Linux-Advocacy Digest #392, Volume #26 Sat, 6 May 00 22:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: X Windows must DIE!!! (Christopher Browne)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! ("Rich C")
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! ("Rich C")
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! ("Rich C")
Built in Virus Scanners! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation' ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Call me Paranoid - Re: What else is hidden in MS code??? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Virus on the net? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (Bart Oldeman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: X Windows must DIE!!!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 06 May 2000 23:38:01 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Tom Hoffmann would say:
>That's X-Window (singular).
Don't bother fixing this.
It's like trying to teach a pig how to dance. It will just frustrate
you, and annoy the pig.
>In article <Us5O4.1293$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>(Christopher Browne) wrote:
>> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when bytes256 would say:
>>>Am I the only one here who thinks that X Windows is crap? X Windows is
>>>extremely archaic, ridiculously bloated, way too slow, and extremely
>>>hard to install.
>>>
>>>Let's get rid of it completely.
>>
>> Feel free.
>>
>> What were you planning to run distributed graphical applications on top
>> of, as a replacement for X?
The thing to respond to is the facts of the matter.
I would _agree_ with claims that X languished, unimproving, for several
years.
The Open Group had this idea that they could sell lots of consulting
services by enhancing X with "Broadway," and allowing users to run Excel
inside Netscape. And sort of forgot that people cared about multimedia,
and might need sound. So, we got Broadway, which I'm not sure _anyone_
actually got working, but NAS didn't get touched from about 1996 to 1999.
But even to the extent to which X is "crap," all the would-be alternatives
are unacceptable for more and bigger reasons. Whether it's a license
that virtually forbids commercial deployment (MGR), or something like
libsvga, that is comparatively lacking in services. Or something that
is, thus far, utterly experimental, like GnuStep and Berlin.
--
"X is like pavement: once you figure out how to lay it on the ground
and paint yellow lines on it, there isn't much left to say about
it. The exciting new developments are happening in things that run ON
TOP of the pavement, like cars, bicycles, trucks, and motorcycles."
-- Eugene O'Neil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/xbloat.html>
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 20:25:25 -0400
"Bart Oldeman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 6 May 2000, Rich C wrote:
>
> > But this DOES bring out an inherent flaw in OE, as it doesn't
distinguish
> > between "opening" a document file, such as text or a jpeg, and "opening"
a
> > program, ie., running it.
>
> As it is, any e-mail client (not just OE) that can execute
> dangerous attachments is dangerous.
Yes, but not as dangerous as an e-mail client that does not do enough to
distinguish an EXECUTABLE program from a text or graphic document. As a
test, I created a file with a .vbs extension. The icon that Windows assigned
was a scrolled document with an "s" shape. Try it. It looks VERY much like a
text file or some other document file icon. If I saw this icon with no other
information associated with it, i would assume it was for some form of
content. The script icon is shown in the paper clip window in miniature
format.
The SAME virus warning occurs whether or not you are opening an exe file, a
.vbs file or a .gif, or .jpg file (I don't know about .txt files--I don't
have any in my in box at the moment. Funny, though, the warning DOESN'T show
up with .avi files or .doc files.) To my mind, there is not enough of a
distinction, and people will get too used to seeing this message appear on
just about EVERY email attachment they open.
>
> They could do the following: if the attachment has potentially
> dangerous executable contents it brings up the following (after a virus
> scan or whatever):
They COULD just not execute programs or scripts from Outlook. If MS is so
friggin' smart, why don't they invoke an installed virus scanning program on
the file before running it? (Oh, that's right, I forgot, there is no
Microsoft Antivirus program. Oh well, forget it then, they can just keep
reminding me that Outlook is not the default mail/news reader.)
[snip]
-- Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
>
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 20:47:44 -0400
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8f27j9$u7b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:3914941c@news...
> > "Ned Nondo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > It never did autoexecute. The file was named ILOVEYOU.TXT.vbs or
something
> > like that, which hoodwinked unsuspecting users into thinking it was a
text
> > file. The fact that it was a program was the furthest thing from their
> > minds, since most probably had no clue as to what the .vbs extension
> meant.
> > They simply double-clicked it from the attachment window, and bang.
> >
> > But this DOES bring out an inherent flaw in OE, as it doesn't
distinguish
> > between "opening" a document file, such as text or a jpeg, and "opening"
a
> > program, ie., running it.
>
> That's because one of the main functionality targets of a GUI like Windows
> (or Mac, BeOS, OS/2, KDE etc) is *not* to distinguish between such things.
>
Yes but there IS a difference, and the OS knows it. It knows enough to fetch
and execute the registered program for a graphic file or a doc file, why
can't it do a virus scan at the very least, if the user has one installed?
Or warn me to save and scan the file first, with a DIFFERENT warning dialog?
And why does outlook have to warn me about a registered file type anyway?
The worst that could happen is the associated program won't recognize the
file format if there is something wrong with it. Why does it have to warn me
about gif and jpeg files, when it's already opened them and shown them to me
in the preview window? It just blurs the line between ordinary attachments
and dangerous ones.
Not very well thought out, if you ask me.
-- Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 20:57:04 -0400
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Christopher Smith wrote:
> >
> > "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Outlook makes it *too* easy to fsck up your computer.
> > >
> > > All those handy APIs and friendly double-clicks lead to disaster.
> >
> > Damn straight. We should all go back to flicking switches on a control
> > panel to get anywhere. Bah, not even that. Vacuum tubes all the way,
baby
> > !
>
> Hey, toggling in the start address, entering the initial register value,
> and pressing the run button, is what made computers fun in the '70s. I
> could boot up the PDP 8 in no time.
A dear old friend of mine (accent on the"old" :o)) is PROUD of the fact that
he used to be able to toggle in the entire DECtape bootloader into an 11/34
console from memory! (His memory, not the computer's.)
-- Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
>
> --
> 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: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Built in Virus Scanners!
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Sun, 07 May 2000 01:12:46 GMT
Microsoft products don't have built in Virus scanning.
That's something you have to add at both the workstation
and server level.
But a virus scanner will do little to stop a VB script.
It's more intelligent to have an operating system which
forces a user or a system administrator to declare a file
or script as an executable BEFORE it can be launched.
This is the basic flaw in the Microsoft system as any=20
file can be deemed executable simply by changing it's=20
extention. And a systems administrator can't change that.
Where in the Unix or Linux or BSD models, the *NIX's, we
see that you have to delcare a file as an executable OR
allow script launching by giving access to programs such
as perl before executables may be triggered by scripts.
The *nix world doesn't use extensions to tell the operating
system the MEANING of file structures. =20
Let's back up a minute! Microsoft was a serious force in
the 80's with most folks who wanted a small, lightweight=20
personal computer operating system. The problem is they
stuck to this philosophy as they matured into networking.
See, a small, lightweight personal computer operating system doesn't=20
need serious security. And to introduce
such security was a frustration for the target audience of
the operating system; which was the untrained - typical -
U.S. Homeowner. =20
They wanted the system to be able to do some light book-keeping and=20
word processing and to play games on! That's=20
what the Microsoft operating system was designed to serve.
And they kept it that way and never changed it. Even in
NT we see the basic structure of Windows 3.11 when it comes
to security issues.
So, it shouldn't be of any great surprise to anyone with
the slightest knowledge of Microsoft that a 12 year old
kid can write a simple VB script and take =BD the world down
in the process!
I'll also say that I was a former supporter of Microsoft.
I was very gun ho in Microsoft from the start thru about
1995. =20
And Linux changed me. And I think Linux changed me because
it's a desktop unix. I can do all those things, light bookkeeping,=20
word processing, E-mail, play games and do so
with security. Do so without fear of viruses as the basic
structure of Linux doesn't allow installation nor execution of=20
programs without the prior approval of root on my system. Root has to=20
be involved before a program is installed or declared runnable in my=20
user account.
And further, if you DID write a specific virus to attack my
machine with a knowledge of how Linux WORKS, then you would
just destroy my personal account which is a very small portion of the=20
hard drive. And I would then have the
system re-install my personal account which takes about 5 minutes and=20
go on from there. You wouldn't accomplish anything to harm me with a=20
virus.
In the Microsoft world, a virus has the reign of the entire
hard drive. There is nothing kept PROTECTED. You don't
have a root account in the Microsoft world, you have at
most a administrator account which doesn't have the same
POWER to control the users as the Unix model does. =20
A Virus induced to a Microsoft system has virtually NOTHING
to stop it from going all over your personal PC and modifying EVERY=20
file you have, or your NETWORK machines either, OR grab your E-mail=20
address book and e-mail everybody, OR FORMAT your DRIVE FLAT. =20
We have protections from all these effects in Linux.
And this is one reason I'm no longer a Microsoft fan.
There are OTHER reasons.
COST is a BIG one! I would spend around $6,000 buying all
the compilers, word processors, SQL databases, games,=20
to do what I'm doing for $45 from Suse on Linux.
SECURITY, COST, and now we talk about dependibilty and upgradability!
My machine doesn't blue screen or need re-booting. I've
had it up for 4 months at a crack between power outages.
It takes a power outage around here to force me to re-boot.
To install a modern copy of Linux only takes about 35 minutes from CD=20
roms and less time if you have a DVD.
You only have to answer about 30 questions concerning YOUR
preferences. All the hardware is detected automatically=20
and most of the operating system is set up by default.
I can share all my devices with the rest of my family and=20
I can even turn my workstations server capabilities on and
share that also.
$45 dollars to buy Suse 6.4 and get all that!=20
Or an honest $6,000 to go the Microsoft way and get an inferior OS. =20
People USED to fear Linux setup. IT's not that hard anymore folks. =20
If I can do it, you can do it.
I got 5 CD's of software and 1 CD of source code for that
$45 plus a huge manual from Suse! Mandrake offers something similar. =20
So does RedHat. Caldera. Many others.
It's already commercially used throughout Chrysler, Ford and General=20
Motors. Siemens, Glaxo Welcome, various other
huge corporations! Mercedes....
Of course, their 'IS' departments are MONSTERS compared
to your's. But I think you can manage!
Isn't it time to change? =20
How many more times will you get caught up in the Microsoft
trap before you realize you NEED to change?
Ask yourself, what are you really doing with Microsoft which couldn't=20
be done equally or better with a copy of
LINUX?
This is the question MORE corporate entities will be asking
this decade.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation'
Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 20:28:26 -0500
Mathias Grimmberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Mathias Grimmberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > But you fail to understand the Biomentrics needs.
>
> I only worked for a biometrics company for some time. ;-)
And i've worked with several Biometrics companies. And i've written apps
that use Biometrics.
> > For instance, you may need to display the scanned fingerprint on the
> > screen, or display a waveform of a voice sample, or any number of
> > other features that are specific to Biomentrics and not generic to
> > logins. Why would you do that? Well, in Fingerprint analysis, it's
> > common to display the scanned image because fingerprint scanning is
> > not 100% perfect. Looking at the image, you can tell if your finger is
> > not positioned properly to get a good reading. And you can use that
> > image to position your finger correctly.
>
> Hmm, I wasn't aware that displaying an image was a particularly
> difficult thing to do with a GUI. It is not generic to logins but it is
> not generic to biometrics either and why should it be in any other API
> at all when it is in the GUI API already?
Displaying the image is not difficult. Getting the Image from the Biometric
module in a standard way is. A common theme in Fingerprint identification
(not just validation, which is much easier than identification) is to show
the user the fingerprint being scanned and then superimposing graphical data
on top which helps show how many minutiae points are identified.
Now, suppose you want the app to determine how accurate a sample you need.
You might say that only 40% accuracy was needed for this application. The
less accuracy you accept, the fewer false negatives you'll have and the
easier it is to use.
> BTW, good luck if you think you can get the general user population to
> cooperate in that way with your software (i.e. repositioning fingers,
> looking properly at the camera). Ain't gonna work out from my
> experience. :-(
In my experience, providing proper user feedback is essential to getting a
good identification.
> > > And PAM is a supported feature on some Linux distros.
> >
> > All PAM does is provide authentication tokens once you've already
> > logged in.
>
> That is at least a start.
A start isn't always good enough.
> > It does nothing to provide additional authentication after the fact.
For
> > instance, take a cash register application. You might want to accept
> > fingerprint identification for managers when another user is already
logged
> > in to validate certain actions.
>
> And the reason to have this capability in the OS is? It is totally
> app-specific and should be handled as such. There are not very many apps
> needing such a capability. Hmm, an app could use PAM modules, could it
> not? /bin/login is not something special.
You can't understand why you would want standardized authentication in the
OS?
> > > > Biometrics support is more than just logins.
> > >
> > > Of course, but you probably want to start there (where else?). With NT
4
> > > you can't (I hear with W2K one could make it work).
> >
> > Of course you can with NT4.
>
> How? I would need to do what LogonUser() (IIRC) does but without
> providing a cleartext password. It would need to be a *documented*
> functionality, not something obtained by reverse-engineering the normal
> login process. AFAIK it is impossible with NT4. Care to name the
> function?
What's wrong with a cleartext password? It's not like the password is being
transmitted over a wire. It's all internal.
I've used biometric logins on NT4 over a year ago.
> > The problem is that this is vendor specific and it's impossible to
> > write generic Biomentric aware applications without writing to each
> > vendors API.
>
> I fail to see the problem. There are only a few apps needing that,
> proper layering/abstraction can solve the problem of multiple vendor
> APIs (granted, has to be redone for every app vendor) and finally the
> app vendor is likely to choose one biometrics vendor of his liking
> anyway (a software vendor working for the Pentagon would take no
> chances with the choice of biometrics modules actually used).
So your argument is that "few apps need this"? If it was available, more
apps would take advantage of it.
Your argument is like the argument for pre-emptive multitasking. "Few
people *NEED* it, so why should my OS have it?" Just because it's not
always needed, it can be wanted.
And not all uses of biometrics are for national defense level security. A
good use is when you have a terminal sitting out in a store somewhere and
you want to make sure only authorized people use it. Biometrics is uncommon
and expensive primarily because there's no standardized way of using it.
> > > > And Biometrics include a host of technologies including fingerprint,
> > > > voiceprint, retinal, image recognition (such as face paterning),
etc..
> > >
> > > Which is precisely the reason why the actual implementation should not
> > > be part of the OS. If you are going to tell me MS (or any company out
> > > there for that matter) will provide working implementations of all
these
> > > you are just naive.
> >
> > No, but the API needs to provide support for these implementations,
> > otherwise there's no point in having a generic API.
>
> That's what I fear, that the API will not support every possible
> biometrics out there. If it would, it would have to be a rather simple
> API, just some hooks basically copying opaque data around. Big
> innovation that...
Why do you say that? I think all use cases can be identified in biometrics.
> > > The stuff doing the actual authentication must be easily exchangeable,
> > > after all there are lots of issues which affect a particular customers
> > > choice of that. Price, security, ease of use, hardware needed and so
on.
> >
> > Exactly, but generic apps need to get access to Biomentric data in a
generic
> > way.
>
> Hmm, hmm. An app never needs access to biometric data, it wouldn't
> understand the bits anyway, no? Unless MS standardized some random
> formats - bad idea and not of much use since data aquisition and
> processing will almost always be done by the the biometrics module
> itself so it would likely require duplication of data in different
> formats.
Untrue. Many apps need access to biometric data. Remember, Biometrics
isn't *JUST* about security. For instance, you might use Biometrics for
health related purposes. But the common useage today is for security. As I
said, a common need is to display feedback to the user, and that involves
getting access to the bits.
> An app may need access to a function which identifies the user in front
> of the machine (looking into a camera, putting his finger somewhere,
> ...) or a function verifying that that user is who he said he is (there
> is a huge difference to the former function). And that is basically it.
> Everything else is specific to the biometrics used and must be handled
> by the biometrics module.
Not true. Suppose I want to integrate speech recognition and voice print
recognition (each command must be identified as valid from this person
before processed). Now, I need access to the voice sample to run it through
my speech recognition after it's been validated. How do I do that in a
generic way without calling directly into the vendors API?
> > > Now a standard API is certainly something good. It would also be
> > > something incredibly hard to get right (has to work for all biometric
> > > technologies, known and unknown today - the actual technology used
must
> > > be *exchangeable* or it is largely worthless). Somehow I don't trust
MS
> > > to be able to pull that one off.
> >
> > They did a pretty good job with the CryptoAPI.
>
> You mean the one with the _NSAKEY variable? It's not secure. And no,
> this has nothing to do with "NSA" being a part of that variable name, if
> the rumours where true that would be the second security hole.
Do you know anything about this? MS's CryptoAPI has been reviewed by lots
of security experts. Don't babble about net rumors.
> > > BTW, I fail to see how a standardized API for anything could be called
> > > "innovation", this is a quite old concept. If it's so easy to innovate
> > > I'm innovating quite a lot every day at work.
> >
> > Innovation is doing something that's never been done before. If you're
> > doing something that's never been done before, then you're innovating.
>
> Hmm, maybe one could view it that way.
How else could one view it?
> However, almost everything has never been done before *exactly that
> way*, that's just a question of definition. I look at it as normal
> problem solving, that's what engineers are paid for - real innovation is
> more than that IMHO. Otherwise I should earn more money, well, I
> wouldn't reject a raise either way. :-)
Perhaps you should ask for that raise.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Call me Paranoid - Re: What else is hidden in MS code???
Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 20:35:07 -0500
R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8f1el0$t39$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Notice that none of the "love bug" components were detected
> by Macaffe or Norton or any of the others. I would have thought
> that the ActiveX controls in question would have triggered the
> virus detector.
>
> Of course, virus detectors focus on content stored on the disk drive.
> A hacker component embedded in a web page would only show up in
> RAM, and perhaps in the cache directory (first thing the hacker would
> do is remove the tmp file).
Huh? Love bug doesn't have any ActiveX content.
> > > All very convenient Rex. I won't call you paranoid, I'll call
> > > you stupid if
> > >you think anyone here falls for this.
>
> I'm not saying that Microsoft targeted me. But I do think it's a
> strange coincidence that less than 24 hours after I post this
> article, and less than 5 days after posting the warnings to this
> thread, that the "Love Bug" suddenly goes out and does everything
> I just described. (If you open the file, it renames your office
> files, encrypts them using different keys, and sends you password
> files and posting history (including all the cgi string values)
> to someone via e-mail.
Which Love Bug virus did you get? None of the strains I've seen rename
office files, encrypt anything, nor send password files or posting history
to anyone. You can see exactly what the virus does because it's just a
script. You can read it.
> The local San Francisco News station opened the virus in a an
> isolated computer to see what it would try to do. It did all
> of the things described above. I'm curious whether there might
> be a time delayed "wipe the partition table" bomb waiting to
> go off?
You are lying Rex. Love Bug doesn't do any of those things. And if you
bothered to read it yourself, you'd see that.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Virus on the net?
Date: 6 May 2000 20:36:58 -0500
In article <NdvQ4.4552$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >But, unlike Unix, having admin privs doesn't mean you automatically have
>> >global write access to every file on the system.
>>
>> does the admin privs in the default you mention have global write?
>
>Only to Admin files. Not other user files.
But the admin can take ownership, then do whatever he wants. I
assume that step can be scripted as well, so there really
isn't any difference.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: Bart Oldeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 7 May 2000 01:31:28 GMT
On Sun, 7 May 2000, Christopher Smith wrote:
> This is exactly what currently happens, with "Save" the default option.
>
> > If the user clicks execute, it brings up the following:
> >
> > Do you really want to execute this?
> >
> > Type: "Yes, I really want to execute this." in CAPITALS to activate it.
> >
> > <input box>
> >
> > <Ok>
> >
> >
> > Really annoying, but it brings a bit more consideration to people who
> > don't know what .vbs means. People who know can switch it off by changing
> > something in the registry.
>
> The fact that you have to change the *default* setting of the dialog from
> "Save" to "Open", along with the warnings that whatever it is could
> potentially damage their machine, should give people reason to pause and
> think.
Apparently it didn't. Else the love bug couldn't have spread itself so
quickly. I mean, many users get so accustumed to pop-up boxes that they
just click them away, without consideration of what's in there. Forcing
them to use the keyboard in this way blocks this kind of behaviour.
Also, do the warnings show up in every version of Outlook and Outlook
Express, or only the newest ones?
Bart
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
