Linux-Advocacy Digest #374, Volume #26 Fri, 5 May 00 12:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! ("Mike")
Re: Linux file system vs. Win/DOS ? (Tim Kelley)
Re: X Windows must DIE!!! (bytes256)
Re: Microsoft Office Linux Edition! ("Rich C")
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! ("Mike")
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (abraxas)
Re: Oracle 8i and Mandrake 7.0 (aflinsch)
Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots (david parsons)
Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots (david parsons)
Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots (david parsons)
How to Avoid EMAIL VIRUSES 101 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
apache.org defaced ("Drestin Black")
Re: X Windows must DIE!!! (I R A Darth Aggie)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (Seán Ó Donnchadha)
Re: apache.org defaced (Bob Hauck)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 14:35:36 GMT
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Checking the Microsoft home page. Not even a mention of the virus. It is
> Microsoft's fault that the "ILOVEYOU" virus can spread so quickly and so
> bad, and they don't even mention it on their site.
As the progenitor of the OS, then, aren't they responsible for _every_
Windows virus?
> They have had ample warning, and ample evidence that their e-mail client
> design is far too insecure for real use, and they have had ample time to
> fix it. Because of their monopoly, they have no incentive to fix it.
> Because they are a monopoly, industry, world wide, suffers. If there was
> competition, this would have been fixed way before Malissa even showed
> up.
There is competition, Mark. Lots of it. Before Outlook Express, I used Elm,
Pine, Pegasus, Netscape, Notes, Eudora, and some others. Outlook Express
became my default Unix mail reader at version 5 because it was _better_ than
Netscape. I switched to Netscape because it was better than Pegasus. I
switched to Pegasus because it was better than Eudora. I switched to Eudora
because it was better than Pine. I switched to Pine because getting tarred
and feathered while being run through with sharp sticks is better than using
Elm. I used Elm because there was no competition.
So, I'm really confused here. I've gone through six mail programs in the
past ten years or so, each time switching because the replacement was
better. As far as I can tell, this is the definition of a competitive
environment. What is your definition?
I still use Notes, and received some copies of the message there. Notes
appears to be just as capable of running the virus as Express. I also still
have Netscape Mail configured to read my Unix mail, and it also appears to
be able to run the virus.
> This is just stupid. Anyone that uses MS Products for e-mail, after this
> one, is a fool.
So, if I run Netscape Mail, I'm not a fool, and if I execute the virus from
Netscape Mail, it's Microsoft's fault. Right?
-- Mike --
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux file system vs. Win/DOS ?
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 09:37:46 -0500
tom wrote:
>
> I'm curious about how Linux organizes itself and its files. In
> Windows, the system files are usually in Windows & Windows/system, and
> program files are in the similarly named directory. And the same goes
> for DOS, of course.
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/
describes the filesystem standard.
Actually, Microsoft puts system files all over the hard drive,
mixing them with user data and application files, with no
apparent purpose or design whatsoever.
> What happens in Linux when you install packages? (where do the program
> files end up, etc.?) I haven't installed Linux yet, but I'm planning
> to try it out in the near future.
assuming you're using rpm, look at the rpm man page for details,
it has extensive query capabilities; e.g., list the files in an
uninstalled package, tell which package a file on the drive
belongs to, list the files installed by a package, etc.
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: bytes256 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: X Windows must DIE!!!
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 14:29:14 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It was the Thu, 04 May 2000 13:17:03 GMT...
> ...and bytes256 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > My point is quite simply put: XWindows does not best meet the needs
of
> > the average Linux user. It is far more complicated than necessary.
> > And then it leaves out important functionality that people want.
> > (Standardized controls, High performance, easy installation, etc.)
>
> Please
> a) explain why these issues should be addressed by a goddamn windowing
> system of all things
> b) prove to me that this is not only what people want, but also that
> they are willing to accept negative effects of realising it.
>
> mawa
> --
> Who'd A Thought It, Alabama | Toad Suck, Arkansas | Two Egg,
> Eek, Alaska | Turkey Scratch, Arkansas | Florida
> Greasy Corner, Arkansas | Zyzx Springs, California |
> -- U.S.
placenames
>
I think i've finally realized why criticism of X really pisses you
zealots off. X is the one area where WinBLOZE beats Linux and UN*X in
general. Granted, i absolutely adore Linux (I USE IT WHENEVER I CAN!)
but let's face it's not perfect (no present OS is).
Is it such a bad thing to completely overhaul a dinosaur?
(I could be wrong about this but) Surely this wouldn't be the first
time that an integral part of the UNIX architecture was replaced with
something superior. Reliable signals, for instance.
--
And if you listen very hard
The tune will come to you at last.
When all are one and one is all
To be a rock and not to roll. -Led Zeppelin
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Office Linux Edition!
Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 09:43:04 -0400
Mark Weaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:SU1Q4.2899$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Rich C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:390ef2de@news...
> > Mark Weaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:VV%O4.2245$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > Real Windows code??? DOS-based shit on Linux...that would go over
like
> a
> > > > cement cloud.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The Win32 subsystem has nothing in particular to do with DOS (it
exists
> on
> > > both 9.x and NT). Windows doesn't need DOS to run Win32 applications.
> > And
> > > there are already Win32 subsystems for Unix using MS licensed code
(from
> > > Bristol and Mainsoft) and they've been available for years.
> >
> > The Virtual Machine Manager, the device that allows Windows to
> > multitask windows (and DOS) programs is the thing that crashes
> > most often on my system. If you don't believe that there is DOS code
> > in Win9x, just oepn up the System Information app and see how many
> > 16 bit drivers and other chunks of code are loaded.
> >
>
> No--I'm not saying there's no DOS code in Win 9.x -- only that DOS code is
> not required to run 32-bit Windows apps (as NT/2000 demonstrates--which
run
> Win32 apps w/o DOS code. Ergo, a Win32 subsystem could be added to Linux
> w/o DOS code.
But NT/2000 is not fully compatible with all legacy apps or hardware. In my
case, I still
run 2 mission critical applications that were designed for Win3.1, and which
probably
have 16-bit code in them. While Win98 warns me about running them, they DO
work,
and they DON'T crash. I haven't tried, but I seriously doubt that they would
work at all
under Win 2000 or any strictly Win32 emulator that MS could put out.
Therefore,
such an emulator would be incomplete, so why not stick with the original OS?
>
> >
> > So do I. Nor do I intend to use my Linux machines to run Windows apps.
> > Running an emulator of a crappy OS when you have the original crappy
> > OS is a worthless endeavor, and was the point of the above statement.
> >
> > And this endeavor is especially worthless if the source of the crappy
> > emulator is Microsoft.
>
> I can assure you that the vast majority of computer users are not such
> purists--they want an OS that runs all the software they use to get their
> work done--and they drive the market. The ability to run 32-bit Windows
> applications fully and reliably under Linux (that is, as reliably as fully
> as they run under Windows) would be a major competitve advantage for a
That's the whole issue isn't it? Any win32 subsystem that MS designs would
undoubtedly run as root, and with MS's track record of flouting security
issues
for "wizard-like" operation, their intrusion into the OS would undoubtedly
render
it useless as the reasonably secure, partitioned, multi-tasking, multi-user
OS that it
currently is.
> desktop Linux distribution--whether you like it or not. Microsoft (and
only
> MS) is in a position to produce a complete Win32 subsystem for Linux.
That
> gives them a lot of potential leverage in the Linux market if they decide
to
> use it--again, like it or not.
I'll agree with you here. The sheep that are the vast majority of computer
users,
same sheep that open mail attachments without scanning or even looking at
them,
would gravitate to such an abomination like children to an abusive parent.
--
Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 15:15:02 GMT
"CG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 5 May 2000 08:20:29 -0400, "Nik Simpson"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You missed the point. the reason this worm spread so quickly is
> because so many people use outlook, and the only reason so many people
> use outlook is because M$ gives it away for free, and the only reason
> M$ gives it away for free is to bankrupt companies writing email
> programs, so that M$ can extend its monopoly grip to all software on
> your computer. Once that happens M$ can charge plenty for its crappy
> email program.
Email programs I have used, and price paid:
Elm $0
Pine $0
Eudora $0
Pegasus $0
Netscape $0
Notes $$$$
CDE Mailer $0
Outlook Express $0
The only competitor that charges money is Notes, and Notes is really much
more than a mail reader (if all you want is mail, you don't buy Notes). I
still use Notes, mainly because the company I work for uses it (for internal
mail, it's really nice). And, on occasion I still use Netscape mail, which
is a good mail program, and can launch the worm as well as Outlook Express.
-- Mike --
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: 5 May 2000 15:18:47 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Nik Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Checking the Microsoft home page. Not even a mention of the virus. It is
>> Microsoft's fault that the "ILOVEYOU" virus can spread so quickly and so
>> bad, and they don't even mention it on their site.
>>
>> They have had ample warning, and ample evidence that their e-mail client
>> design is far too insecure for real use, and they have had ample time to
>> fix it. Because of their monopoly, they have no incentive to fix it.
>> Because they are a monopoly, industry, world wide, suffers. If there was
>> competition, this would have been fixed way before Malissa even showed
>> up.
> You are right MLW, what you've just said is Bullshit. This virus type could
> be written to work just as well in UNIX if attachments can be executed from
> email, is that not possible with Netscape on LINUX?
Then do it. I'll happily test it for you on:
Mandrake linux 7.0
Redhat 6.2
SuSe 6.3
I'll happily check my email apon notification that its been sent with:
Netscape
Balsa
pine
elm
mutt
You write it, ill run it. I shall give you no clues at all about how any of
the three systems are set up---that should be utterly irrelevant. (since
it is under windows apparantly).
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: aflinsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Oracle 8i and Mandrake 7.0
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 11:10:46 -0500
Craig Kelley wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > I try to install Oracle 8i on the Linux Mandrake 7.0. I got the JRE 116
> > V5 because the installation process need this product. I put the all
> > libraries under the path /usr/local/jre in fact it is the link as ln -
> > s /usr/local/jre116_V5 /usr/local/jre. After that i start the process
> > from the CD of Oracle runInstaller and i got the following messages
> > Jaca script... and so on and the fatidique message "mauvaise adresse"
> > so how can i do to install Oracle. Can somebody help me?
>
> This should work for you:
>
> http://technet.oracle.com/tech/linux/htdocs/install.pdf
>
> The Oracle installer is broken; you're probably running the wrong
> installer in the first place as well.
>
In addition to the installer being broken, make sure that you do not
create a sample database, as that is also broken. Skip that part of
the install and then apply latest patcheset from Oracle, before you
create a database.
I got Oracle 8i running under mandrake 6.0, then upgraded to 6.1
without any problems, and without having to recompile the kernel. When
I upgraded to 7.0, oracle just refused to work (don't remember the
exact error message). The fix for that was to NOT use the "secure"
kernel, that was installed. Any of the other kernels seem to work just
fine.
Once you finally do get Oracle installed and running, check out
http://oracle.mattshouse.com/ and get all of the goodies.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (david parsons)
Subject: Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots
Date: 5 May 2000 07:14:45 -0700
In article <8enqcq$rh4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
John Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Full Name wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>>On Tue, 2 May 2000 10:28:41 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Geoff
>>Lane) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>The ideal personal computer system has yet to appear. All we know at the
>>>moment is the current systems suck. The only way to discover the best is
>>>try the rest.
>>
>>By "we" I assume you mean Lunix advocates who refuse to learn how to
>>set up and maintain a reliable Win95/98 system.
>
>Never met ANYBODY who could set up a reliable Win95/98 system.
You don't get out much, I suspect.
Windows is very very VERY picky about the hardware it runs on (the
anti-Linux propaganda here by people who say that Windows supports
Soooo Much Mooore Hardware runs contrary to my experience) but once
I've got it set up >on hardware it likes< it tends to run reliably
for a long long time.
If it doesn't like the hardware, it's a complete nightmare, and even
if it does like the hardware and you don't have a recovery disk from
the box maker (a given if you build your machines from scratch)
installation or reinstallation can take 10s of hours, but once you've
got it on the machine and you've welded the case shut so that punters
can't come in and add new hardware, you're set.
But, alas, it's still a pretty klunky operating system that doesn't
seem to take advantage of any of the prior art out there (this also
applies to NT, of course; IBM may have originated Not Invented Here,
but Microsoft has managed to squander their mountain of technical
talent by not harvesting prior art until the rain of flaming
hardware makes it difficult for the executives to drive to the
Redmond campus.)
____
david parsons \bi/ Perhaps when MS is broken up the OS group will port
\/ the Windows user interface to Linux. That would make
a far more appealing combination than Windows+Windows
or Unix+X.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (david parsons)
Subject: Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots
Date: 5 May 2000 07:18:40 -0700
In article <8et3g8$860$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm sorry COCKSUSCKER , but being a MAN means liking wowen and later
>becoming a FATHER, not going crazy over some hairy dudes ASS.
Really? Could have fooled me; I thought that the requirement for
being a man was the Y chromosone, not any silly cultural prejudices.
Perhaps when you graduate from high schrool you'll get a better idea
of how the world really works.
____
david parsons \bi/ It's perfectly possible to be a father and still be
\/ attracted to a nice furry ass.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (david parsons)
Subject: Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots
Date: 5 May 2000 07:47:03 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Anyway how is a home network with internet connection sharing, printer
>sharing, scanner sharing and firewall set up easily under Linux?
Same way you do with Windows -- buy a $300 box that plugs into the
phone line and your ethernet network, then plug it in, configure it,
and forget about it.
>Know how you do all of the above with Windows 98se or Win2k?
>Select internet connection sharing in help and the wizard does it all
>for you.
If the only reason to use Windows 2k is to do connection sharing,
it's cheaper to just buy a little NAT/firewall box than to buy NT (or
NT + a computer if you want the luxury of being able to restart your
personal computer without blowing away everyone else on the network);
Intel, Linksys, Netgear, and Apple have boxes for modems, ISDN, and
xDSL for under $300, while Lucent, Netopia, and Watchguard have them
for under $600. And as far as know, all of these boxes (with the
exception of the Apple box, which you need to configure with a Mac or
the Karlbridge bridge/router configuration program) are web-managable,
so you don't have to use a PC to set them up.
>I spent 3 weeks trying to get a network working under Linux and
>finally gave up. And another thing, the default set up is a real
>security risk even selecting Medium security under Mandrake. FTP,
>Telnet and other ports were wide open.
Mandrake != Linux.
Just because one particular distribution has security holes doesn't
mean that every distribution has security holes.
____
david parsons \bi/ though I wish that Windows preserved its old plaintext
\/ password security hole, because it's a real pain to
integrate with yellowpages otherwise.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: How to Avoid EMAIL VIRUSES 101
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 10:24:06 -0500
How to avoid email viruses:
A computer virus is two things:
1. A program
2. A program that can copy itself and spread those copies.
What makes an email message a virus? Pay attention, you
already know the answer:
1. The email message is a program.
2. The program copies itself and spreads those copies.
A "program" is a sequence of computer executable
instructions. For a program to get control of your
computer, the program must be "executed". This is sort of
like following a recipe in cooking. The recipe is not
executed until somebody follows the cooking instructions and
actually bakes the cake or makes the candy. Until then, the
recipe is simply a harmless list of words. So the
"execution" of the recipe is what brings it to life.
****!!!!!*****!!!!****
Now we get to the key question:
Why is it possible that an email message is a program?
****!!!!!*****!!!!****
It turns out we can thank Microsoft for this screwed up
idea. After watching a panel of 3 experts on ABC's
Nightline tonight, along with Ted Koppel, none of them even
mentioned the real cause of email viruses. Baffoons,
probably on the Microsoft payroll, even the guy from
Symantec didn't get to the heart of the matter.
Here's the cause of email viruses:
Microsoft "Outlook" is an email utility that many many
people are using because apparently it is readily available
at low to no cost from Microsoft. MS Outlook is the only
email utility that I know of that can execute an email
message. Therefore, IMHO we can blame Microsoft and
Microsoft alone for virtually all email viruses.
Here's an analogy using snail mail. Let's say the mailman
brings you a package and in the package is a recipe for some
wiz bang flourescent candy. There is no sender's address,
or at least you do not know who the recipe is from. The
recipe happens to call for benzene and a number of other
poisonous chemicals, but you don't even know they're
poisonous
because you are not a chemistry major. The final step of
the recipe is to feed the flourescent candy to your kids.
Would you "execute" this recipe? No, you know better.
But what if the mailman gave you an option of making the
recipe for you in your own kitchen? To extend the analogy,
let's say the mailman says at time of delivery, "Say, I see
you have just received a recipe here, would you like me to
cook it up for you in your kitchen?"
Nobody in their right mind would say yes, especially if the
recipe is barely understandable and from an unknown source.
You'd look at the mailman and say, "You stay the hell out of
my kitchen, damn you! I want a new mailman!"
Nearing the end of the lesson now, final exam question:
Why are people using Microsoft Outlook?
U.S. citizens are paying taxes to a government that is suing
Microsoft because Microsoft has a monopoly. We can be
thankful for that. However, the monopoly seems to have
come about because folks simply use Microsoft software
without thinking of alternatives.
It's time we started thinking. Email viruses cannot exist
if email utilties don't execute email messages.
There are a number of free email clients that simply deliver
the mail and do not execute it:
Here is one and there are others:
http://www.pegasus.usa.com/
No, I am not affiliated with Pegasus, but I do use it and
like it, and I do not like the idea of email viruses.
Let's all work to make the phrase "email virus" and oxymoron
by boycotting email utilities that execute email messages.
Sincerely,
A concerned, tax paying U.S. citizen that see's an easier
way to solving the monopoly problem.
Please copy EVERYONE that you think might benefit from this
information.
P.S. Microsoft slogans:
"Where do you want to go today?" I say, not to Outlook.
"The best is yet to come." I say, after billions of dollars
damage yesterday only to users of MS Outlook, how can you
top that?
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: apache.org defaced
Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 11:30:30 -0400
http://www.attrition.org/mirror/attrition/2000/05/03/www.apache.org/
say... what's that at the bottom of the page?!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (I R A Darth Aggie)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: X Windows must DIE!!!
Date: 5 May 2000 15:39:38 GMT
Reply-To: no-courtesy-copies-please
On Fri, 05 May 2000 14:29:14 GMT,
bytes256 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, in
<8eulr6$u97$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+ Is it such a bad thing to completely overhaul a dinosaur?
No. Where is your code? You may want to take a look at
<url:http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/xbloat.html>, you might be able to
find a suitable project to work on...
James
--
Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
The Bill of Rights is paid in Responsibilities - Jean McGuire
To cure your perl CGI problems, please look at:
<url:http://www.perl.com/CPAN/doc/FAQs/cgi/idiots-guide.html>
------------------------------
From: Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 11:48:02 -0400
On 5 May 2000 15:18:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
>>
>> You are right MLW, what you've just said is Bullshit. This virus type could
>> be written to work just as well in UNIX if attachments can be executed from
>> email, is that not possible with Netscape on LINUX?
>
>Then do it. I'll happily test it for you on:
>
>Mandrake linux 7.0
>Redhat 6.2
>SuSe 6.3
>
>I'll happily check my email apon notification that its been sent with:
>
>Netscape
>Balsa
>pine
>elm
>mutt
>
>You write it, ill run it. I shall give you no clues at all about how any of
>the three systems are set up---that should be utterly irrelevant. (since
>it is under windows apparantly).
>
If I send you an email with an attached "rm -rf $HOME/*" script and
you run it, your files will be deleted.
If I send you an email with an attached "rm -rf /*" script and you run
it, most of your system will be deleted if you're the superuser (which
all Win9x users effectively are).
So the best you can do here is blame Win9x for not being multiuser.
Then again, that would be stupid because MS has been offering a
multiuser OS for nearly a decade.
In any case, blaming Outlook, VBScript, or WSH is idiotic. Actually,
it's the very essence of FUD, and as such it's misleading and
destructive.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: apache.org defaced
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 15:54:36 GMT
On Fri, 5 May 2000 11:30:30 -0400, Drestin Black
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>http://www.attrition.org/mirror/attrition/2000/05/03/www.apache.org/
>
>say... what's that at the bottom of the page?!
Somebody claiming responsibilty already posted how they did it to BugTraq.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
