Linux-Advocacy Digest #506, Volume #26 Sun, 14 May 00 23:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Roger)
Linux Advocacy - Linux vs Windows 2000 vs Be vs OS/2 ("Brad Wardell")
Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation' (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Things Linux can't do! ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation' (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Things Linux can't do! ("Evan DiBiase")
Re: Microsoft must die! (Craig Kelley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 02:05:48 GMT
On Sun, 14 May 2000 11:49:19 -0700, someone claiming to be Bob May
wrote:
>Which version of the .DOC file extension should be used? Microsoft
>has several versions of that spec and the spec has changed over the
>years and if you really look at all of them, it's kind of like the
>.RTF extension, there are different ways of doing the same thing.
>Which one of the .DOC file extension do you support?
I personally don't support any. Software that I run can read any of
the formats produced by MS, WP and a variety of other manufacturers.
What was your point with this?
------------------------------
From: "Brad Wardell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux Advocacy - Linux vs Windows 2000 vs Be vs OS/2
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 02:12:46 GMT
I'm writing an article called OSWars 2000 which is a *desktop* OS comparison
of the various major operating systems that might be used on the home and
corporate desktop. It doesn't deal with servers, purely with how they
compare to each other in terms of getting work done by individuals or groups
of individuals.
The last time I did this was in 1998 ("OS Wars 98") when Linux wasn't quite
as varied or advanced as it is today.
http://www.stardock.com/media/articles/oswars98a.html
I want to hear it from those that truly love Linux but also know the other
OSes well. Nicholas Petreley of Linuxworld was kind enough to demo some of
the cooler features of Linux (I've used Linux too but I'm I'm more of a
casual user on Linux whereas I'm "guru" level on OS/2, MacOS, and Windows
98/NT/2000).
I'd like to keep the advocacy as factual as possible. I.e. every OS
advocate tends to claim their OS is rock solid and the others "crash twice a
day".
So how would you compare Linux (Redhat, Caldera, Corel, etc.) as a DESKTOP
OS when compared to OS/2, BeOS, Windows 2000, Windows 98, etc.
Here's what I have so far in a nutshell:
Pros:
* Reasonable application support
* Reasonable driver support
* Ability to quickly and seamlessly switch between user sessions
* Easy to do distributed computing - You're on a LAN on a 100mB ethernet
connection you can really go to town.
* Low resource requirements
* Free
* Mostly open source software available, OS itself is open source making it
great to truly make it work like you want it to.
* Far more options to control how it looks, feels, behaves, etc. than other
OSes.
Cons:
* Horrible consistency - No universal clipboard support.
* Very little drag and drop or true OO stuff (Gnome is getting there but
it's not there yet)
* Always behind the curve in hardware support.
* No MS Office support (Staroffice and WP Office are both great but without
MS Office, many corps won't switch)
* Netscape the only reasonably good web browers and many people (including
me) think Netscape is inferior to IE at this point.
* Too many rough edges requiring the user to go to a cryptic text base UI to
do things (setting up VNC, a DNS, or a mail server tends to be a huge pain
in the butt for "newbies" compared to a nice slick GUI implementation on
OS/2, BeOS, Windows, etc.).
* Overall lack of polish (WM's tend to have various graphic anamalies such
as title bar text going over the buttons and other harmless but tell-tale
signs of lack of attention to detail)
* No DDE or OLE (or OpenDOC or SOM) style framework which makes it hard to
advocate Linux as a good platform to run your applications
* Application selection is worse than Windows and in many cases OS/2.
Opensource helps Linux a lot but also hurts it by creating an atmosphere
that seems hostile to commercial software developers.
Some of my cons are based on perception and maybe not reality. What I am
hoping is that some of you with a great deal of professional experience on
Linux can point out the pros and qualify the cons I've listed here so that
together, we can provide users with a reasonable objective comparison.
To see what was written in 1998 go to:
http://www.stardock.com/media/articles/oswars98a.html
This year's is going to be much longer and much more thorough. OSWars 98
was picked up by quite a few magazines and user groups so this time around I
want to be very careful to be as fair as possible.
Thanks!
Brad
--
Brad Wardell
Stardock - http://www.stardock.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation'
Date: 14 May 2000 21:13:07 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Gary Connors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Okay. Why is Abiword's icon not on the desktop or in a menu?
There are probably 3,000 things that you could install for free.
I am very happy that they don't all appear on the desktop by
default.
>Why do I have
>to go to a prompt and type which abirword to find out where it is located,
>so i can use the file manager to create a shortcut on the desktop?
Because it is easy and straightforward?
>Why did
>Star Office outright break a fresh install of Mandrake 7.0 with default
>configuration?
Got me - mine just worked.
>I picked up a P2/266 for $200 with montior. Who could pass that up? I
>tried to install Mandrake and Redhat on it. Mandrake was the easier to
>install of the two (by far). While trying to install those fancy desktop
>apps, I kept breaking the installer.
Can you give a blow-by-blow on this? I've never had any trouble
like that on either Mandrake or Redhat.
>MS monolopy, but it hasnt. I'm just saying that if you are going to use a
>Open Source OS, you should NOT use Linux. Especially as a workstation and
>server, there better solutions out there. No self respecting high end
>server has Linux on it, they use FreeBSD or OpenBSD.
Heh, I'm sure that's what they run at VALinux.
>> There have been shiny happy gui tools, in and outside of the
>> installation process, for most aspects of Linux for quite
>> some time now. This includes init, modems (as if a real modem
>> needs any twiddling with actually), printers and networking.
>
>Existing and easy to find and locate are two different things.
Perhaps you started too late. The 4.x and 5.x versions of
RedHat had their control-panel tool on root's desktop, where
you could select the easy to use printtool, netcfg, user
manager and runlevel editor could be started by clicking their
icons. Now that the security issue of running a desktop as
root is emphasized you have to start the control-panel as
root yourself (or printtool, netcfg, etc.).
>BTW, init is usually somthing that doesnt not need to be set up, being the
>mother of all processes and all. For home use, runlevel 3 should suffice,
>which is the default, iirc.
You should have a choice of 3 or 5 (graphic login) at install time,
but I think the comment was about managing the programs that
start/stop at each runlevel. The Linux sysv-like mechanism is
much more sane than what *bsd uses. While the symlinks in the
/etc/rc.d/rc?.d directories are simple and straightforward, the
layout lends itself well to GUI control.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 02:23:57 +0000
Nyarlathotep wrote:
> "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >
> > > Ghengis
> > > Khan showed up with armored riders on horseback and nearly sacked
> > > Rome.
> >
> > Ghengis Khan was born centuries after the fall of Rome.
>
> Well Rome was sacked more than once.
In terms of the Western Empire, it fell in 476 AD. Ghengis Khan lived
in the 12th and 13th centuries, well after any of the falls of Rome.
> However Ghengis got no where
> near Rome. The Mongols had secret treaties with Venice and they
> would not cross their only European ally. I believe Ghengis
> only got as far as Georgia and Russia with a scouting army
> headed by his top general and son.Ogedi Khan had troops as far
> as Hungary and Poland. China was much more important to the Mongols.
> Microsoft headed by a brilliant, efficient and ruthless leader like
> Ghengis Khan would mean an end to innovation everywhere, not just in
> Redmond like now where they only know it as a buzzword.
>
> --
> From the backwoods of High Spings, Florida.
> John Midtgard
> Cat: What? Am I the only sane one here? Why don't we drop the defensive
> shields?
> Kryten: A superlative suggestion, sir, with just two minor flaws. One: We
> don't have any defensive shields, and Two: We don't have any defensive
> shields. Now, I realise that, technically speaking, that's only one flaw,
> but I thought that it was such a big one it was worth mentioning twice.
> --Red Dwarf, Holoship
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation'
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 02:28:45 GMT
On Sun, 14 May 2000 21:31:00 -0400, Gary Connors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ray at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote on 5/14/00 9:04 PM:
[deletia]
>> What default? You pick the front end(s) you want installed when you install
>> the system or at any time thereafter. I'm using fvwm2 on this laptop but if
>
>
>See Installer Install, See Installer Break. Break Installer Break.
Which one? How exactly is it 'breaking'?
>
>>>
>>> MacOS's UI seems complete.
>>
>> You were comparing OSs not just UIs. If MacOS is "complete" then why isn't
>> it used on every PC, Mainframe, and Laptop by everyone for every purpose?
>>
>>>
>
>Same reason Linux isn't capturing the world by storm, MS has a monolopy and
>if someone buys a PC for work use that doesn't have Windows on it, they get
>fired.
Compared to what? It's certainly eating Microsoft's lunch in the
light server market, foiling it in the embedded market and is even
making a decent run for the desktop considering the entrenchment of
DOS.
MacOS isn't exactly capturing the world by storm either, if you go
merely by desktop marketshare percentages.
[deletia]
>Big deal. Even if Linux supported every device know to man and worked with
>it the first time, if you cant find the printer set up utiltity, its
>pointless.
If you can't find it on Linux, you aren't trying... at all.
This gives you the obvious appearance of someone with an axe
to grind who has absolutely no interest in the actual reality
of the situation.
[deletia]
>>
>> What can you really do with Windows "out of the box"? Almost every task I
>> can think of requires some add on or another. You might be able to limp out
>> onto the net but without a virus scanner even that's asking for trouble.
>>
>
>Well, lets see, that Winmodem is gonna work. Ummm... MacOS is gonna see, by
"limp out onto the net" is a far better description of that.
>default every printer on the network and during the install will ask you
Which networks?
>which ones you want to add to your desktop. Let's see, both of which can
>look at Quicktime movies. Both of which work with AOL (for me thats
>completely irrelevent, for my mother its primary). Both of which have
>access to MS Office (again to me its irrelevent, to a large network with
>crossplatform OS's, its primary). Simpler set up programs, post installer
...which may or may not even help, depending on the user.
A user that needs AOL as a crutch will be completely lost in
some cases even if you set everything up for them even in
Windows. Any PC use beyond that of a sort of console will
confound them.
That it's a Mac or Win9x won't help them. (I know, I have
relatives of my own like that)
>(at least on MacOS, Windows didnt seem to have very good post installer
>setup). Easy acess to apps that ship in the defalt install. (AbiWord
>anyone).
Then get WordPerfect, StarOffice or Applixware. I bet if we tried
hard enough we could find some really nasty word processor for Win32
or MacOS.
>
>>>
>>> I did and Linux doesnt have it.
>>
>> Obviously not since all of the features you list above ARE available in most
>> Linux distros. out of the box.
>>
>
>No they aren't. Dont lie.
YOU ARE THE LIAR here.
Don't even try to accuse anyone else of that.
[deletia]
>>> We are
>>> talking about the out of the box experience.
>>
>> And yet you keep comparing Linux with VMS & IRIX and I'll bet you've never
>> seen "the boxes" for those much less installed one from scratch.
>>
>
>No, I compare Linux to MacOS, OpenBSD, and FreeBSD for home use and Linux
>vs. VMS, IRIX, Solaris, and Ultirix for high end use. Both of which are
>fair comparisions.
>
>>> OpenBSD's out of the box
>>> experience is way better tha Linux (as server and workstation). Linux's out
>>> of the box experience for a home use machine out right blows.
>>
>> Most home users are way over their head installing any OS including both
>> Linux and OpenBSD. I've even seen users screw up a Win95 -> Win98 upgrade
>> and I've seen many screw up NT installs. Home users should either stick to
>> the OS that came with their hardware or shell out a few bucks and some time
>> for a decent book on their new favorite OS or pay someone else to do it for
>> them.
>
>And the OS that should come with x86 PC's should be one of the BSD's not
>Linux or Windows.
Just what kind of drugs are you on? While the BSD's might have some
marginal advantage as server OSes, as consumer OSes they have to have
nearly the smallest support of any platform. You're going to simply
magnify any support problems that you might find on Linux. Plus the
BSDs would have the same EXACT end user interface problems as Linux.
Be makes remarkably more sense for the x86 novice consumer. Linux
only trumps it (and the BSDs) due to 3rd party support.
>
>>
>>> I've
>>> installed Redhat 6.x, Mandrage 7.1, and OpenLinux. I've broken all three
>>> installers by choosing incompatible rpm's. I can say with conifidence, I
>>> never has broken the installer to MacOS (system 7.1-9.0) or Windows
>>> (3.1-98).
>>
>> How much software comes with Redhat etc. How much comes with Windows/Mac?
>> Try installing a similar quantity of software on both and then we'll talk.
>>
>
>Everything I've every need to use for MacOS came with my machine or is a
>free download, with the exception of Dreamweaver and Fireworks, both of
>which has quality that exceed anything available on Linux.
...at $400 a pop it damn well should.
As far as other downloads go: there are some end users that
can't even manage that (downloading that is). So claiming that
you could cobble together your own system from near and far
may not be such an impressive thing after all.
>
>>>
>>> No. Linux is not like BMW, it more like calling it a E-Machines. Cheap,
>>> everywhere, but still not worth buying because its competitors win hands
>>> down in everything.
>>
>>
>> Even a Yugo handles better than a Uhaul, is faster than a moped and gets
>> better gas milage than a pickup truck etc.
>>
>> Lets see. You are comparing Linux's stability with VMS, "completeness" with
>> Win/Mac, and security with OpenBSD.
>>
>>
>
>Taken in context, that is in several markets, all of which are completely
>viable comparisions.
>
>>>
>>> THis is like saying "Both Porsche and Ford are as fast as thier engines
>>> allow"
>>
>>
>> No, it's like saying that "Both Porsche and Ford are as fast and safe as the
>> skills of their drivers allow."
>>
>>
>
>You obviously didnt go to OpenBSD's web site. Try reading the front page
>and tell me if Linux can claim:
>
>Three years without a remote hole in the default install!
>Two years without a localhost hole in the default install!
>
>Without being laughed out of the market.
...depends on the distributor.
>
>>> Its double talk and means nothing.
>>
>> It means that the administrator of a computer system is almost always the
>> weak link when it comes to security and reliability.
>
>Not if they install OpenBSD.
...and leave it in an 'unwrapped' condition.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Evan DiBiase" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 22:33:30 -0400
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8fmu3u$27k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Evan DiBiase <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> What really gets me sick is to see somebody who uses their NT box
> >> as some telnet device or web browser, a light load, then proclaims
> >> triumphantly that NT is working.
> >
> >Well, it's working _for me_. You seem to imply that "working" is running
> >slashdot.org or microsoft.com. For me, working _is_ browsing the web,
using
> >ICQ, using Word, Excel, and Powerpoint, and everything else a typical
"home
> >user" does. I also use Visual C++.
>
> 'Working' is having a machine serving at least an office full of
> people, generally with some activity 24x7, and being able sleep
> at night without worrying about being paged.
I disagree. That may be the case for you, but for me working is what I
described above.
> >In short, I don't know why this would make you sick. It's working for me,
so
> >why can't I proclaim that NT is working?
>
> A machine that can be rebooted on a whim without having to apologize
> to anyone else for losing their work doesn't count.
Sure it does. Not for business use, maybe, but you're unfairly cutting out a
section of things here by claiming that the only "real" work is business
work.
> >> I've been a computer programmer for very close to 20 years now.
> >
> >Excellent. I've been a computer programmer for very close to 2 years now.
So
> >what?
>
> Try running your programs on wildly different CPU type. Something
> with a different bit/byte order would be a good test. And use
> some different compilers that have different struct padding too.
> Find out whether you have been locked into only being able to
> use your programming work under a single vendor's OS and compiler.
Well, right. Obviously porting things is a pain. But I'm just learning... I
agree that it's a good idea to get as much experience as possible, in any
area.
> >> Now I'd like to read some about your background?
> >
> >Is it really relevant? I'm 16 years old, and have been using computers
since
> >I was five. I've used almost every major distribution of Linux, BeOS,
> >FreeBSD, Windows 3.11, Windows 9x, Windows NT4, and Windows 2000. What
more
> >do you want?
>
> Some experience on different CPU types would be good. Many people
> who started programming in that time frame really don't understand
> that there are alternatives to Intel style processors.
True.
> >Even ignoring the "south park"/PARC confusion and the fact that they
didn't
> >create DOS, I say: What's wrong with borrowing ideas? Linux wouldn't be
the
> >operating system you know and will defend to the death if Linus hadn't
tried
> >to copy, well, everything from UNIX. "Selective borrowing" is a good
thing.
> >If Microsoft sees that multitasking is a good thing, why shouldn't they
add
> >it? You'd probably be complaining that Windows has no multitasking if
> >Microsoft took your "advice" and decided to think of ideas on its own.
>
> Linux does the 'borrowing' right by maintaining the source-level
> API. That is, programs I wrote 15 years ago that migrated across
> many different CPU types and unix flavors compiled and worked under
> Linux. Windows borrowed the same ideas but made sure that it was
> incompatible even at the source level with anything else to lock
> developers to their platform even when you use theoretically portable
> languages like C.
Yes, from the angle you're looking at this certainly is true. I was thinking
more of features, though.
> >> And they never got this load of crap to work right under a load.
> >
> >Uh, that's a great assertion. Do you have any proof? Stephen Edwards
pointed
> >to several high load, high profile web sites that are running IIS and
> >Windows 2000/NT. Are they merely imaginary?
>
> Web servers are a special case because of the stateless nature of
> http. All large sites are really 'farms' of servers behind some
> kind of load-balancing and failover setup. If a machine dies
> another one will pick up the next hit and nobody knows the
> difference except the guy to pushes the button to reboot.
Right, but some people in this forum would claim that it's basically
impossible for a Windows NT/2000 server to stay up for three seconds without
BSODing.
> >Define "SERIOUS." I would consider the work I do on this computer to be
> >"SERIOUS," and I don't need to reboot every 3-4 days.
>
> Serving up hundreds to thousands of tcp connections, many over
> slow and randomly failing links is a good test.
Well, sure, that's a good test for a server. But I'm running W2K
Professional -- a desktop machine. Serious work for me is programming,
surfing the web, writing... desktop stuff.
> >I haven't gotten ANY BLUE SCREENS! Will you please at least make an
attempt
> >to back up your assertions? Obviously there are some servers out there
> >running Microsoft products that might blue screen. Saying that blue
screens
> >are inevitable in any Microsoft software is just stupid.
>
> They tend to come with loading an assortment of different software.
> Win2k may be a big improvement in this area.
Yes, this is a fairly clean system. But I don't suspect that I'll be loading
much more on here, and everything is going very well.
> >That's great -- Linux is indeed very stable. But saying "Linux is stable"
> >doesn't prove that "Windows 2000 is not stable."
>
> Nobody has real experience with win2k yet. People with experience
> with NT know it wasn't, at least before sp6a.
This may be so. NT4 was pretty stable for me, but I didn't use it for very
long.
-Evan
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Microsoft must die!
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 14 May 2000 20:40:32 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine) writes:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote on 14 May 2000 10:50:19 -0600 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >"As If" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[snip about BSODing NT]
> >> b) using crappy 3rd party hardware drivers.
> >>
> >> Microsoft isn't to blame for 99% of the NT blue screens out there; it's the
> >> junk that passes for OEM hardware drivers.
> >
> >A driver is *part* of the OS. If Microsoft is too lazy to write their
> >own drivers, then they must accept responsibility for the BSODs caused
> >by bad OS extensions.
>
> Not sure if I agree with that 100% -- although it's clear that the
> OS is heavily dependent on drivers, some of them third party; without
> them, the OS is in its own little world. :-)
The OS' job is to abstract hardware in a sane manner. The driver is
at the heart of that abstraction.
> But how can Microsoft take credit or blame for the foibles of
> third-party driver writers? This doesn't make too much sense to me.
> What Microsoft *can* be tagged with is the setup of a structure that
> encourages blue screens o' death for crappy driver writings, as
> opposed to merely disabling the device (such as a sound card; my
> favorite bug at one point (1.2.x?) was feeding in certain MIDI events --
> my keyboard has a thumbwheel -- and watching the sound module panic.
> Didn't seem to affect the rest of the system).
When an operating system is unreliable, those who have a stake in it
should be fixing the problems. If Microsoft wants other companies to
write the key code which makes their operating system function, then
they should accept the blame when it falls apart. I believe that they
are beginning to do this with the "certified and signed" drivers in NT
2000; they have recognized that certain hardware drivers give them a
bad name and they are doing something about it. So, now we can have 2
classes of hardware: (1) uncertified with no guarantees and (2)
certified, which should work.
Linux has had this for ages with the (EXPERIMENTAL) tags in the kernel
configuration.
> Now, granted, disabling the disk device is disastrous, and disabling
> the video device on NT is very problematical (Linux per se has no
> problems with it, but ask anyone who's had to work around linuxsdoom
> crashing the display how to reboot :-) ). But a faulty CD-ROM shouldn't
> affect the rest of the system -- ideally, anyway (Linux has some
> problems there, too, if the CD-ROM is SCSI-based, mostly because Linux
> attempts to reset the SCSI buss, which appears to invalidate some
> writes (!)...but it tries very very hard to stay up :-) ).
Any driver failing can cause the entire system to die, because that's
what drivers do. Even uKs like QNX (where the driver is actually a
service under the operating system) fail to operate the system when
they self-destruct.
> And it's still possible for bad drivers to crash the system on Linux.
> At least, that is my understanding; it's possible the drivers are
> running in a different "ring" by now, but I don't know the details
> of the code and I've not the time to wade in there and look. I
> barely understand the file system, and that's only because I've worked
> with it. (It's not bad, since there's quite a few examples of
> what to do already.)
A Linux driver has (most) all the privileges of the full kernel.
> >Ask your typical linux system adimistrator if he trusts binary drivers
> >written outside the kernel. You'll get a 'no' answer almost every
> >time.
>
> Indeed.
>
> There's also the issue of compatibility; can a module written for the
> 2.2.15 kernel work on the 2.3.x series? Or the about-to-be-released
> 2.4.0?
Not reliably. :)
> IMO, Linux mutates too fast for binary compatibility to work well. By
> contrast, NT is a big, slow, heavy behemoth -- although for NT,
> this might be an advantage (a small one) in that NT can leverage
> older existing technologies (such as Win 3.1 stuff) and cross-pollinate
> with the Win95/98 stuff, at a binary level. (But then, so can Unix, at
> the source code level -- and there's the additional advantage that
> one can actually *read* said code.)
Exactly. Open Source wins the round this time.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
