Linux-Advocacy Digest #375, Volume #26 Fri, 5 May 00 13:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Why monopolies are a danger? (Juan Pablo Hierro =?iso-8859-1?Q?=C1lvarez?=)
Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots (JEDIDIAH)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Web page rendering Linux (KDE) vs. windows 2000 (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! (Russell Wallace)
Re: X Windows must DIE!!! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Virus on the net?
Re: Virus on the net?
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! ("Nik Simpson")
Re: apache.org defaced (Tim Kelley)
Re: Virus on the net? (Craig Kelley)
Re: Government to break up Microsoft (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Virus on the net? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: What else is hidden in MS code??? (Craig Kelley)
Re: Linux Installation from Hell (2:1)
Re: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!! (Craig Kelley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Juan Pablo Hierro =?iso-8859-1?Q?=C1lvarez?=)
Subject: Why monopolies are a danger?
Date: 5 May 2000 16:23:43 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ILOVEYOU
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 16:24:09 GMT
On 5 May 2000 07:47:03 -0700, david parsons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
Cablemodem routers go for ~ $130 these days.
[deletia]
>>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.
While running a telnet deamon is not the brightest thing to do.
Running one on a dynamic IP is a little less of a problem than
having a nice juicy non-moving target to present to the world.
Besides, just 'cause you're running telnetd it doesn't meant that
the bulk of the world can actually use it (tcp wrappers are your
friend).
>
> Just because one particular distribution has security holes doesn't
> mean that every distribution has security holes.
Nah. Most of the 'ease of use' distros are that way.
No matter how well thought out you think your defaults are,
someone won't like them. Then, they have to be bright enough
to change them.
Any tcp wrapper or inetd configuration bits for webmin or linuxconf?
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 16:27:48 GMT
On Fri, 05 May 2000 11:48:02 -0400, Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
...that's a pretty big IF.
That also strikes at the core of the difference between Unix and
WinDOS. Things of that nature simply aren't done for a marginal
gain in 'convenience'.
The notion of an email virus was once considered generally absurd.
I suppose that's one 'innovation' that Microsoft can legitimately
claim title to... <snicker>
>
>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.
No it isn't.
Treating binaries like inert data is BAD BAD BAD.
Automatic execution of random code is BAD BAD BAD.
There's no two ways around it.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Web page rendering Linux (KDE) vs. windows 2000
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 16:32:16 GMT
On Fri, 5 May 2000 01:06:02 -0400, Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Tue, 2 May 2000 02:56:10 -0400, Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >
>> >JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> On Mon, 1 May 2000 01:00:13 -0400, Jim Ross
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >wrote:
>> >> >> As of yet, this is painfully true indeed.
>> >> >> Thread support in Linux has been just fine for 6 months or so,
>> >> >> though. The biggest problems lie in speed and user-friendliness.
>> >> >> These two problems have, however, recently been addressed with
>> >> >> the advent of XFree86 4.0, which is still not to be considered
>> >> >> stable enough for distributing.
>> >> >> I heard, though not experienced, that the adding of
>> >> >> (Truetype-)fonts is much easier than before.
>> >> >> Also, the X-system (finally) gets a hook into the kernel (DRI),
>> >> >> which improves speed -dramatically-. This would finally make
>> >> >> high-bandwidth DV a possibility, as well as high-performance
>> >> >> gaming.
>> >> >
>> >> >Now if anti-aliasing support gets done I'll be very happy.
>> >> >Even with TrueType fonts, without anti-aliasing, fonts look jagged.
>> >> >
>> >> >I know I'm being picky on this, but it would make Linux+X look much
>more
>> >> >professional,
>> >> >especially when viewing a presentation were the first slide usually
>> >contains
>> >> >a large font and a picture.
>> >> >Everyone notices I'm sure, if not understanding why it looks bad.
>> >>
>> >> a) You can get similar results with Type 1 fonts.
>> >
>> >Not out of the box and not without tinkering.
>>
>> Bullshit.
>
>Well, your Bullshit is bullshit. The eyes don't lie.
Mine don't. I'm not so sure about your fingers however.
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Russell Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 17:36:08 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Russell Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >And yet I've been running Win 95 for the last three years and never
> >reinstalled it, nor tinkered with the registry. It's crashed once so far
> >this year, and that was when I was debugging some of my C++ code that screwed
> >up the message queue - and then it gave enough warning that I could have
> >saved work in memory if I'd had any. I've installed and uninstalled many
> >gigabytes of software - applications, development tools, games - without
> >trouble. I do find it advisable to reboot once a week or thereabouts,
> >otherwise performance starts dragging, presumably due to memory leaks and
> >suchlike. Other than that the machine is up 24 hours a day, and under pretty
> >heavy load for a desktop machine.
>
> >What conclusions to draw from these anecdotes, I will leave up to the reader.
>
> If you were doing something like word processing with M$ crapware the machine
> would not stay up for a full morning, much less the weeks you claim.
Haven't used MS Word enough to comment on its reliability one way or the
other.
> -- BTW,
> if you have a cure I know a major corporations, several actually, who will pay
> big bucks if you can show them how to make Wincrap stay and running.
Here are what I've found to be the most important points; you're welcome
to forward this to said corporations if you wish:
1. Don't use a new Windows release for at least a year. I've the 1996
version of Windows 95, which is significantly more reliable than the
1995 version. Similarly, wait until 2001 to try Windows 2000.
2. Don't tinker with it. Don't twiddle settings, manually edit the
registry, etc. Regard it as having no user serviceable parts inside.
3. Don't run memory resident programs. Office toolbar, fax software,
resident virus checkers (which cause more problems than a typical virus
infestation) - don't tolerate any of them.
(I break this rule for ICQ because it's so damn useful, but it's the
only exception. Corporate desktops shouldn't need it, though.)
For application developers, there's also:
4. Never use shared DLLs or other code fragments. Statically link your
application, or if you must use DLLs, put them in you application
directory; never put anything in C:\WINDOWS or count on anything being
there that didn't ship with the operating system.
(I'm told Windows 2000 does something to fix that one, which is good
news. Still wait until 2001 to try it, though :))
--
"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem."
Russell Wallace
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: X Windows must DIE!!!
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 16:35:02 GMT
On Fri, 05 May 2000 14:29:14 GMT, bytes256 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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!)
I what?
Flexibility? X has always been more flexible.
Features? X has always had more features.
3D? Nope, X beat Windows on that as well.
Speed? Nope, X implementations have always been
able to keep up with Windows on the same
hardware. Today, even the FREE X implementation
can.
>but let's face it's not perfect (no present OS is).
>Is it such a bad thing to completely overhaul a dinosaur?
As dinosaurs go, it's not so bad.
>(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.
"Reliable signals"? : sounds like a TCP socket.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Virus on the net?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 16:37:41 GMT
On Thu, 4 May 2000 13:45:15 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Martijn Bruns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Has anyone heard of a new virus on the net?
>> >
>> > It's called 'I Love U'. (or something that sounds like that) and
>> > it seems to be infecting a LOT of companies around the globe
>> > right now!
>> > Also, it seems to infect Windows PC's running Outlook (Express?).
>> >
>> > It was on the radio surrounded by a mild case of panic :-)
>> >
>> > Does someone know more about it? Could something like this affect
>> > Linux-machines also?
>>
>> 1) Most Linux e-mail clients aren't dumb enough to run code sent in
>> e-mail, and there's no "give me all your friend's e-mail addresss"
>> API either.
>
>No, but there's a mail aliases list in the users home directory that could
>easily be read.
>
>> 2) Linux doesn't run VBS. :)
>
>No, instead it has sh.
>
>
So fucking what? No linux e-mail client automatically executes
attachments.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Virus on the net?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 16:38:11 GMT
On Thu, 4 May 2000 15:48:13 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8esgeo$46$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> <snip!>
>>
>> :> 1) Most Linux e-mail clients aren't dumb enough to run code sent in
>> :> e-mail, and there's no "give me all your friend's e-mail addresss"
>> :> API either.
>>
>> : No, but there's a mail aliases list in the users home directory that
>could
>> : easily be read.
>>
>> There is? Where? Surely you don't mean .aliases
>
>Oh, of course, you keep all your email aliases in your head.
>
>> :> 2) Linux doesn't run VBS. :)
>>
>> : No, instead it has sh.
>>
>> Not having VBS protects Linux against these sorts of email viruses
>> that Outlook runs automatically. I know of no email programs that
>> execute shell scripts short of actually saving them to disk and
>> explicitly running them. It's not VB in particular, but the
>> auto-executing of content that's such a killer in this case.
>
>Sorry, but this virus is *NOT* run automatically. It's only run by
>executing the script attachment. The user must physicall execute the file.
>
The standard settings for outlook were to automatically execute
attachments.
Get over it.
------------------------------
From: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 12:44:35 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8eulco$1nv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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?
>
> Sure, but it would only affect the users files, not the entire computer.
Same goes for NT.
--
Nik Simpson
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: apache.org defaced
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 11:53:07 -0500
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> http://www.attrition.org/mirror/attrition/2000/05/03/www.apache.org/
>
> say... what's that at the bottom of the page?!
considering that NT/IIS accounts for about 20% of web servers,
and
about - consistently - over 60% of the defacements, I don't think
you are really going to get anywhere with this. Put your tail
back between your legs and go back to c.o.m.n.a.
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Virus on the net?
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 05 May 2000 10:53:38 -0600
David Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This virus (macro) devestated Germany today. It propagated itself,
> destroyed jpeg files, set IE to about:blank (big deal:)) and our company
> is trying to discover if more damage was done. A lot of important
> graphical data was destroyed and it will take a long time (very
> expensive) to repair. The virus made the radio news just a couple of
> hours after affecting our company. The SAP, a large bank, MediaMarkt,
> and many other large companies were affected.
Why?
After we got the first mail, I put a filter on the Subject: header,
and it stomped out all the future mailings. We were on the lookout
(still are, but now we have the antivirus defs installed on the mail
server [sendmail using Mcafee, BTW]) for mutations, but none were
encountered.
Your email server should make this sort of thing very easy to do, if
it doesn't then you should get a new one.
--
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] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Government to break up Microsoft
Date: 5 May 2000 11:53:28 -0500
In article <uBPY$FNt$GA.295@cpmsnbbsa04>, <btolder> wrote:
>
>"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8emu6m$1p6f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Compression isn't the problem - that is negotiated correctly so
>> the other end is not required to match to establish a
>> connection. I'm talking about MS-CHAP which ended up
>> being painfully patched into everybody else's equipment.
>
>Standard CHAP was lacking in several areas. It needed the improvements.
Yes, it needed some standard encryptions, but the insecure
lanman hash shouldn't have been one of them.
>
>> >I think Microsoft assumed a leadership position for PPP.
>>
>> Does leadership mean going your own way and demanding that
>> everyone else follow?
>
>MS-CHAP was adopted by other platforms because of clear advantages. Given
>that Unix servers run the Internet, how was Microsoft in a position to
>dictate PPP extensions? It happened simply because there were numerous good
>things about MS-CHAP.
Microsoft was supplying the client software installed on 90% of
new machines people were buying at the time. On the server
side people had a choice of updating their hardware to
match the non-standard extensions, losing their customers to
MSN, or replacing the hardware with NT servers running RAS.
>In many ways, I'm glad Microsoft doesn't always wait around for consensus.
>Consensus can take too long. Look at Khronos. Microsoft had that over two
>years ago. By the time the industry decides what will make all the Khronos
>members happy, Microsoft will have honed DirectX to lethal precision. Then,
>I suppose, we can sit back and listen to everyone whine that Microsoft
>didn't ask their opinion and that Microsoft is being unfair.
What is it, and how does it relate to intentionally failing to
interoperate with standards-conforming vendors?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Virus on the net?
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 16:51:26 GMT
In article <mJpQ4.4498$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> Auto-executing content is part of what makes windows user friendly,
> and Linux will have to do this if it ever wants to play in the same
> game as Windows. That's simply a fact. Users won't put up with it
> when they have an OS which will do that for them.
Sun's sendmail used to be configured to automatically uudecode email
for its users. That's one of the reasons sendmail has such a bad
security rep. A few more virus's and I suspect MS will be as
user-unfriendly as unix.
Playing 'the same game' is an interesting phrase. I wonder which
upsets management more: That another virus has wasted hours of their
sysadmin's valuable time or that a significant portion of their
employees seem to fall all over each other in an attempt to read
'IloveU' emails first. It's gotten to the point where I won't even
look at attachments anymore. I figure if a person can't express
himself without resorting to pictures, he probably doesn't have
anything interesting to say, anyway. All I want is a reasonably
coherent message and I'd like to read it in the font of my choice.
In any event, it seems as though employers have given their employees
a nice little toy that serves no purpose other than keeping the IT
department busy.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What else is hidden in MS code???
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 05 May 2000 11:01:20 -0600
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >Hard disk serial numbers are not guaranteed to be unique. Two hard disks
> > >can exist with the same ID. It's unlikely, but it can happen. And since
> > >components that use them can be shipped all over the world, the odds of a
> > >clash are even higher. Random numbers are not guaranteed to be unique
> > >either. It's possible for two systems to generate the exact same random
> > >number. Again, not likely, but possible. MAC addresses are guaranteed
> by
> > >the IEEE to be unique.
> >
> > I'll bet you a year's salary that I can come up with two distinct
> > ethernet cards with the same MAC address. Wanna play?
>
> If this is the case, then one of the ethernet card vendors is not playing by
> the rules.
Hell, you can change the MAC address using software tools on many
(most?) ethernet cards out there today.
You should never rely on the MAC address for anything *really*
important. But, then again, 999 times out of a 1000, it'll be just
fine.
--
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: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Installation from Hell
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 13:47:51 +0100
Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>
> There is a kick ass tutorial on this subject at
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org. This will walk you through absolutely
> every step of building a distribution from ground zero. From what
> programs you need just to get functioning, to how to continue
> development once the system is up. Worth a look as it may solve your
> entire dilema for you.
>
> Jay Lee
I *have* to try this when I GET THE TIME :-)
-ED
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold weather is
because
of all the fish in the atmosphere?
-The Hackenthorpe Book Of Lies
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!!
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 05 May 2000 11:07:53 -0600
Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 4 May 2000 19:51:58 -0700, "Stephen S. Edwards II"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Huh? Was that Jeff and Stephen actually complaining about Windows?
I'm saving those posts for posterity. ;)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
