Linux-Advocacy Digest #308, Volume #26 Sat, 29 Apr 00 15:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: A split? ("James A. Robertson")
Re: i cant blieve you people!! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: i cant blieve you people!! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A split? ("D'Arcy Smith")
Re: A split? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: A split? ("James A. Robertson")
Re: A split? ("D'Arcy Smith")
Chad Myers Lies 205 Times For Microsoft (was: Time for the MS-rats to desert (Mark
S. Bilk)
Re: Microsoft Office Linux Edition! (Jim Richardson)
Re: A split? ("James A. Robertson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "James A. Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A split?
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 18:17:12 GMT
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> I have some comments on this proposed split.
>
> What they need to do is bust Microsoft up into
> 4 major chunks.
>
> #1. Microsoft Operating Systems.
> #2. Microsoft appliances.
> #3. Microsoft Development tools and Databases.
> #4. Microsoft Internet mistakes.
>
> Then the government should MANDATE that #2, #3 and #4 be cross
> compatible
> with OTHER operating systems.
So the feds get to be the grand specifiers of requirements ? Be very,
very careful what you wish for. If you think that would stop with MS,
you are very naive.
>
> If we can mandate internet collectiveness and also
> collectiveness in the format of stored information {Microsoft
> proprietary WORD format},
> then we SHOULD mandate a POSIX compliance across the board for all OS.
>
> No more API secrets which prevent other companies from being competitive
> with
> Microsoft.
>
I suppose IBM must then open their APIs on the Mainframes and AS/400's
as well, Sun and HP on their Unices, and Apple on the Mac as well ?
> Frankly, I think they could all just save time to declare UNIX as the
> UNIVERSAL OS and be done with what will be and what will not be.
>
I see now - you're just a disgruntled tech weenie. Don't take your
anger out on the whole world though...
> This seems to be the judgment of Microsoft itself as it heads more
> towards
> UNIX and away from lunacy.
>
> But YES, 2,3, and 4 should all be forced to be NON-PROPRIETARY!
>
Why ?
> There is a growing concern amongst Taxpayers that the Governments
> continual investment in Microsoft Propriety development tools such
> as Visual Basic in conjunction with the requiring of proprietary
> licenses
> to be optioned to work on such tools is illegal in nature.
>
Where ? Not in DoD. They are a mostly Unix outfit...
> That is to say the Federal Government has been giving points to
> applicants who have Microsoft Certifications over people don't.
> Experience has been swept away in lue of Certifications.
>
> As you have to PAY Microsoft for your Certification, this
> is yet another example of how Microsoft has Defrauded the American
> people.
>
I sure trust the Justice department to do what's right...
> IN this regard Microsoft is a discredit to the United States and
> is dragging the United States image down amongst other foreign powers.
>
Chuckle.
> And this doesn't even cover for the political damage suffered via
> the back door issues.
>
> Charlie
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: i cant blieve you people!!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 29 Apr 2000 18:22:01 GMT
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(rj friedman) writes:
|On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 15:43:22 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|
|¯|Calling BillG a nerd is an insult to nerds everywhere...
|
|¯Absolutely true; except, Gates doesn't look like a nerd, he looks
|¯like some unwashed street people in an expensive suit.
|
|Why would you want to insult unwashed street people like
|that?
|
|rj friedman Team ABW
rj, as usual, you have a good point.
As of now, I hereby appologise to unwashed street people everywhere.
Bill Gates does not look like you... or live like you either; but, that
could change! As of friday, Larry Ellison is now the world's richest
man! The _is_ hope for all of us!
regards,
Guido
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: i cant blieve you people!!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 29 Apr 2000 18:23:12 GMT
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(rj friedman) writes:
|On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 16:18:09 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|
|¯|¯| 5. Presenting falsified evidence to the court - TWICE.
|
|¯|¯Twice? I know of the falsified video, what was the other thing?
|
|¯|The "redone" video.
|
|¯Don't forget Allchin's famous perjury.
|
|That, too. And their trained seal economist who argued one
|side of an issue in one court (the Bristol case in
|Connecticut), and a week later argued the opposite side of
|the issue before Judge Jackson.
|
|rj friedman Team ABW
And how! You'd think that for $350k per year, he could at least
keep his lies straight...
Guido
------------------------------
From: "D'Arcy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A split?
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 18:20:54 GMT
"James A. Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > IN this regard Microsoft is a discredit to the United States and
> > is dragging the United States image down amongst other foreign powers.
> Chuckle.
Yeah its hard to go lower when your at rock bottom :-)
http://www.adcritic.com/content/molson-canadian-i-am.html
..darcy
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A split?
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 18:43:43 GMT
"James A. Robertson" wrote:
>
> Charlie Ebert wrote:
> >
> > I have some comments on this proposed split.
> >
> > What they need to do is bust Microsoft up into
> > 4 major chunks.
> >
> > #1. Microsoft Operating Systems.
> > #2. Microsoft appliances.
> > #3. Microsoft Development tools and Databases.
> > #4. Microsoft Internet mistakes.
> >
> > Then the government should MANDATE that #2, #3 and #4 be cross
> > compatible
> > with OTHER operating systems.
>
> So the feds get to be the grand specifiers of requirements ? Be very,
> very careful what you wish for. If you think that would stop with MS,
> you are very naive.
Who the hell is being naive? If you break the law you had better expect
to get you company busted up into very small peices.
To read your comments you would think that somehow the Federal
Government
actually had a capability to bust up anyone at will.
You have to break the law multiple times before this kind of action
is put forth.
And so Microsoft HAS! And so Microsoft will be BROKEN UP.
>
> >
> > If we can mandate internet collectiveness and also
> > collectiveness in the format of stored information {Microsoft
> > proprietary WORD format},
> > then we SHOULD mandate a POSIX compliance across the board for all OS.
> >
> > No more API secrets which prevent other companies from being competitive
> > with
> > Microsoft.
> >
>
> I suppose IBM must then open their APIs on the Mainframes and AS/400's
> as well, Sun and HP on their Unices, and Apple on the Mac as well ?
YES! Especially IBM. Make the playing field level like IBM wanted
to do back duing the JAVA DAYS! Shit YES!
Finally make them come forth with all their bullshit committements we've
heard about for 2 decades or more. HELL!
When it comes to IBM, I can remember some incidents from the 70's where
such proposals were actually MADE then forgotten!
MAKE THEM ALL OPEN IT UP. Do it NOW!
>
> > Frankly, I think they could all just save time to declare UNIX as the
> > UNIVERSAL OS and be done with what will be and what will not be.
> >
>
> I see now - you're just a disgruntled tech weenie. Don't take your
> anger out on the whole world though...
>
My comment was biased toward UNIX simply because it is the dominate OS
on this planet. But I would accept some across the board
POSIX like compliancy which would be followed by all OS systems,
even if the Federal Government mandated it at this point.
>
> > This seems to be the judgment of Microsoft itself as it heads more
> > towards
> > UNIX and away from lunacy.
> >
> > But YES, 2,3, and 4 should all be forced to be NON-PROPRIETARY!
> >
>
> Why ?
>
Because it's totally foolish to put all your eggs in the VB basket
to be LOCKED away on ONLY ONE OS! Make VB be cross compatible with
a multitude of OS's!
Right now, if Microsoft OS's failed and left the market place,
the Federal Government would be stuck with billions in VB development!
Where will they take their development!
I think they should not be allowed to develop on any system which is not
ANSI regulated for starters. Make them do it in C or C++ or Fortran or
Cobol
so it can be ported to another system so we can have COMPETITIVE BIDDING
for
the sale of OS products to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!
Why is is such a BRILLIANT idea to ONLY DO BUSINESS WITH ONE COMPANY
SUCH
AS MICROSOFT!
Force the bastards to take VB across several platforms including Linux.
> > There is a growing concern amongst Taxpayers that the Governments
> > continual investment in Microsoft Propriety development tools such
> > as Visual Basic in conjunction with the requiring of proprietary
> > licenses
> > to be optioned to work on such tools is illegal in nature.
> >
>
> Where ? Not in DoD. They are a mostly Unix outfit...
The only thing I have to say about this is you must have not been
reading
the Computer Professionals want ads in your local paper for about 10
years.
In order to have avoided seeing this, one would have to have your head
burried up your ass for 10 straight years.
>
>
> > That is to say the Federal Government has been giving points to
> > applicants who have Microsoft Certifications over people don't.
> > Experience has been swept away in lue of Certifications.
> >
> > As you have to PAY Microsoft for your Certification, this
> > is yet another example of how Microsoft has Defrauded the American
> > people.
> >
>
> I sure trust the Justice department to do what's right...
Maybe the Justice Department wasn't the first people in line at the
gate when they were passing the brains out, but you can bet they will
administer PUNISHMENT to MICROSOFT for their criminal actions.
It clearly doesn't require intelligence to destroy and that's the
only button they need to push right now.
The 'DESTROY Microsoft before it's too late' button!
>
> > IN this regard Microsoft is a discredit to the United States and
> > is dragging the United States image down amongst other foreign powers.
> >
>
> Chuckle.
I think your entire string of commentary is a Chuckle.
Where have you been for the last 10 - 15 years?
In a cave?
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "James A. Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A split?
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 18:44:03 GMT
D'Arcy Smith wrote:
>
> "James A. Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > IN this regard Microsoft is a discredit to the United States and
> > > is dragging the United States image down amongst other foreign powers.
>
> > Chuckle.
>
> Yeah its hard to go lower when your at rock bottom :-)
I see the smiley, but still - be careful what you wish for. If anyone
believes that the feds will stop with MS, they are extremely naive.
>
> http://www.adcritic.com/content/molson-canadian-i-am.html
>
> ..darcy
------------------------------
From: "D'Arcy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A split?
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 18:47:54 GMT
"James A. Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> D'Arcy Smith wrote:
> > "James A. Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > IN this regard Microsoft is a discredit to the United States and
> > > > is dragging the United States image down amongst other foreign
powers.
> > > Chuckle.
> > Yeah its hard to go lower when your at rock bottom :-)
> I see the smiley, but still - be careful what you wish for. If anyone
> believes that the feds will stop with MS, they are extremely naive.
I just meant that it was hard for the US to go lower in the
eyes of the rest of the world regardless on what it is that
you do.
I am of course (somewhat) joking :-)
I don't see a problem with a break-up of MS... I do see a
problem with the US government deciding how software is
written. And yes I do see those as two separate issues.
..darcy
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
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: Chad Myers Lies 205 Times For Microsoft (was: Time for the MS-rats to desert
Date: 29 Apr 2000 18:56:52 GMT
In article <8e7bns$jr2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"John Unekis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>[SNIP: Hateful ignorant blathering]
>
>Is this what anti-MS people think? No real logical foundation, it's just
>"hip" to hate MS because they're a big bad corporation? They're the
>big-bad-corporation-to-hate-d'jour?
>
>Man, you should go back on the medicine, you really have a problem.
Since Chad Myers is so self-righteously critical of what he
claims is "hateful ignorant blathering", it makes a person
wonder if he's ever done anything like that himself. Let's
see...
DejaNews shows that Chad Myers has posted 168 articles con-
taining the sentence "Have you recompiled your kernel today?".
According to Myers' lie, Linux users have to recompile the OS
kernel frequently. In fact, very few Linux users ever have
to do it even once, since the kernel can easily be customized
by using loadable modules. If a new kernel is needed to fix
a security problem, only one person has to compile it and make
it available to everyone else via the Web or FTP (e.g., from
a Linux distributor). Myers keeps repeating his lie in order
to frighten people away from Linux and make them stay with
Microsoft.
DejaNews shows that Chad Myers has posted 14 articles contain-
ing the sentence "Friends don't let friends use Linux."
According to Myers' lie, Linux is harmful, like drunk driving,
which is what that warning is associated with in a widespread
TV advertising campaign. In fact, Linux is very beneficial for
users; the only thing it's harmful to is Microsoft's profits.
Myers keeps repeating his lie in order to frighten people away
from Linux and make them stay with Microsoft.
DejaNews shows that Chad Myers has posted 23 articles with the
phrase "Open Sores", in reference to Open Source software.
According to Myers' lie, Open Source software is dangerous and
disgusting, and people should stay away from it. In fact, OSS
is very useful, reliable, and secure -- generally as much or
more so than proprietary software, since the code is examined
by more people, and bug reporting and fixing is much faster.
The only thing it's harmful to is Microsoft's profits, and
those of other companies whose software isn't worth what they
charge for it. Myers keeps repeating this lie as well, to keep
people away from Linux and other Open Source products, and make
them go on paying hundreds of dollars every year to Microsoft.
Chad Myers has never revealed his motivation for posting all
these lies in favor of one particular corporation, and the
richest man in the world. We can only wonder...
Here's what John Unekis wrote about Microsoft, which Chad Myers
labeled as "hateful ignorant blathering". If what John says is
true about MS protecting senior managers from falling stock
values, while letting the rest of its employees fend for them-
selves, it reflects very badly on the company, and will cost it
much of its support, not only from its own employees, but from
working people everywhere.
] There is an old joke about a hooker who goes into a bar,
] orders a drink, and pays with a 20-dollar bill. The
] bartender holds the 20 up to the light and remarks - "Hey,
] you can't use this, this $20 is counterfeit!" To which the
] hooker exclaims - "Oh, no, I've been raped!"
]
] Now that Microsoft stock is in free-fall, quickly heading for
] under $50/share, there must be a lot of Code-Ho's up in
] Redmond who have sold their souls to Bill for stock options,
] dreaming of retiring young and rich, who are now realizing
] they've been raped.
]
] I noticed that Microsoft is reimbursing its senior managers
] for their stock losses with new stock options which are
] adjusted for the lower share price.
]
] For regular employees, MS is encouraging them to take a "long
] term view".
]
] The only thing long-term at Microsoft is the duration of the
] screwing that employees are getting.
]
] I imagine that it is going to become very difficult to find
] u-haul trailers in the Redmond area as more and more victims
] of the "Cult of Bill" awaken from their trances and decide to
] show Microsoft a long-term view of their ass.
]
] Remember all you Microserfs, the ones who bail first will get
] all the good jobs down in Silicon valley, the stragglers will
] end up fetching them coffee....
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: Microsoft Office Linux Edition!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 18:59:44 GMT
On Sat, 29 Apr 2000 10:46:51 -0400,
mlw, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Streamer wrote:
>>
>> Charlie Ebert wrote:
>>
>> > It's comming folks!
>> >
>> > Just look at all the little Wintroll's.
>> >
>> > They are so angry.
>> >
>> > I think that's just too bad.
>> >
>> > Charlie
>>
>> Well, I should receive my Applixware 5.0 today. I have 4.4.1 and I
>> already know it is superior to MS Office, includes more, and is much
>> cheaper than M$O. At least I know I can trust the software much better
>> than M$O.
>>
>> Personally, I'm looking forward to the competition and Linux programs
>> much better than the M$ standards. <Who made M$ standards the yardstick
>> to measure by anyways?>
>
>I use Applix, and I think it is one of the best office packages I have
>ever used. You simultaneously get the feeling you are working with a
>simple, light weight tool which is responsive, yet at the same time
>would be hard pressed to find something you could do with MS office
>which you could not be done in Applix.
>
>The UI is not IBM CUI, but I guess that's changing in version 5. The 5.0
>beta looks very good.
>
>So, my Linux buddies really really like Applix too. Once they use it,
>even though StarOffice is free, they are willing to buy Applix. That, to
>me, says a lot.
>
>So, I know of no Windows user that would pay for MS office, only users
>that use it because it comes with the machine or "have to have it, and
>the companies paying" and I know linux users that user star office
>because it comes with RedHat. The fantastic thing I see happening is, I
>have seen Linux users with Star Office buying Applix because it is
>"better." I have seen developers, with both a Windows NT box and a Linux
>box on their desk, the Linux box has Star Office, and the NT box has MS
>Office, go out and buy Applix with their own money.
>
>If Applix could do a better job marketing, in a few years, the DOJ could
>be after them too. That would be cool.
I am waiting for the boxed sets of 5.0, then I will buy it. I tried the
trial version from SuSE and was impressed. I too prefer it over star office,
I hate the way S-O pretends to be my desktop, it's annoying. Applixware
is much cleaner imho.
Anyone do any stuff with Shelf yet?
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: "James A. Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A split?
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 19:02:29 GMT
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> "James A. Robertson" wrote:
> >
> > Charlie Ebert wrote:
> > >
> >
> > So the feds get to be the grand specifiers of requirements ? Be very,
> > very careful what you wish for. If you think that would stop with MS,
> > you are very naive.
>
> Who the hell is being naive? If you break the law you had better expect
> to get you company busted up into very small peices.
>
Which law ? Note that Judge Jackson is calling them a monopoly based
<not> on contracts, but on the browser issue. And the Appeals court
slapped him on this issue back in 96 or 97. It's at least even odds
that Jackson will get slapped again, either by the Appeals Court or the
Supreme Court. Nothing is determined until there's
-- a settlement
-- all appeals are through
At this point, we still have loud shouting. The Justice department won
round two (you could say they lost round one at the Appeals Court).
Round 3 (and possibly 4)_ are still upcoming.
> To read your comments you would think that somehow the Federal
> Government
> actually had a capability to bust up anyone at will.
>
When Looking at Justice's track record over the last decade, I do
believe that. Exactly what were the people in Waco guilty of ?
> You have to break the law multiple times before this kind of action
> is put forth.
>
Or fail to pay tribute in terms of adequate campaign donations...
> And so Microsoft HAS! And so Microsoft will be BROKEN UP.
>
Possibly. It's not yet decided. Keep in mind that evrything could
change with a new administration as well. The IBM case was dropped in
part because of the change in administrations here in 1980.
> >
> > I suppose IBM must then open their APIs on the Mainframes and AS/400's
> > as well, Sun and HP on their Unices, and Apple on the Mac as well ?
>
> YES! Especially IBM. Make the playing field level like IBM wanted
> to do back duing the JAVA DAYS! Shit YES!
>
So the Feds get to be requirements setters. You are scary.
> Finally make them come forth with all their bullshit committements we've
> heard about for 2 decades or more. HELL!
>
Who is forcing you to buy from them ?
> When it comes to IBM, I can remember some incidents from the 70's where
> such proposals were actually MADE then forgotten!
>
> MAKE THEM ALL OPEN IT UP. Do it NOW!
>
On what legal basis ?
> >
> > > Frankly, I think they could all just save time to declare UNIX as the
> > > UNIVERSAL OS and be done with what will be and what will not be.
> > >
> >
> > I see now - you're just a disgruntled tech weenie. Don't take your
> > anger out on the whole world though...
> >
>
> My comment was biased toward UNIX simply because it is the dominate OS
> on this planet. But I would accept some across the board
> POSIX like compliancy which would be followed by all OS systems,
> even if the Federal Government mandated it at this point.
>
The US government is not the only body on the planet, lest you forget.
And as an entity of force, they are a <lot> more scary than MS. All MS
can possibly do is charge you money. The feds can do a lot worse than
that. Or have you forgotten the bombing of the factory in Sudan (which
coincided with court events that the President wished to obscure) ?
> >
> > > This seems to be the judgment of Microsoft itself as it heads more
> > > towards
> > > UNIX and away from lunacy.
> > >
> > > But YES, 2,3, and 4 should all be forced to be NON-PROPRIETARY!
> > >
> >
> > Why ?
> >
>
> Because it's totally foolish to put all your eggs in the VB basket
> to be LOCKED away on ONLY ONE OS! Make VB be cross compatible with
> a multitude of OS's!
>
And MS forces this on you how ? Or on agencies how ? Why is it the
feds business to make policy for MS ?
> Right now, if Microsoft OS's failed and left the market place,
> the Federal Government would be stuck with billions in VB development!
>
> Where will they take their development!
>
Same place people went who had been dependent on Symbolics. They
migrate. Let the market work.
> I think they should not be allowed to develop on any system which is not
> ANSI regulated for starters. Make them do it in C or C++ or Fortran or
> Cobol
> so it can be ported to another system so we can have COMPETITIVE BIDDING
> for
> the sale of OS products to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!
>
> Why is is such a BRILLIANT idea to ONLY DO BUSINESS WITH ONE COMPANY
> SUCH
> AS MICROSOFT!
>
Last I checked, MS is hardly the only entity the feds do business with.
You don't get out much, do you ?
> Force the bastards to take VB across several platforms including Linux.
>
On what legal basis ?
> > > There is a growing concern amongst Taxpayers that the Governments
> > > continual investment in Microsoft Propriety development tools such
> > > as Visual Basic in conjunction with the requiring of proprietary
> > > licenses
> > > to be optioned to work on such tools is illegal in nature.
> > >
> >
> > Where ? Not in DoD. They are a mostly Unix outfit...
>
> The only thing I have to say about this is you must have not been
> reading
> the Computer Professionals want ads in your local paper for about 10
> years.
>
No, I just worked there. There are more different kinds of systems in
the DoD than you can shake a stick at. Unix, Mac, Windows, mainframes,
you name it...
> In order to have avoided seeing this, one would have to have your head
> burried up your ass for 10 straight years.
>
Or not get out much, like you ;-)
>
> Charlie
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
