in practice all execution is done in cache. The only time bus
speed matters is for an L2 cache miss. That's why EV6 has 4 MB
of L2!
>This problem affects all sorts of processing tasks for which one would
>use a server. Ripping through a 5 meg buffer of floating point data will
>be much slower on a PC than on an alpha. So for tasks like image
>processing, crunching large floating point arrays, and tasks which use a
>lot of memory, the x86 architecture is very slow.
All good in theory, except for the fact that X86's do indeed have equal
(and in the future, higher) bus bandwidth than the RISC chips (c.f. K7
and EV6).
>The next thing is the PCI bus. Most x86 system are still only using 32
>bit PCI at 33mhz. Suns have 64 bit PCI running at 66mhz. A Sun can get
>4x more data from its PCI cards than can an x86. This means that a
>ULTRA SPARC running at 450 MHZ using gigabit 64bit ethernet cards will
>out perform a 800 mhz x86 using 32 bit ethernet cards because of the PCI
>bus width and the I/O design of the system.
??? What the fuck does PCI have to do with the CPU? This is all handled
by the chipset and has absolutely nothing to do with the CPU. Are you
arguing systems, or CPU's?
>I think you need to read up a bit about computer design.
I design computers for a living, bud.
>I have no idea what you are ranting about. Configuration files are read
>at startup, and are not typically read during operation.
You are also extrememly ignorant of how Linux works. Whever you do an
ls -l, it reads /etc/passwd, patietntly parsing through this gigantic
text file one byte at a time, looking for info. If you delete /etc/passwd,
you when you do ls -l, you will see GIDs and UIDs instead of user names.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 22 Apr 2000 12:05:09 -0600
Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[snip]
> In any case, it's rather nice that X allows such a range of
> taste across so many systems. Being able to have the
> argument at all is a triumph of the protocol.
I totally agree. It's sad that people complain about having a choice.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
