Linux-Advocacy Digest #106, Volume #27 Thu, 15 Jun 00 22:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why Linux, and X.11 when MacOS 'X' is around the corner? (Robie Basak)
Re: Number of Linux Users (Salvador Peralta)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day (Karl Knechtel)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Grant Fischer)
Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy lies.... (Bob
Hauck)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: ApplixWare? More Build It As You Go Along Linux.... (OSguy)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Good books on writing a kernel. ("Francis Van Aeken")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robie Basak)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Why Linux, and X.11 when MacOS 'X' is around the corner?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 16 Jun 2000 00:38:52 GMT
On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 20:34:15 +0000, Rjones said:
>Default wrote:
>>
>> Having just gotten through reading over 7,000 Linux posts in one sitting,
>> I *still* fail to see the advantages of Linux over Apple's forthcoming OS
>> 'X'.
>>
>> Okay, Steve is still an Assh**e, and Apple Inc., leaves much to be
>> desired. And Apple's present operating system stinks compared to what it
>> replaced (8.6 vs. 9.04). Sort of like Windows 95 vs. 98/2000.
>> I fail to see why anyone, other those that want to make a living via
>> Linux, would want to be involved in Linux?
>
>Of course this is only my opinion, and not a very informed one at that,
>since I haven't used OSX yet. I've used Linux for a long time, but I'm
>very excited by OSX. However, I can imagine reasons why I would stick
>with Linux after OSX comes out (and I don't know whether any or all will
>prove to be true):
>
>1. A PC+Linux+X may be cheaper than a Mac+OSX.
>2. A PC+Linux+X may be faster than a Mac+OSX.
>3. Although I look forward to having a friendly interface on top of
>Unix, I abhor a graphical interface that I can't configure and tune in
>my own quirky ways. Linux+X allows me to do that (although GNOME has
>taken a step in the wrong direction, IMHO), and Mac+OSX may not.
I read that it is not possible to run remote GUI applications using
this Mac thingy.
Robie.
--
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Number of Linux Users
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:48:22 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux systems may not account for the biggest share of HTTP_USER_AGENT
traffic, but they sure do make nice systems on which to watch WinUsers
parse files or better still, to repeatedly access a given http resource
while filtering kludge.
If I had realized that we were keeping score, I would've inserted
User-Agent: into some of those scripted http client requests. Perhaps I
should revisit some code...
--
Salvador Peralta
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> That's a 50% increase!! Yeah!
>
> just like going from 2 to 3 users...
>
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8iaul7$mkt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > You know you've hit the big time when you've made that
> > giant leap from 0.2% to a whopping 0.3%.
> >
> > Congrats!
> >
> > -Chad
> >
> > "John Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:7t625.2215$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > As the number of Linux users BOOMS to 0.3%. Is Linux taking over??!!
> > >
> > > http://websnapshot.mycomputer.com/systemos.html
> > >
> > > http://bbspot.com/News/2000/4/linux_distros.html
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 00:55:59 GMT
On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:15:27 GMT, Daniel Johnson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> I didn't "make" them do anything. Mostly, they would read some book
>> and find out that they could do things on the server.
>
>You've got unusual users there.
Not in 1994-1996. The Internet was much more geek-oriented then.
>> you're an ISP. I do have objection to MS tying it to their platform
>> even though that was not necessary to achieve the functionality they
>> wanted.
>
>That's your opinion; MS may well feel it made it easier to achieve
>the functionality they wanted.
Yes, it is my opinon. And since other products have similar features
without requiring special hacking of Apache or a particular web server,
I think it is a reasonable opinion.
>> My problem with your simple explanation is that they often seem to do
>> things in a way that locks out other products or that forces the use of
>> some other product of theirs besides the wanted one. That seems to be
>> what the DoJ has been objecting to as well.
>
>This isn't true. I realize that it's popular in some circles to accept
>all that the DoJ says as the gospel truth, but it ain't so.
What isn't true? That they try to lock out other products? Well, if
not, then there's been an amazing series of lucky coincidences. It
sure is true that so-called "product tying" was an issue in the trial.
>MS is very gung ho about interoperability.
Yup, they are "gung-ho" about interoperability *between their own
products*, just not with other vendor's products or standards-based
products. They actively try to sabotage interoperability with other
operating systems by claiming full compatibility and then doing the
absolute minimum required by the letter of the spec, never mind that
every single other product in the space has certain common extensions.
They then go and make an incompatible version that does do what people
expect and say "see, our stuff works better than that other crap,
we have better features than the standard, switch to MS".
>> That's right, they need more than FTP to do their "bots". But they
>> could have made it a lot more friendly to the Unix way of doing things.
>No doubt. But it is perfectly reasonable for them to try to peddle
>their internet servers as "easier to use"; they should not be obliged
>to provide similar improvements for their competitors.
You just don't want to hear what I'm saying here. Their server was
_not_ easier to use for an ISP, because it did not support the ISP's
existing infrastructure. They were trying to *tie* the FP client
(which they could bundle with Office and lowball the price on to help
acceptance) to the IIS server in order to force people to buy the
server whether they wanted it or not. Nobody else could play that
game because nobody else had a lock on the desktop market.
>I really do object to this whole "they didn't give *us* an easy to use
>front end, too!" line here. MS is not obliged to write software for
>Apache just because you would like to have such software.
A normal company, one without a river of cash flowing in from other
sources, could not afford to play the game the way MS did. They would
have had to make the server side compatible with the ISP's existing
servers, and be reasonably easy to support, or nobody would have
installed it. The ISP's could have just said "sorry, we don't support
that". But MS could get millions of copies of their client out there
through bundling deals and lowball pricing, making this an untenable
position for most ISP's to take.
What are they selling? A web-publishing tool? A web server? Yes,
both, and they want to tie them together so you can't fully use one
without the other. And they have the means to give a large percentage
of their customers a copy of the client included with other products.
Does this sound like a fair and honest way to enter the web server
market to you? Or does it sound like leverage?
>MS had focused on integrating with Netware. That's why it didn't
>ship with a kerberos client- until now.
Yes, they were latecomers to the game. Their product was not ready,
which is why ISP's did not want it. How that happened is irrelevant.
>Well, you *can* use MS's tools with other peoples authentication and
>databases and so on. MS tries to make theirs work *better*, which
>hardly seems so awful.
How do you make NT authenticate to an NIS database? You buy a third
party product, which is likely to break with the next service pack. It
isn't clear to me how this is "better".
Maybe it is "better" if you use all NT and get rid of NIS, but that's
just not a realistic option for everyone.
>One way MS does this is by providing very rich APIs that let their
>product work together closely. But these APIs are documented
>and can be used in the same way by other products as well.
Yeah, right, they care deeply about interoperability, and they document
things so well that it is trivial to implement a compatible version.
That's why there are so many non-MS clients for Exchange. That's why
there are so many non-MS PDC and BDC servers. Once again, MS redefines
the language. MS's idea of interoperability is for their products to
interoperate with their other products. On some days, it is ok for
other products to interoperate too, if they run on an MS platform.
That's why they think API compatibility is all that's needed and
Win-supporters like yourself are derisive of the need for "wire
protocols" to be documented. But that is the very thing that proves
that they (and you) don't really care about true interoperability.
No other platform supports the Windows API, so documented API's are
worthless for vendors who wish to interoperate on other platforms. If
a third party wants to make a client for Exchange that runs on Unix or
VMS or VM, they have to know how to talk to Exchange over the wire.
The API's used are irrelevant.
If MS wants to document the API only, then if they really truly care
about interoperating and supporting their customers who might not be
ready to go all-MS, they should provide a reference implementation of
that API with source. Otherwise they are just blowing smoke.
>> Leveraging a monopoly in this way is illegal.
>
>Very dubious.
No, that's what the law says. It is not a "strange interpretation"
either, as it has been applied before. AT&T was prevented from getting
into the computer market because they had a communications monopoly.
>Yes, that's what makes this so scary. The DoJ really seems to think
>they should be micromanaging software design in general.
Then why the breakup solution? If they wanted to micromanage, they
could have asked for a supervisory remedy. I don't think the DoJ has
any interest in directing software design. I think they have an
interest in preventing an excessive concentration of market power in an
important industry.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.bobh.org/
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl Knechtel)
Subject: Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 00:25:38 GMT
<talk.bizarre removed and follow-ups set. Crossposting is naughty! :P>
Christopher Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
<snip>
: Stick with the multilevel piping type scenarios, it's one of the few things
: left a CLI really *is* vastly better for (and will probably remain so).
I've been thinking about this one actually. How about having
key-combination-click-and-drag on (some widget of a window which contains
data) to (the window of another app/process) set up a pipe, such that all
data output to the widget in the first window is sent to the
(gui-equivalent-of-stdin) of the second? Or else, pipe between two
(compatible) widgets?
Then we just need to have apps designed to take that sort of input.
Ex.: BBEdit could have an option added to the "Find" dialog, "act on each
line of stdin when received". Since BBEdit already does perl-like (very
similar anyway, dunno if it passes all the regression tests) regexping, this
would simulate the effect of "| perl -e <one-liner>".
No reason a GUI shouldn't be able to do what a CLI can. I wouldn't mind
having a CLI added into MacOS, but IMO any shell language used to
communicate with MacOS ought to be significantly 'higher-level' than DOS
or Unix shell commands. I nominate Applescript; with modifications (i.e.
lots more keywords - and OS-interaction dictionary, basically) I'd expect
it could do the job *very* nicely. I would have the 'command line' be a box
like the Message box in Hypercard, except possibly with some history -
better yet, a scrolling windoid which behaves like the MPW shell, only with
Applescript-like commands.
Commands might go something like "select <files|folders|items> of front
window matching <regexp>" (the command line should be a *windoid* so as
not to interfere). Now *that* would be cool. (Although I don't know what
legal problems they might get into for using regexps in that way - any
Unix experts happen to know if Apple would be paying large sums of money to
AT&T et al. to do that?)
I chose the above example for a good reason: it's a helluva lot faster to
get files which match a regexp using a CLI, but once you have the items
*selected* it's IME faster to drag them somewhere than type out what it is
you want done with them.
To any hackers out there whose interest may be piqued, consider the above
free speech but not necessarily free beer. I don't plan on following up on
these ideas; I consider programming an OS to be an evil chore best left to
large teams of programmers, and prefer working by myself which pretty much
rules that out. So go ahead and work on the above ideas; if you put together
a nice-looking GUI OS concept, you can distribute it free of charge and
forget I ever existed (though notification by email would be nice), though
I would expect some sort of royalty if you're doing it for pay (not that I
expect any of you would). If IP which is partly mine has financial value, it
stands to reason that the part of the IP which is mine has a corresponding
part of the value.
If Apple is listening, well I don't suppose I could afford the legal aid to
get any money out of you guys for it, but a job offer would be nice ;)
If M$ is listening... be afraid, be very afraid. <#include evil_laugh.h>
Karl Knechtel {:>
da728 at torfree dot net
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grant Fischer)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 16 Jun 2000 01:07:07 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:15:29 GMT, Daniel Johnson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Grant Fischer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 23:24:39 GMT, Daniel Johnson o
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> What limitations, exactly?
>> >
>> >A good example is the recent Kerberos activify. The Kerberos
>> >protocol, as originally designed, does not provide enough information
>> >for NT's security mechanisms to work.
>> >
>> >Kerberos was designed to solve a narrower problem; strictly
>> >authentication. Kerberos tells you who you are talking to,
>> >but it does not concern itself with security issues per se. Each
>> >program then handles any security limitations it wishes to
>> >impose in its own way.
>>
>> Think layers. Kerberos provided authentication, and other
>> frameworks like DCE used it and extended it to do authorization.
>
>MS thinks layers too, but they have different layers. MS's security
>support providers were not designed to work with Kerberos. They
>expect to get more information about the user in question that
>just his identity.
We're talking about the people who just redesigned their whole
security structure, and chose to design Kerberos into it.
You're saying that they had to extend it because it was limited;
I pointed out that there were other, more complete frameworks.
Now you're saying it didn't fit right; that's a funny thing
to say about their design choices.
>This could be kludged on as a separate protocol, but this would
>do nothing for interoperability, it would be slower, and it would
>open up new opportunities for spoofing the security system.
What the heck are you talking about? Kerberos takes care of
the identity of both the users and the services they talk to.
That's what it does.
Interoperability would take care of itself if MS made it an
open protocol -- publish the complete data specs rather than
API's.
I agree that it will be slower to implement authorization in
a second service; however it would remain to be seen whether
it would be noticeably slower. If so, there might be other ways
to mitigate that.
>Kerberos was designed to fit into Unix's structure. It didn't quite
>fit NT.
It actually has no concept of what OS it is running on; it uses
simple principal names to name users and services. You're thinking of the
implementation of the kerberized UNIX login services; they by
definition were designed to fit into UNIX's structure, and are
quite irrelevent to how NT could use Kerberos.
--
Grant Fischer (gfischer at the domain hub.org)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy lies....
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 01:07:16 GMT
On 15 Jun 2000 19:46:26 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Talk to Earthlink, Worldnet, FreeWeb, AOL, Compuserv and see what they
>>think of Linux.
>Digging up this minority of services that all require their own
>special software doesn't change this fact. It is painfully easy to find
>an ISP that uses standard protocols such as PPP.
I believe Earthlink, Worldnet and Freeweb do use PPP. They give you
neato software, but you don't have to use it.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.bobh.org/
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 21:12:54 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tim Palmer wrote:
>
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 21:06:55 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On 14 Jun 2000 16:29:12 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:52:02 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> >>>>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:42:01 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
> >>>>wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:14:46 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>>>>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 21:35:20 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
> >>>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:30:14 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:47:55 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>On 13 Jun 2000 14:02:55 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 22:57:13 +0200, Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>Tiberious wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> [CUT the entire crap]
> >[deletia]
> >>>>>>Please provide me with an example of a current Windows program that
> >>>>>>does not?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Crystal Reports.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Never heard of it.
> >>>>
> >>>>Some sort of Physic program or something?
> >>>>>[deletia]
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>So if it is so easy, again why does not Linux do it?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> scanimage -d /dev/scanner | lpr
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Oh that's certainly something Joe Sixpack will remember..
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Then someone can encapsulate it in a button, menu or
> >>>>> an entire pointless little shiny little applet.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>No that's a demonstration of the ease of Windows and the archaicness
> >>>>of Linux.
> >>>
> >>> As arcana goes, it's actually not bad.
> >>>
> >>> "scanimage" ...oooh, whatever could that be.
> >>>
> >>> "/dev/scanner" ...now that's a non-descript name if there ever
> >>> was one.
> >>
> >>You left out the switch you used. And scanimage sends its output to stdout. What
>formatt is it in
> >
> > -d : -<firstletter of fullword descriptor>
> >
> > That's not terribly obscure either.
>
> O really? What the hell is a "fullword descriptor", and how many MAN paiges or
>HOWTO's do you
> have to read to get to that part?
-d for DEVICE, you fucking shit-for-brains.
>
> The funny thing about you UNIX people is that you alwais say that UNIX is "easy" and
>then you come
> back and say you half to type some cryptic-as-hell command to do something simpal.
>My favarite is:
>
> rpm -Uvh
>
> >
> > As far as the format of the output goes: any reasonable print
> > filter should be able to sort that out by itself.
> >
>
> >>and how much of the MAN page do you half to read to get to that part? How many
>filters to you half
> >>to pipe it thruogh before its' readabal by GIMP?
> >
> > Once again you demonstrate your cluelessness.
> >
> > The X version of scanimage that comes with SANE is directly
> > employable by GIMP as a plug-in.
> >
> >>
> >>Now, it's tommorro. What happens when the average user doesnt' remember wheather
>it's "scanimage"
> >>or "scanpicture" or, worse, yet, when the user does'nt remember what's supposed to
>go in front of
> >>the word "scanner"?
> >
> > They could just use GIMP or StarOffice or Xscanimage or Xsane
> > or just have a button or menu in their favorite enviroment.
>
> The averadge user's favorite environmant is Windos. They don't put up with
>slow-as-hell substituits
> for good Windows apps like ShitOfice or PIMP. Force any non-geak uer to put up with
>GNOME and
> its endless delay's for even half an hour and they'll DEMAND to halve Windows back
>and never
> want to even here the word "Linxu" again.
>
> >
> > It will certainly be more friendly than anything in DCL.
> >
> >[deletia]
> >
> >
> >--
> >
> > |||
> > / | \
> >
> > Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: OSguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ApplixWare? More Build It As You Go Along Linux....
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 20:18:18 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >No singing and dancing paper clip. <G>
>
> No puddy tat!
>
> Seriously, if a package on Linux had a cutesie puddy tat like MS Word 2000,
> I'd switch to Linux overnight.
>
> Pete
Now that's more scary than the creepy paperclip.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 21:14:41 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Very well put Tim....
If you think so, you must be unfamiliar with reality.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: "Francis Van Aeken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.programmer,comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.aix
Subject: Re: Good books on writing a kernel.
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:21:41 -0300
One useful introductory work is Tanenbaum & Woodhull's
"Operating Systems". Linus started that way.
If you find other useful material, especially for the x86 architecture,
please let me know. I'm interested in the subject myself.
Francis.
Manish Ahuja <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> What I find most difficult is that it is very difficult to get a BIG
> picture when
> you look at any OS code. The complexity of the whole thing eludes you.
> There
> are lotsa good books out there, but reading helps you to clear stuff up
> but only when
> you write and implement it. Any good books that can help me write an
> absolute rudimentary kernel, or maybe parts of it like FS, VMM or proc
> to begin with.
> Where can i begin ?? Any tutorials ?? Web pointers ?? books ?? I prefer
> if the books has
> things to do suggestions and exercises in the end.
>
> I am sure there are lotsa folks out there who know a lot on this subject
> and all answers
> suggestions will be appreciated. Thanks in advance to all who reply.
>
> Manish
>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
