Linux-Advocacy Digest #740, Volume #26 Mon, 29 May 00 09:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Illya Vaes)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Illya Vaes <[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: Mon, 29 May 2000 14:30:28 +0200
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>Then what's the information in "Windows and DOS are joined"?
>>By the same logic, WordPerfect 5.1 and DOS were joined.
>WordPerfect 5.1 and DOS did not provide similar services. Wordperfect was
>not an OS, nor was it OS-Like.
Keep dragging in new criteria when the ones *you* gave as "proving something"
are shown to 'prove' something you don't want.
>>You bought (or could buy) them separately as Windows and DOS, you
>>installed DOS first and WP second like DOS first and Windows second and WP
>>doesn't run without DOS. If you want to maintain isn't a (special) DOS app
>>like WP but *also* don't mean to say Windows isn't an OS without DOS, then
>>you've added no information.
>Both Are OS's, they simply rely on each other when joined. (For instance,
>Windows provides new DOS API's for DOS applicatins to call when Windows is
>running)
That would make plenty of TSR's "OSes" (or provide "OS-like services").
Dig yourself deeper!
>>It's a strawman because you deflect the discussion from "what the hell has
>>Windows to do with DOS internal structures" (or some such) to "Windows is
>>or is not an OS". I'm not arguing that one either way.
>No, the argument is that you are claiming that Windows is an application,
Reread the thread, instead of insisting on calling each previous mail, where I
address your strawmen, "the argument".
>Now, if you treat Windows as an OS, there is also other precedent here. For
>instance, OS/2 1.x from IBM ran *ONLY* on IBM hardware. OS/2 1.x from
>Microsoft ran on IBM and non-IBM hardware. IBM was deliberately limiting
>it's version of OS/2 from running on it's competitors hardware. This is no
>different from Microsoft limiting it's OS from running on non-MS DOS.
Good example. Your "fact" is patently and provably *false*.
My copy of IBM OS/2 1.3 runs fine on a clone Pentium.
IBM may have only *supported* it on their own hardware, which is *exactly*
what people would have wanted MS to do: they don't have to support it running
on something else, but going out of their way to *prevent* it is plain wrong.
>My argument is purely from the point that MS's intentions are irrelevant,
>since they had the right to do what they did, much like it's competitors.
So why do you keep trying to defend them with (made up) 'facts'? Just say what
we've thought all along: as far as "Erik" is concerned, whatever MS does is
fine.
Oh, and those competitors didn't have monopoly products that they used to tie.
>>>>And anything that uses Mach, if you want to look at it that way, just
>>>>uses the public API of Mach, not some internal data structures.
>>>The source for MACH is available, thus everything can be a public API,
>>>even code that is meant to be internal.
>>"Can be" != "is".
>>Linux is entirely available in source code, but that doesn't mean the
>>internal data structures of the kernel are available to me or they are
>>suddenly exposed in an API. You're reaching here...
>They are available to you. All it takes is a few seconds in the kernel
>source and voila! The data is yours.
Are you just bein obtuse or are you *really* that simple????
Try to get to the internal data from you user mode application at runtime in
the product(s) as you bought it.
>>>>And Schulman showed that Windows "used a DOS extender" too. The nature
>>>>of these DOS extenders is such that they're included in the product
>>>>("binding") such that they themselves have become the DOS extender if
>>>>they expose an API to applications.
>>>You're saying that Doom and Dark Forces expose API's to applications?
>>I'm not saying they do or don't.
>Well, you said that Doom and Dark Forces are DOS extenders just like
>Windows is, then state that the nature of a DOS extender is to expose API's
>to applications.
Have you missed some reading lessons? There's an 'if' in there.
*IF* they expose an API to apps, they have become the DOS extender themselves.
For Windows, that 'if' evaluates to 'true', for Doom and Dark Forces to
'false' (to my knowledge anyway).
>>>Yes, the *CAN* extend DOS, and other than memory allocation, they
>>>generally do not. For instance, they do not provide their own file
>>>system services, Windows does.
>>You keep banging on the 'own' file system services that DOS Extender
>>Windows happens to provide. Is that your criterion for 'extending' DOS,
>>providing your own file system services??? You must be running out of
>>arguments...
>That was an example.
Overuse of one example wears an argument thin.
>Windows provides many other services that DOS extenders do not, such as
>device management, I/O, etc..
So, again, it's all a question of how much services happen to have chosen to
be replaced by the DOS extender, in your 'argument'.
Fine, give us the criterion. How many services must be replaced in order for a
DOS extender to be called "an OS"? Name an exact number.
>>>I'm sorry, but emulating a CPU is not an API.
>>Ah, that does it, Erik has spoken so it's not.
>>What a crock.
>>A macro is an application of eg. a word processor + OS + machine.
>>A word processor is an application of an OS + machine.
>>An OS is an application of a machine.
>>A PC is an application of semiconductor technology.
>>See any similarities?
>>An API is a concept; any limitation to "programming an application for a
>>certain operating system" is purely your own "I don't want to see more
>>than this because it doesn't suit me".
>The difference is this. An API is called by an application. As such, it's
>passive. A CPU is active, in that it runs the application, not the
>application running it.
Hello, who has English as his native language here?????
An 'application' is ... the application of something. You apply it.
If you apply semiconductor technology, you get chips. If you apply chips and
chipsets etc., you get a computer. An OS is one application of a PC, and
running a totally different OS makes another application of it.
Using OS system calls is an application of that OS (this is the only API you
want to see now that it suits your 'argument') and using eg. Word functions
(like eg. VBA does) is an application of Word.
Do you really have problems with concepts, or is just one concept holy
(Microsoft ueber alles)?
>>Read the book (carefully) instead of trying to weasel out of it with
>>inappropriate comparisons.
>I have read the book carefully. I know exactly what Windows provides. I
>also know that Schulman states matter of factly that the Windows *IS* an
>OS.
>He also states matter of factly that Windows 95 doesn't run on DOS, but
>rather DOS runs under Windows. I can provide quotes for you if you like.
That's exactly why I have *not* been arguing Win95 is a DOS app. You can
squirm all you want to try to paint me as doing that, but I'm not. I'm only
using *your* 'arguments' to show things that you don't want to concede
(whether or not I agree with not wanting to concede such a point). That would
show any ordinary, logical person that there must have been a fallibility in
their 'argument' and learn from it.
But "Erik Funkenbusch" isn't here to learn, he's here to blindly defend MS, no
matter what they have done.
>>>My argument isn't that it's not a DOS extender (I already said it
>>>provides one).
>>"Provides" != "is".
>>>My argument is that it's a great deal *MORE* than that.
>>Yeah, Windows extends X, Y and Z and handles A and B in its own code,
>>while DOS Extender "ACME" extends only X and handles C in own code.
>So you're not arguing this.
Nobody denies that Windows handles more in its own code than other DOS
extenders (whether or not that is a good thing isn't always clear though).
>>>>Note, I'm not denying your tack of "Windows is an OS", but by the same
>>>>logic any DOS extender is an OS as well. If the latter isn't true
>>>>according to you, then Windows isn't an OS either. Pick one.
>>>An OS is something that provides OS-like services.
>>An ape is an ape-like creature, to stay in your inappropriate comparison.
>>Talk about circular reasoning.
>Not inappropriate at all. If it walks like an ape, grunts like an ape,
>looks like an ape, acts like an ape, then it *IS* an ape.
>Are we going to sit here and define what an ape is like, or what an OS is
>like? I think those definitions are pretty well know.
Yeah, most Winvocates like you can easily trot out the 'OS-like services'...
Great criteria.
An ape is an ape-like creature.
A football is something that has football-like qualities.
A light is something that gives light.
An OS is something that delivers OS-like services.
Can we give this guy a prize or what?
>>>Not just
>>Here come the random 'criteria'...
>>>memory allocation, but file services,
>>>graphical input/output,
>>Ah, so DOS isn't an OS after all. Nor VMS or Unix when you're not running
>>the X Window System (DECWindows) or those pesky mainframes...
>>Gee, intelligent criterion, Erik... What did you have in mind, only
>>Windows must qualify???
>What are you talking about? Unix most definately does provide graphical
>input/output. A TTY is graphical input/output, and certainly that's built
>into the kernel.
What? Now characters are graphical??????
You're reaaaaallllyyyy reaching here....
>>>device management, etc.. Windows clearly provides those services,
>>Not very coincidental when you name only Windows 'services' as "OS-like
>>services".
>I didn't realize that file services and device management were "only
>Windows 'services'".
That was in the DOS - Windows context, and they were "coincidentally" exactly
the criteria you gave in which Windows replaced DOS...
>>How'bout rock-solid stability? Windows doesn't provide that service (and
>>no, NT doesn't qualify for me anymore, when it freezes on me at least once
>>a week, just running some apps)...
>That's not a service, that's a characteristic. And i've never read an OS
>text that requires an OS to provide such a characteristic as grounds for it
>being called an OS. Certainly MacOS doesn't, nor did AmigaOS, or TOS, or
>DOS, or Minix, or Coherant (Mark Williams early Unix without memory
>protection).
Hey, if you can just name some things as "OS-like services" that are clearly
meant to differentiate between DOS and Windows in favour of Windows (which, I
guess, according to you makes DOS not an OS since it doesn't provide those
"OS-like" services), then so can I.
And it's "Coherent" BTW, and it's no coincidence you don't have *that* name
right...
>>>and for the most part they're seperate implementations from the
>>>underlying DOS. Simple DOS extenders do not.
>>You said it right, *simple* DOS extenders do not.
>>We agree Windows is not a *simple* DOS extender...
>I'm glad you agree. Just because something *IS* something, doesn't mean
>it's not something else as well. OS/2 is a DOS extender as well.
Rubbish. It not only 'replaces' 100% of DOS (which might technically still be
a DOS extender), but it also isn't started as a DOS application (from DOS).
But if it rocks your boat to call it such, then go right ahead. But don't go
blaming others for *you* looking stupid (and don't complain if someone then
calls NT a DOS extender too).
>>>>Because it's (usually) needless / on purpose and/or the broken software
>>>>used the API as documented???
>>>But you claim that MS has no responsibility to maintain such
>>>compatibility.
>>>Are you now changing that statement?
>>What part of "needless" don't you understand???
>Well, buffer exploits in Linux are needless as well. Bugs happen.
Don't worry, without those showstoppers we're talking about here, MS has
plenty of bugs left to iron out.
>>Since we're talking about "internal data structures" here (if you still
>>remember the topic after all your strawmen), you can hardly call 'not
>>causing software that uses the API as documented' the same as
>>'guaranteeing that software to run'.
>And how do you know that every time some software is broken that they're
>using the API as documented? I've had some experience with my companies own
>software breaking after applying a service pack, and 9 times out of 10,
>it's because the developer had misunderstood some part of the documentation
>or relied on some undocumented side effect that went away in the SP. In the
>few times it was an actual bug in the SP, I certainly am not arrogant
>enough to believe that MS was "targeting" our company (especially when they
>don't even compete in our market).
That 9 times out of 10 the programmers were at fault doesn't disprove MS
deliberately broke something.
And maybe some real competitor *was* targeted with this removal of side effect
that may have been 'documented' to them (there are more ways to document
things, and then there are different versions of documentation, and then
there's deliberate vagueness or strategic non-documenting that enables one to
pull a trick).
>This stuff happens. It happens on the Mac, it happens on Windows. It
>happens in Unix (why do you think they give version numbers to libraries).
Because they've actually thought the stuff over?!?!
If you change something incompatibly, then the major version number changes
and the 'user' can decide to keep the old one for the apps they don't want to
break. Install an MS app and you get all new versions with the same names and
your old apps suddenly break because the working version has been overwritten.
How innovative...
>Microsoft goes well out of it's way to ensure compatibility. The book you
Maybe, but then they're not very good at it....
>keep telling me to read carefully has an entire section talking about the
>windows compatibility flags and the amount of effort MS spends on making
>sure faulty software continues to run. You did read that part when you were
>carefully reading it, right?
Sure. I'm just not sure that you're using the same terms as Schulman, or
whether or not you're leaving something more descriptive out, because he *can*
tell things completely and understandably (and correctly).
There are no "windows compatibility flags" as an independent entity, so
someone interested in actually communicating should also tell people what
entity it relates to (like "DOS compatibility flags" would need the extra
reference to "SETVER.EXE").
>>>>Because it always happens to be competitor's products if there still is
>>>>competition in that app area or their own product if they've already
>>>>practically established a monopoly in the area of the app being broken??
>>>MS apps are occasionally broken as well. But usually they aren't. MS
>>>tests it's own apps against updates, it doesn't test every competitors
>>>app.
>>Which ofcourse isn't monopolistic either eh? Still want to maintain the
>>app competitors aren't disadvantaged.
>>They should test API conformance, not specific apps.
>Testing API conformance isn't going to prevent apps from breaking. As I
>said, in my experience 9 times out of 10, when an app breaks, it's the apps
>fault.
Then those 9 aren't at issue here, the 1 is.
>>>>Get real. Applications get blamed for faults with Windows than the other
>>>>way around.
>>>By people that know. Your average joe will blame MS though, rather than
>>>the App.
>>a) Rubbish
>>b) Aren't buying decisions done by people who know???? (you don't need to
>>answer this, we know this not to be true)
>So, you just made two conflicting statements here. First, you claim that
>I'm wrong, then you claim I'm right.
No, I was so foolish to assume you could understand such a shorthanded
reaction so I wouldn't have to type "this is rubbish, but if you want me to
assume your rubbish to be truth for the sake of argument, then ...".
Like I said, foolish of me. I knew you are in pedantic mode.
>>>>I'm sure the knee-jerk reaction of MS weenies to my NT machine freezing
>>>>completely on a very regular basis is along the lines of "ah, but you
>>>>shouldn't run Netscape but IE!". So much for a stable and robust OS...
>>>Bugs happen.
>>"stable, enterprise class, mission critical..."
>>"bugs happen"
>>Uh-huh!!
>>Oh and BTW Gates disagrees with you, you know he said there a no bugs in
>>Windows 95.
>For someone that claims to understand english so well that you KNOW what a
>person means when you read between the lines, you can't even seem to get a
>simple quote right.
>He said (and I quote) "There are no *SIGNIFICANT* bugs that any
>*SIGNIFICANT* number of users want fixed".
And you thought I didn't leave those "I'll say those weasel-words in so I can
weasel my way out later" words out on purpose?
Anyone who doesn't see them for what they are is either stupid or a lawyer (or
both)...
And you kinda take away the pizazz out of "do what our customers want" if you
call millions of people cursing your product "not a significant number of
users", eh?
>Which is not saying that there are no bugs. He's saying there are bugs, but
>they are not significant, or if they are significant, they are not a
>significant number of people effected by them.
Yeah, what's a reboot among friends?
Bill "Ostrich" Gates (and Erik "Denial" Funkenbusch).
>>>No, you missed the point. I'm talking about apps that don't even bother
>>>to check if the services or memory they need is available. They just
>>>check for running under Windows and fail.
>>OK, let me rephrase this especially for those boneheaded app programmers
>>"there's a difference between not checking whether or not the services are
>>available and refusing to run somewhere where those services are known to
>>be specified as available".
>But that's just it. Novell had acknowledged incompatibilities. And MS had
>no way to know for sure if the services it needed would always be
>available.
So as soon anyone acknowledges an "incompatibility" (whatever tiny, rare thing
it might be), then it's OK for MS to *go out of their way* to identify the
product and *refuse* to run (on) it???
Get real!!!! Talk about an MS Apologist. You certainly deserve a capital A.
>>>An example of this is the many DirectX games that checked for NT and
>>>failed to run or install if it was, assuming that NT didn't have DirectX.
>>>This obviously failed when NT4 later got DirectX and with Windows 2000
>>>which has Direct3D.
>>And what MS did was the equivalent of ACME game programmer looking to see
>>if this was ACME Mindblows 2000 with Direct3D or Microsoft Windows 2000
>>with Direct3D, which both implement the same game programming APIs, and
>>refusing to run on the MS one (or just giving a warning at beta time to
>>see if they can get away with it or that a stink is raised).
>Which would be entirely within ACME's rights to do.
And again, when all factual arguments run out, it's "Duh, the can do whatever
they want" time for "Erik".
You know, I've done my best to not take any cheap shots at your (alledged)
name, but your actions really make it very applicable: Flunkybusch.
Stop pretending there's something factually to discuss and yes call "It's OK
for MS to do whatever they want" in reaction to every remark. That's what it
all boils down to in the end anyway.
>>>Whatever the purpose of the message is really irrelevant to this
>>>conversation, which is simply that MS *DOES* have the right to warn
>>>people of incompatibilities.
>>At last you're starting to show your true colours: "they can do whatever
>>they want".
>No, I didn't say that. I said they have a right to warn of
>incompatibilities.
And to refuse to run, and ..., and ..., and ...
>That does not translate to being able to do anything they want.
There's such a thing as a track record.
>>We knew that, that's why we call it a monopoly. We want to change that, so
>>that a really open marketplace acan actually *punish* them for completely
>>unnecessary 'warnings' that are only for anti-competitive objectives.
>Sorry, but Anti-trust is not about punishment. It's about remedies.
Law is about both. Anyone offending against a law is punished (OK, in theory).
If you speed, you're punished (a warning, a ticket, revoking your license,
jail). MS certainly has showed that they don't heed only remedies, so if they
don't want listen they have to feel. Punishment is integral to
law-enforcement.
>>>And what makes you think it was for one reason only? I've offered
>>>several other viable reasons for it.
>>Apparantly I and others disagree with the viability of the reasons. You
>>can't argue one separately and then use all your other bogus partyline
>>'reasons' to 'support' the one, while you do the same for every other one.
>What does this mean exactly?
That you act just like MS. In one case, you argue 'A', in the next you argue
'not A'. Too bad, there are those who look at all cases and remind you of the
inconsistencies.
>>Everybody agrees there are good reasons to keep internal data structures
>>internal. But that then goes for everything. If the API is good enough for
>>WP, it's good enough for Windows.
>>Those reasons were not why this AARD code was put in, that was just to cut
>>off DR-DOS.
>How do you know that that was the ONLY reason?
You're in plain denial now...
It's all been rehashed for you a thousand times. It's against MS, so you won't
accept it, no matter what.
>>The point isn't at all about "OS or not OS".
>>It's about APIs ("internal data structures" *implies* an API), and that
>>API should be the only deciding factor in the working of the application.
>>If it conforms it must run, and that goes both ways, regardless of what
>>the actual API (AP _Interface_) is...
>No, I think it's reasonable to say that certain API's are only for certain
>purposes. For instance, MACH API's are not for applications running under
>Darwin to call.
If that's true (you still know the word 'if'?) then they're irrelevant to
Darwin applications and the API they use.
You twirl around like a balloon that's emptying. It's empty by now.
>>>As I said, MS has a legitmate right to limit it's products to work with
>>>the products it knows will work. It doesn't matter if there are actual
>>>incompatibilities or not.
>>Then the discussion stops, doesn't it???
>>"MS is right"
>>You're a real consumer advocate...
>Where did I say I was? As a software developer, I need to limit my
>liabilities or else customers will sue me every which way from sunday on
>every whim they get, regardless of whether it's my fault or not.
Then take it to its logical conclusion: stop making software. No more
liabilities.
As long as you do, the customer is king. They pay your salary. Maybe you'll
once *dare* to even *consider* yourself ever being wrong.
>>>>>Well, if that was it's intention, YOU should seriously consider your
>>>>>use of the language.
>>>>I guess you still deny any possibility of you putting things "wrong".
>>>>Too bad, your problem.
>>>You're avoiding the statement. Your response, as you claim it was
>>>intended, did not convey that message.
>>Please, start calling me names, I'm sure that will convince me you are
>>right and make me see exactly how you meant everything.
>Stop trying to change the subject.
Look who's talking, Mr. Strawman.
>>We can only say how it comes across with _us_.
>>If you have not problem with it coming across differently than you
>>intended, then there is no problem. If you have, blasting us for us isn't
>>likely to make us see the light....
>You should only speak for yourself.
What I said, I can see with a certainty nearing 100%: "we can only say how it
comes across with us". I'm not saying anyone agrees with me in *how* it comes
across (ofcourse, being the assuming person you are, you'd like to assume I
did and blast me for it; too bad), but nobody can disagree about not being
able to say more.
>Others here clearly do have a problem with it.
Really? What makes you say that? Little martians came to say that?
And would it make a difference if I said people agreed with me??? I guess not,
knowing you you'd likely say they also know 'nothing' about what you meant to
say.....
>>>I'm not defending WHY they did them per se. I'm only saying that they
>>>have a right to do them for legitimate reasons. I'm not saying that all
>>>their reasons were legitimate, but I am arguing that not all their
>>>reasons were nefarious in nature. I'm arguing the middle ground, which
>>>is that there are neither all good reasons or all bad reasons, it's a
>>>mixture.
>>You must be a high MS executive, since you were obviously there when they
>>went over the possible reasons.
>No, I have common sense.
People with common sense don't assume so much. Especially if that comes down
to defending a big (monopolistic) company that has plenty of money and means
to defend itself. Unless they have some financial or career incentive.
>>Anyone else can only speculate and look at what and how they have done and
>>what emails accompanied the actions and draw logical conclusions from
>>them.
>>There's only one logical conclusion: cut off DR-DOS.
>No, not the only logical conclusion, since I have come up with several
>other logical conslusions. You're using absolutes again.
You just mentioned your "logical conclusions" are _based_ on assumptions. Not
to mention that at least one person here questions the logic of your reasoning
and conclusions.
>Is it, or is it not a logical conclusion that MS might want to limit it's
>liability in regards to MS-DOS by making Windows not run on it, or warn the
>user about it?
"Might" is not a conclusion, it's a cop-out.
"Hey baby, do you love me?" "I might."
But I'll say it again: there's such a thing as a track record, and you try
sooooo hard to keep it out of the picture (both MS' track record and yours)
but it won't help.
>Is it, or is it not a logical conclusion that MS can make parts of one OS
>available only to another OS? What law states that MS has to provide for
>others to do what it does with Windows?
"Can" is another cop-out.
And the anti-trust laws state that a monopoly-holder cannot just do things
that are possible while others can. It's called tying.
>I'll agree, and I've never disagreed, that MS wanted to try and stop
>DR-DOS.
But you'll keep disagreeing they just picked up the bat and beat the
competitor up instead of running a fair game.
>My disagreement is that MS has a right to do what it's done for other
>legitimate reasons such as what i've mentioned. If it also happens to hurt
>a competitor, that's tough for the competitor, since they're choosing to
>"pretend" that they are a product that they are not.
My, what a coincidence. I almost feel sorry for MS that it makes them look
like a nasty monopolist while they tried their best to protect their ...uhh..
DR-DOS' customers...
Puke.
>>>>A "co-package"?? What a load of crap!!!
>>>>You sure you're not a lawyer for MS (puke)???
>>>co-package was the only way I could phrase it. What would you call
>>>darwin and mach? I call them co-packages.
>>You buy and install Darwin and Mach separately like DOS and Windows???
>>The term seems designed to facilitate the argument, not the other way
>>around.
>Mach is designed to allow multiple OS's to run simultaneously. While you
>might buy Mach and Darwin together, you'll likely be able to buy mk-linux
>seperately to run on the Mach you already have.
And on any other OS that wants to host it, I'm sure. Linux isn't so picky as
Windows :-P
>>If there are no credibly applicable legitimate reasons to discuss (seeing
>>the emails, the AARD code, the encryption of said code ...) they had
>>little choice but to get caught...
>Why do you insist that there are no credibly applicable legitimate reasons?
>MS has proven in this court case that they'll often throw out legitimate
>reasons for something else (for instance, when they provided a dramatized
>video as evidence. The experiment was recreated and shown to be the same as
>the dramatized video, but MS chose to make it fancy instead).
Poor MS, they had so underpaid legal counsel...
It's actually typical MS: they try to make it look good, but the basis (in
this case, the facts) are ruins.
The only chance they would have had was being (a lot) more modest. But if
there's one thing they can't be, it's modest. It got them there, and their
egos were too big to limit the damage. So "Burn, baby, burn"...
--
Illya Vaes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) "Do...or do not, there is no 'try'" - Yoda
Holland Railconsult BV, Integral Management of Railprocess Systems
Postbus 2855, 3500 GW Utrecht
Tel +31.30.2653273, Fax 2653385 Not speaking for anyone but myself
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
