Linux-Advocacy Digest #424, Volume #26 Tue, 9 May 00 14:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!!
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul E. Larson))
Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!!
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul E. Larson))
Free Software and Diamonds (Michael Allan)
Re: What have you done? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Jim)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Jim)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (abraxas)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Jim)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (david raoul derbes)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (John Poltorak)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (David Steinberg)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: whistler<blahblah>@twcny.rr.com (Paul E. Larson)
Subject: Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!!
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 17:14:56 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(JEDIDIAH) wrote:
>On Tue, 09 May 2000 06:50:56 GMT, whistler <blahblah> wrote:
>>In article <8f7uqb$1ou1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
> wrote:
>>>In article <LOCR4.2222$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>whistler <blahblah> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>1) put CD in drive
>>>>>2) push reset
>>>>>3) click OK at all the prompts.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Only if you PC is bootable from CD, if you have a SCSI card it may or may
> not
>>>>be bootable.
>>>
>>>Add another two minutes to copy the floppy boot image off the CD
>>>with the provided program if the CD won't boot.
>>>
>>
>>If there is one.
>
> Don't suppose you can give us an example of any distro that
> DOESN'T have one, or several for that matter.
>
Up until recently, last release or so of all major distro's, the Adaptec
AHA-2930U@ card wasn't supported.
>>
>>>>If you are willing to accept the basic configuration and it
>>>>works on your system. If you did your homework the cards in your PC will
> have
>>>>support in Linux, if not you are SOL.
>>>
>>>Of course, if you buy something that intentionally locks you into
>>>a single-vendor OS (winmodem/winprinter???) you can't blame
>>>someone else for that problem.
>>>
>>
>>Who is taking about Windows only devices. Buy a bleeding edge card and 9 times
>
>>out of 10 you are SOL. It has gotten better, but it still ain't there yet.
>
> You can be that way with just plain Win98 (bleeding edge dodgey
> driver) or WinNT. Being an unwitting member of some hardware vendor's
> QA department can be a dodgey proposition all around.
>
More so in Linux where you may have to wait 6 months or longer for a driver.
Unless you are skilled enough to write your own. In Windows(any flavor) there
is at least a probablity of updated drivers on the website.
Paul
Get rid of the blahs to email me :}
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=67063&a=635208 - 1999 Hancock Airshow
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=67063&a=2618171 - National Warplane Museum
------------------------------
From: whistler<blahblah>@twcny.rr.com (Paul E. Larson)
Subject: Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!!
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 17:17:53 GMT
In article <8f9dod$lpc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) wrote:
>In article <kzOR4.5482$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>whistler <blahblah> wrote:
>
>>>Of course, if you buy something that intentionally locks you into
>>>a single-vendor OS (winmodem/winprinter???) you can't blame
>>>someone else for that problem.
>>>
>>
>>Who is taking about Windows only devices. Buy a bleeding edge card and 9 times
>
>>out of 10 you are SOL. It has gotten better, but it still ain't there yet.
>
>Now you are down to a simple chicken/egg problem. The hardware vendors
>will provide drivers for the most popular operating systems. Let them
>know what you want.
>
Yup..... that is what the problem has always been.
Paul
Get rid of the blahs to email me :}
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=67063&a=635208 - 1999 Hancock Airshow
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=67063&a=2618171 - National Warplane Museum
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED], nospam=zelea (Michael Allan)
Subject: Free Software and Diamonds
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 17:19:53 GMT
In Contribution to Andrew Leonard's Evolving Book
Posted in response to:
http://www.salon.com/tech/fsp/2000/03/06/chapter_one_part_3/
'Free software is the leading edge of what is to come, the first product
of the indigenous culture of cyberspace.' -- Andrew Leonard
'To some extent I think the Linux world has cast the debate in its own
terms. The word "free" is one that everyone loves, both commercially (who
doesn't like to get something for free?) and morally (we all like the
notion of "freedom").' -- Dave Casper
'I don't mean to be dismissive of your arguments... for me at least, that
debate is over. It is more interesting and more fun to move on to see
what waits ahead.' -- PrimeEnd
'. . . the questions I would like to see answered are "can free software
live up to the claims made on its behalf", and "is commercial software
truly the malevolent force which the acolytes of free software would have
us believe?"' -- Dave Casper
In my work I am experimenting with a particular type of open software,
assembled from components. This technology provides answers of its own to
the questions above, while revealing at least one possibility of 'what is
to come' in the future. Although this would not be a future in which free
software replaces commercial software, it *would* allow a wider outlet
for free software's primary strength: the open exchange of information.
I do not wish to contribute my own ideas here, in any technical sense --
I've written on those elsewhere. I have nothing to add, either, to the
debate between free and commercial software -- for me too 'that debate is
over' -- ended in an alliance of sorts. I wish to contribute a point of
view, only. It arises partly from my own work, and it is at odds with
some of the opinions reported in your book. It concerns programmers and
the nature of their work.
You wrote in your outline (chapter 10):
'Programmers, by and large, are paid so well that they can afford to take
on hobbies like free software projects in their spare time.'
I don't object to your reason for writing it (I personally like that
reason) in the context of chapter 10. I recognize also that it is a
common opinion, and one that should be truly reported, in that sense. But
the opinion itself -- that free software is a sort of hobby -- I believe
to be misrepresentative of programmers in general.
I am a programmer, myself, and I feel that about 75% of my work is just
plain gruelling. I doubt I am alone in this. A recent New York Times
Magazine article, in a series entitled 'The Liberated, Exploited,
Pampered, Frazzled, Uneasy New American Worker' (early March?) published
the results of a survey among professional groups, on job satisfaction.
Programmers were revealed among the top three of the most dissatisfied
groups.
You might expect then, that in their spare time -- many programmers will
ask, what spare time? -- they would choose other hobbies than developing
free software.
You point out that programmers are well paid. And the Times article makes
it clear that pay is definitely not the source of their dissatisfaction.
The survey identifies them as one of the most satisfied groups in this
regard. And it's not the gruelling work and long hours either, because
other (more satisfying) professions have these disadvantages too. So what
is the problem?
Personally, I sense something missing in programming (and engineering in
general) as a profession. In our work we hold ourselves to a level of
dedication that marks us as professionals, and we have a significant
social impact for which we bear the responsibility; yet whenever I look
at the standing accorded to other professions in society, engineering
seems to barely rate. Then I feel that our social situation is closer to
that of blue collar labourers, than to scientists, doctors or lawyers.
This comes close to it: I feel as I imagine a diamond miner must feel,
working underground in South Africa, for the de Beers diamond cartel. At
sunset he emerges, blinking in the light, and hands over the gems. He
receives his pay regularly.
It is something close to that. The value is in the work -- those gems,
indisputably -- and the pay is small by comparison. In the case of the
programmer, pay is often a secondary consideration anyway. He is a
professional, and he is paid for his work; whereas a miner merely works
for his pay (though with courage in the face of danger). But to hand over
the gems at the end of the day . . . that feeling must be the same.
So when programmers do choose to work for free, to produce gems without
pay, it is wrong to characterise it as a 'hobby'. It is no more a hobby
than a miners' union is a social club.
(If you prefer less political objections -- no more a hobby than the
Wright brother's experiments with flight; no more than Banting's
experiments with insulin.)
It is also misleading for you to refer to open source programmers as a
'ragtag band of hackers'. You do so at one point to emphasize the oddity
of mere programmers producing such gems. (Hacker is as much a complement
these days as ragtag.) Again, you report correctly on the impression:
that they were merely a disorganized bunch of amateurs. But the proof to
the contrary is in the gems. It would be a disservice to leave the non-
technical public with a false impression: that these gems were merely
stumbled across, that open source programmers are merely renegades
tricking the establishment, like the 'hackers' that appear in the daily
news.
The truth is, instead, they are examples of their profession.
'The gift economy is an oddity... based on sharing, collaboration and
openness... only now translating into an economic windfall, and none of
it could have happened without the spread of internationally linked
computer networks.'
The gift economy is no oddity; it only appears to be. When it comes to
exchanging ideas, programmers are *naturally* open. It has been argued
that this 'sharing, collaboration and openness' among engineers and
scientists is actually the backbone of innovation -- under the skin, so
to speak, of the conventional business practices of firms. See for
example Stuart Macdonald's (1998) Information for Innovation. Programming
(software engineering) is no exception in this regard; and open source is
only a continuation (by other means) of a process that is essential to
all software engineering. Where open source is exceptional -- and this
reveals its strength -- is in making the means plain and clear at a time
when the software industry was especially ill served by keeping it
covered up.
It can be argued (and there are echoes of this in the free software
debate) that there are actually two such backbones of innovation -- one
for information transactions (as described above) and a second for
financial transactions -- both of which are required over the long term.
I would argue that open source gains its strength on the one hand, only
by sacrificing it on the other. By being too open with information, it
has closed itself off financially. As a result, open source financial
transactions must be mediated in a *closed* fashion, if at all: by middle
men, back room deals, and other indirect schemes.
Commercial closed source suffers the reverse weakness. There it's the
information transactions that are kept under wraps, sneaked in through
the back door. Each firm guards a pile of patents, and trades them with
other firms. This is partly the answer to John Franks' (previously
posted) question, 'Why don't I know the name of a single star programmer
at Microsoft?' Because the real stars are hidden within the firms
(Microsoft and all the rest) and the firms take the credit for the work -
- they must.
(The star system works differently for free software. There the stars are
more like public sports icons. They can only be paid on the side, and
never directly for the games they ostensibly play. Instead they sell
automobiles, beer or whatever through sponsorships and media
advertisement. And the drawback is, it's all too easy to lose sight of
the game.)
There are alternatives to these two choices, and in my own work I suggest
one of them.
http://www.macrocomponent.org/foundation.html
--
BTW, re 'Rhizomes, after all, are grass roots; they are the
interconnecting substrate that stitches an endless prairie into one
living organism.'
But I remember from my days studying biology, that even if you have such
roots, it still takes many individuals to make a healthy ecosystem. The
prairie grass is not one, but in fact many competing individuals of the
same species.
--
Michael Allan
[EMAIL PROTECTED], nospam=zelea
http://www.zelea.com/F/
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What have you done?
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 12:22:21 -0500
Is there a reason why you must continue your circle jerk of
moronic babbling in COMNA? Shouldn't you contain this FUD
and idiocy to COLA where it belongs? Thanks.
-Chad
P.S.- we use NT/Exchange and didn't have one problem.
"Seán Ó Donnchadha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >Using Micro$oft Shitware is
> >like prison gang rape, and the winvocates are analogous to people
> >who enjoy being subjected to such activities.
> >
>
> Maybe it's simpler than that. Maybe they just don't enjoy being
> associated with assholes like you. I believe that systems like the
> Amiga and OS/2 would have done much better had their advocates not
> gone around calling everyone else in the world idiots, sheep, etc.
>
> As an advocate, you want more people to use your favorite platform;
> that way it'll get more support and you'll be happier. This is
> undoubtedly what you want; it is why you're here. The only question is
> how you choose to go about advocating your platform. History has shown
> time and time again that smugness, insults, and disgusting analogies
> like the above are exactly the wrong thing to do; rather than
> influencing people to join you, they have exactly the opposite effect.
------------------------------
From: Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: 09 May 2000 13:32:01 EDT
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <39179067$2$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bob Germer
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >On 05/08/2000 at 12:25 PM,
> > WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >
> >
> >> (Two bucks says Bob either ignores the above post or responds with
> >> more
> >> or less what I just said.)
> >
> >I will ignore anything eminating from the sewer called Cornell. It is
> >the
> >National Enquirer of higher education.
> >
> >Being a Cornell graduate just got a prospective member of our
> >country club blackballed. That's what we think of you slime.
>
> Bob, your feeble attempts to distract everyone from your bigoted,
> intolerant self by insulting my alma mater has failed miserably. Your
> blookage merely reveals you as the shallow troll that you are.
>
> Note that his post doesn't even make sense, because he obviously ISN'T
> ignoring everything "eminating" from cornell -- which would preclude his
> responding to me at all.
>
> Fresh troll, get it while it's hot!
Yeah, kinda sad that _anyone_ is so hate-challenged that he'd attack
everyone at a major school (and all of its alums into the bargain)!
Makes me wonder what a school needs to do to pass muster. Geeze, _my_
alma mater may be a sewer! Well, one can always hope it measures up,
anyway. ;-) Anybody know what Cornell's infraction was to get on his
list? Is an infraction even needed? Oops, mine probably qualifies, as of
now.
--
Jim Naylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: 09 May 2000 13:34:28 EDT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman) wrote:
> In article <39179067$2$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bob Germer
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On 05/08/2000 at 12:25 PM,
> > WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >
> >
> > > (Two bucks says Bob either ignores the above post or responds with
> > > more
> > > or less what I just said.)
> >
> > I will ignore anything eminating from the sewer called Cornell. It is
> > the
> > National Enquirer of higher education.
> >
> > Being a Cornell graduate just got a prospective member of our country
> > club
> > blackballed. That's what we think of you slime.
> >
> So Bob, what country club is that?
The one with the bed sheets on their pointed heads?
--
Jim Naylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: 9 May 2000 17:38:26 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy M. Buchenrieder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is a concept that will not allow ordinary users accessing certain
> commands that need root priviledges, even when if they knew the root
> password for to become "root" using "su" . This practically limits the
> access for the "root" user to just the console.
Actually it doesnt. It simply lends a finer granularity of root-access
control.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: 09 May 2000 13:46:03 EDT
In article <8f99lh$p6n$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It all depends what you're going to class as innovative. If you want
> to look at the big picture, not much truly innovative has happened in
> computing for a *long* time.
>
Next, we'll be needing to define "is" is again. These seagulls certainly
are birds of a feather.
You don't need to go beyond "usable GUI." Here's a clue: it was most
_definitely_ *NOT* Xerox STAR! Now that M$ _does_ have a fairly usable
(though still shoddy) approximation, let's all look under the kilt and
see if we can see where they got it. Innovation? Give us a break. Nobody
with an inkling of computing history buys that. Can you say
"plagiarization?" No? How about "copy?" And then move the trash can to
the other side of the screen and call it "recycle bin." Now _there's_
innovation, M$ style.
--
Jim Naylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (david raoul derbes)
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 17:53:56 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...an absolutely brilliant article. Bravo! Bravo!!
This thought was lodged somewhere in my cranium for years, but it never
found its way into consciousness till Eric put it into plain speech.
For a decade or more we've heard about this Chinese wall between
apps and OS development, right? Now it transpires that the existence
of such a wall would have posed a threat to the well-being of MS.
In short, it never existed. No surprise to many of us, but somewhat
refreshing to see admitted, finally, by Redmond.
It is absolutely clear that Bill and the boys believe (even if they
have never admitted it to themselves) that there should be no other
software besides Microsoft-ware. Years ago, one of their top execs said,
and I quote: we want our fair share, and we think that's 100%. (Brad
Silverberg, IIRC.)
Two pieces is about five too few in my opinion.
David Derbes [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
>Despite the fact that there is more software available for Windows than
>for other operating systems, Mac defenders and others have long argued
>that most of that Windows software is junk that nobody wants to use.
>
>In this argument, those folks now have an ally in Bill Gates, of all
>people. How so? Perhaps you've noticed Microsoft's response to the
>DOJ's breakup proposal. Gates is claiming that it's only possible to
>have good innovation when the people who write applications are in the
>same company as the people who write the OS. To separate them, Gates
>says, is to do significant harm to innovation. To accept Gates's logic,
>we also have to accept the conclusion that third party software vendors
>cannot possibly innovate as much as Microsoft's programmers, since only
>Microsoft's programmers have the direct contact with the OS team that
>Gates claims is required.
>
>If we carry this argument to its logical conclusion, Gates is making a
>case that the best thing for consumers would be to have a single
>software company--Microsoft. Then all the progammers will be in the
>same company with the OS team, and Gates claims this leads to enhanced
>innovation. So, what say you Windows advocates? Should third party
>software vendors be allowed to exist, or should we all hope that
>Microsoft acquires them all, in the great question for increased
>"innovation"?
>
>You can read a Gates editorial on this subject in Time Magazine. In
>this article we learn, among other things, that without Microsoft, the
>concept of toolbars would have been patented and software companies
>would not have been able to freely use them. The title of the article
>is "The Case For Microsoft", which is quite in line with the
>interpretation I suggest above:
>
>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/articles/0,3266,44557,00.html
>
>
>#$#@$%%#!@#&%
>
>--
>Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
>Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
>
>Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect,even when you take into
>account Hofstadter's Law.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Poltorak)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: 9 May 2000 17:57:38 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Poltorak)
In <8f99lh$p6n$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>> >"The message first appeared in build 61, a late-stage beta, and seemed to
>> >disappear in the final retail release of Windows 3.1. "
>>
>> If I accept that this code was removed from the final release,
>> can you give me any justification for it being there in the first
>> place?
>
>Yes. Microsoft were beta testing Windows.
Maybe you can remind me about the text of the message....
>> Was this some sort of Microsoft *innovation* ?
>
>No, it was common sense. Try to remove variables over which you have no
>control.
>
>> I keep hearing about these marvellous innovations which Microsoft
>> make, but I am, in all honesty, completely baffled as to what is
>> being alluded to...
>>
>> Did Microsoft invent computers?
>
>No, where do they claim to ?
>
>>
>> Did Microsoft invent operating systems?
>
>No, where do they claim to ?
>
>>
>> Did Microsoft invent the GUI?
>
>No, where do they claim to ?
>
>>
>> Did Microsoft invent word processors?
>
>No, where do they claim to ?
>
>>
>> Did Microsoft invent spreadsheets?
>
>No, where do they claim to ?
>
>>
>> Did Microsoft invent the electronic encyclopoedia?
>
>No, where do they claim to ?
>
>>
>> Did Microsoft invent browsers?
>
>No, where do they claim to ?
>
>>
>> Did Microsoft invent the Internet?
>
>No, where do they claim to ?
>
>> The answer is no to all of the above, yet a great many computer users
>> think at least one of these is true.
>
>So what ? Most people think Edison invented the lightbulb, as well.
>
>> Is it because Bill Gates keeps trying
>> to brainwash people with his 'We build innovative products' line that
>> people need to imagine what he means? I simply don't see any substance
>> to his assertion.
>
>His assertion is about as true as it is for any other company I can think of
>making similar "innovation" claims.
>
>Eg, Apple and their "innovative" slot loading CDROM/DVD on the iMacs.
>
>> However I'd like to hear what innovative technology a Microsoft proponent
>> thinks that Microsoft have introduced to the world.
>
>Erik has posted such things many times.
Come on, Erik. Here's your chance to remind us about all those
marvellous Microsoft innovations which we seemed to have
forgotten about....
>> Don't all shout at once.
>
>It all depends what you're going to class as innovative. If you want to
>look at the big picture, not much truly innovative has happened in computing
>for a *long* time.
Don't you think 50GB hard drives are pretty innovative?
Don't you think the new IBM Net Vista is pretty innovavtive?
Innovations pass you buy because your short sighted view of the world
stops with Microsoft. Microsoft is a *Marketing* company not a *Technology*
company. It is only technolgy companies which innovate.
See:-
http://www.research.ibm.com/about/patent_highlights.html
or:-
http://www.ibm.com/patents
to see have a peek at what innovations technology companies get up to.
--
John
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: 9 May 2000 18:03:14 GMT
Christopher Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Yes. Microsoft were beta testing Windows. Since Windows has a
: tendency to do some rather unholy things to DOS (particularly the memory
: managers provided with it) notifying users of a DOS which was *known*
: not to be 100% compatible was simply common sense. It was not
: Microsoft's responsibility to debug DRDOS.
Unfortunately, it seems Microsoft did not belive this action was so
innocent...
Care to explain the encryption?
--
David Steinberg -o) In a world without walls
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \ and fences, who needs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v Windows and Gates?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
