Linux-Advocacy Digest #294, Volume #27 Sat, 24 Jun 00 00:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 03:05:39 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Time to eat another WinTroll :-) (yum yum).
I've taken the liberty of correcting some of the
spelling and grammer of the original post.
> 1. It scales down
>
> Noboddy cares if Linux can run on some geek's
> obsolete 386 in 2MB of RAM. Windows runs on today's
> computer's, and the fact that it doesn't run on
> some obsolete piece-of-shit computer from 1991
> doessn't mean shit.
There have been over 1/2 billion computers sold between 1993
and 1998. None of which can run Windows 2000 or Windows 98
effectively. Microsoft has told the owners of 1/2 billion
computers that they were idiots, that their computers are
now worthless.
Microsoft expects the owners and users of these machines
to simply "throw them away". Even this is a bit of a problem
since the EPA has identified at least 9 toxic wastes that keep you
from simply "tossing it in the dump". You can't even legally use
an old PC as a "Boat Anchor" due to the arsenic, lead, and other
toxins.
What to do with 500 million PCs that won't run the latest version
of Windows? You could run the old versions, Windows 3.1 and
Windows 95, but it's getting harder and harder to find new software
for the older computers, and furthermore, you can't read documents
created by Office 2000 on Office 95 or Office 2.0
Alternative number two, what the heck, plop linux on it. At minimum,
you get a really cheap web server, e-mail server, and file server. It
also makes a nice masquerading firewall for that DSL connection, a nice
DNS caching system to speed up those host name lookups, and it can even
page you when you have something important come up.
> 2. It's multi-user
>
> Linux gains NOTHING over Windows by being multi-user.
> All that meens to me is that I have to
> remember a password just to be able to get into my own computer.
True. Do you have you Windows 9x machine connected directly to DSL
and your C drive set to "Share"? Do you realize that anyone can
easily get your history log, cookies, and password files and help
themselves to your checking account, savings account, brokerage
account, and order things using the credit cards you've already
used to make previous purchases?
Why don't you just hand your credit card, driver's license, and
social security card to the next pan-handler you meet. They can
make a few phone orders until they reach the limit and then give
it back to you.
I just finished talking to someone who had his checking account
drained of $10,000 by a hacker who made several hundred $22 orders.
The attack was caught and the damage was prevented, but the bank
is still looking for the perpetrator.
What made matters worse was that his wife had died the day before
the attack.
> Users want to get their work done, not waste time "logging in"
> screwing around with usernames and passwords that can't
> even be disabled, and having to remember the "root password"
> every time something goes wrong.
Users also want their work protected from deliberate or accidental
corruption of disclosure by unauthorized users. This is one of
the reasons that Windows NT has logins and Windows 9x doesn't.
> Those "other users" that UNIX is designed to support
>through VT100 terminals
Actually, X11 terminals are much more functional. After all,
I like running GUI applications as much as the next guy.
> can get their own computer,
> and the "administrative identities"
> aka daemon, nobody, mail, news, bin,
> sys, and uucp, can all go to hell.
Actually that's literally where they are designed to go. If
you attempt to log in as an administrative user, you don't get
control of the system, you get thrown into an application which
will either demand that you obey a very strict protocol, or disconnect
you within seconds of your first mistake.
> It's not the '70s anymore.
No. Back in the 70s there were only about 10,000 UNIX users, the
Internet was the ARPA net and was connected using X.25 and RS-232
connections with an average speed of 1200 baud. Usenet was mostly
dial-up connections at 300 baud to 1200 baud.
Today, you have 500 million people separated only by a 400 megabit
pipe. If only 1 in 1 million is a malevolent hacker who makes it
to you door, that means that you might only be electronically
burglarized 500 times this year. Maybe you'll get lucky and only be
hit 5 times this year - how much can you afford to lose?
> 3. It's "flexible" (in other words you can turn off the GUI)
>
> And noboddy cares.
> Linux is just as useless without its GUI as Windows is.
But look at the $100 "Mail Machines". Turning off the GUI means
you can put full PC power into a Palm Pilot, a wristwatch, or
a storage appliance. And just because I'm not running X11/R6
doesn't mean that I don't have GUI access - via Web browsers.
The Cobalt Cube is configured via a Web browser interface that
completely hides the fact that the box underneath is Linux.
> There is NO REASON to turn off the GUI,
RAM, MIPS, and GIGs of hard drive require cubic inches and
create heat, they also gobble electricity. If I can run
my thinkpad for 4 hours without a recharge by running Linux
in text mode as opposed to running 2 hours by running Windows
in GUI mode, I'll take VI.
It's really hard to script GUIs. This means that unless I have
a means to script equivalent functions, I have to depend on a human
being to execute a "script" of mouse and keyboard sequences.
Experience has taught me that a cron job is much more dependable
than a 3rd shift operator who sleeps through 1/3 of his shift.
> and NO REASON to turn off the desktop,
Desktops are wonderful things. They provide a convienient display
of some of the most valuable and interesting applications, what's
currently running, and means to control the running applications,
from a single screenful of icons and windows.
Of course, with Windows, you only need a single screen. There just
aren't that many applications that get the priviledge of "desktop"
presence.
Linux has so many different applications available that it's often
hard to keep track of all the directories, let alone all of the
commands. Linux applications are typically trivial graphical
interfaces to scripts. The user enters some parameters via a GUI,
presses the "submit" button, and the GUI generates a script and
passes it to a program that executes the script. This makes it
much easier to enhance the script, enhance the front-end, or automate
the repetitive tasks.
> and NO REASON to turn off the Window manager.
The Window manager is another useful feature. It provides a means
to arrange multiple windows on a single desktop. It enables us to
focus on the most important functions while other tasks take place
in relative obscurity covered by "forground" windows.
Linux has numerous window managers. In fact, Linux users quickly
found that they really needed more than one window. Many Linux users
use multiple "virtual desktops" to allow them to move from view to
view more quickly. There is a similar function available in the
NT resource kit. I've always felt that Microsoft should have included
the NT resource kit with Windows. For some reason, Microsoft refuses
to include that in the "bundle".
Of course, Linux has other ways to manage a number of background
and forground processes. Most of these were originally developed
by the BSD folks. We also have emacs. It really depends on whether
you are connected directly via an "in-memory-socket" at 100
megabytes/second to a 500 Mhz processor or indirectly via a cell-phone
that charges 50 cents per megabyte.
Even with the window manager off, you can switch between consoles
quite easily.
When you are using a server, nobody really cares what the display
looks like. In fact, if you're dedicating 70% of the CPU and RAM
to video display, the server is probably suffering as a result.
A "Windows Server" is an oxymoron. First, it implies that the
server must be maintained through direct interaction with the
server's keyboard, mouse, and display screen.
> These are all useless features, and Linux gains NOTHING over
> Windows for having them.
Of course, when you have a report or contract proposal due tomorrow
morning at 9:00 A.M. you're in a hotel room, and you need level 3
technical assistance you immediately become aware of the difference.
With Windows, the help desk operator tells you that you can set up
an appointment to come in tomorrow morning at 10 A.M. to have you
computer "reengineered" (format the hard drive, reinstall the standard
baseline software, possibly restore a few of your personal files, and
leave you with a half crippled computer sans the application you needed
for your presentation, the report you'd been working on all night, and
the reference notes you'd received from the customer the previous day.
With Windows, the help desk operator connects you to a level 3 support
person in a time-zone where it's between 10 and 4. That person asks
you to start a shell, su, change your password and then tell him what
the new password (perhaps he'll give you the password). You then
see an invitation to "talk", he then executes the same sequence you
tried (as you), sees what the problem is, makes the correct changes,
and sends you an electronic receipt. In an hour, your report is
finished and you can present it the following morning without looking
like you've had 3 too many martinis.
> Yet Linux isn't flexibble enough to allow you
> to turn off the multi-user "feature". Now
> THAT would be a somewhat usefull feature.
Actually, it's not that hard. You can create a guest password,
don't give it a password, and simply log in whenever you feel
like it. There is even the "Anonymous" id in which you give
any password you like. It only works for FTP to a safe directory,
but it's a nice way to let friends drop of attachments that you
need to review before executing them.
> 4. You can log in remotely
Actually, this isn't a unique feature of Linux. Microsoft Windows
lets you gain access to remote machines through shared drives. When
you make the C drive sharable, any file on the drive can be modified.
> ...creating the nead for the whole username-and-pasword system.
True, with Windows 95 and a sharable C drive, any moron hacker can
come in and read, write, modify, or delete any file they want on your
hard drive. If they know what they are looking for, they can get
your history log (complete with unencrypted copies of all those
"secure" transactions you sent using your credit card number (in
clear text of course).
> And since it's a feature that only geeks need,
It's funny how "geeks" are the ones starting these web sites,
fixing the servers when they go down, and keeping "money machines"
that generate millions of dollars an hour fully operational so that
the company doesn't lose money.
It's funny how "geeks" manage to keep the information that is
essential and critical to the decision making processes within
corporations flowing almost transparently.
What's really funny is when "non-geeks" or "suits" who majored
in sports, drinking, and boinking try to mandate that Microsoft
should be the company solution for e-mail. Even funnier is when
they try to explain how the system was destroyed by Melissa,
ExploreZip, BubbleBoy, LoveBug, and other "virus of the week"
hacks that have now comprimised the security of the entire
corporate IT infrastructure.
> the only "benefit" for normal users is
> that they need a password (see #2)
> to keep hackers out, where they don't need one if they run Windows.
You have a point there. When normal users run windows, hackers
don't need any passwords at all. Heck, with Windows 98, one little
e-mail or web page can open the machine up like a steamed clam, just
waiting for the goodies to be plucked out.
> 5. "X" Windows works over a network.
>
> Another feature that nobody ever uses.
If everything works perfectly, the machine is working perfectly,
and no one has any problems, you're correct.
If only Mr. Murphy hadn't come up with that nasty law. Whatever
can go wrong will, and at the worst possible time.
Have you ever noticed that the machine runs perfectly when you're
playing Duke Nukem, but when you're an hour from making your pitch
to a client considering a $20 million purchase, your laptop decides
to go berzerk? (you've never made a $20 million pitch before?).
> This doesn't make "X" Windows more useful to most users.
Until they need help, you're right. Windows users are used to the
stock answers. Restart the application, Reboot the system, reload
the application, reload the system, reengineer the system.
Linux users actually ask for help and get it. They can go to a
chat room, newsgroup, search area, or website, but when all else
fails, they can give a trusted service person temporary access via
X11.
Personally, I'm a lazy sucker. When I have servers in upstate New York,
central Pennsylvania, and Jacksonville Florida, I don't like having
to fly for 5 hours so that I can spend 30 minutes pushing the right
buttons to get the desired result and then spending 5 hours flying
back. My clients really hate paying for 10 hours of travel and 2 hours
of productive time in a single day. When I'm running Linux and the
server is running UNIX, I can avoid the travel entirely.
> Windows still wins.
... the masturbation contest.
That's rude, but putting it simply, Windows wins - by your criteria,
based on the assumption that you are the only person who knows or
cares whether the machine is working, whether or not the machine is
safe. The assumption is that you never connect to the internet, you
never store sensitive information on your computer, and the machine
is locked in a location where you are the only one who has physical
access to the machine.
> 6. The CLI can multitask and network.
>
> ...which still doesn't make it any more usefull than DOS.
It always amused me how people would claim that MS-DOS didn't need
multitasking, but would then insist that they had to have support
for their favorite TSRs such as Borland Sidekick. A TSR is
essentially multitasking. You have lousy memory management, rotten
scheduling, and you have to compete with peripherals for interrupts,
but it's still multitasking.
> Multitasking is only usefull to normal
> people in a GUI, which is why DOS doesn't do it.
Actually, the first Multitasking for MS-DOS/PC-DOS was introduced
only about 2 months after the formal release of PC-DOS 1.0. Lotus
1-2-3 used TSRs to provide a primitive form of multitasking.
WordStar and WordPerfect also provided multitasking to manage overlays
and memory "under the covers".
MS-DOS started out as a minimalist operating system designed to get
the program loaded from disk into memory and then execute the first
instructions. From that point forward, most applications provided
their own operating system "under the covers". When you tried to run
Lotus 1-2-3, WordPerfect, and Sidekick as coresident TSR programs,
life got very interesting. If you added a LAN card, serial ports,
and parallel ports, you were stuck.
> 7. It gives you "choice"
> ...between one crappy program and 50 others just like it.
You might have a bit of a case here. One could argue that some
of the programs are just a bit too trivial. On the other hand,
when you want to make the same change to 5000 files, an "ed script"
can really fit the bill and do the job in about 2 minutes (compared
to about 2 months with notepad, wordpad, or word).
For years UNIX didn't have a database because it was easier to type
:!! sort -1
followed by:
/thing i'm looking for
which took about 3 seconds.
we also had grep, but we also had split and join for connecting
data tables. The tables were disgustingly simple - tab separated
values, often generated using scripts, but they worked remarkably well.
> Most people's "choice" is MS Windows
Actually, the "choice" was made by Microsoft when they offered the
OEM the ultimatum of either "Windows everywhere" or "Windows nowhere".
Even today, retail versions of Windows can't be legally installed in
an OEM system as a resale product.
Microsoft first started offering this "Choice" in it's second year
of operation. In the first year, Paul Allen worked for MITS and
Bill Gates worked for Micro-soft. MITS shipped 10 Altairs and 1 copy
of MITS BASIC (written by Micro-soft) to each dealer along with a bill
for $3500 - $300 for each Altair and $500 for BASIC. The dealers
assumed that they were supposed to make 10 more copies from the master
paper-tape copy. That year, MITS sold 10,000 Altairs and 1,000 copies
of BASIC. At the first PC owners conference in Kansas City, Bill Gates
went on a tirade about how PC users were pirates and thieves. The
dealers sent back the remaining masters and requested refunds,
threatening to file charges for deceptive business practices.
At the end of this first year, Micro-soft's contract with MITS was up
for renewal. Gates estimated that MITS would sell 30,000 machines
in the next year and demanded $150,000 cash - reminding the owner that
without his software the Altair was just a box with pretty blinking
lights. He added the threat that unless MITS agreed, that he would
port Micro-soft BASIC to the Southwest Technical Products (SWTP) 6800
machine AND forbid any further circulation of MITS BASIC.
MITS was the first of about 200 companies to get this "arm-twisting"
treatment. It was extortion, but since Gates was always very careful
to never put the threats themselves in writing, and not to even speak
of the "offer" until after the "customer" had signed a comprehensive
nondisclosure agreement which prevented any disclosure, including
disclosure to law-enforcement agencies, without prior written permission
from Microsoft and without the presence of a Microsoft Lawyer during
any interview, interrogation, or deposition. This practice continued
until 1998 when the DOJ threatened to add Obstruction of Justice to
the other charges unless Microsoft agreed to allow current and former
customers to speak to DOJ investigators without the presence of
Microsoft lawyers. It's interesting to note that when this restriction
was lifted, the DOJ received hundreds of "anonymous tips" indicating
who to talk to, what to look for, and "where to find the dead bodies".
> and the fine MS software that goes together with it.
For example. Microsoft provides Notepad, a "fine" editor, with
a 64kbyte file size limit, limited global search and replace
capability, no line counting, no directed movement, and no split
windows. This is far superior to any of the 25 text editors
including emacs which provides multiple windows, file comparison,
multiple document management, and gigabyte document sizes. It's
so much better than VI which enables document content to be managed
as "objects" including character, word, sentence, paragraph, page,
marked area, and entire document, including forward and backward
references. One could invoke methods such as cursor motion, delete,
change, or "filter" which would send the selected object to an external
application and replace it with the output of that application.
Particularly useful filters were programs like sort, grep, fmt, and
spell.
Notepad could be compared to xedit, one of the most "bare bones"
text editors available for UNIX or Linux, primarily because it
was one of the first X11 Applications written back when programmers
had to code directly to Xlib (similar to coding directly to GDI calls
on Windows).
Linux has 4 office suites (5 if you count Andrew UIS), in addition
to 5 spreadsheets, 10 frame oriented WYSIWYG word processors, 4
photograph editors, 7 drawing toolkits, 4 presentation packages,
and that's not including any of the Web Server based applications
(CPAN). It's funny, Microsoft just announced that it will "eventually"
come out with a new "innovation" which puts the applications on an
application server which is then accessed via a simpler client.
UNIX has been doing this since - - about 1984. Linux has been doing
it since about 1992.
In fact, nearly all of Microsoft's "Innovations" were blatently
lifted from the UNIX and Linux playbooks. Starting with hierarchal
directories (which "softees" despised prior to their introduction in
MS-DOS 2.0), Multitasking (which "softees" despised until the
formalization of TSRs in MS-DOS 3.3). Multiple windows (which
softees dispised until the release of Windows 3.0), Preemptive
Multitasking (which "softees" dismissed until Windows NT 3.5),
Plug-and-Play (which Gates delayed Windows 95 almost a year to keep
up with Linux and lock it out of their "PnP"), Interprocess
Communication (which "softees" hand crafted from shared memory until
the introduction of DCOM in Windows NT 4.0), TCP/IP (which Microsoft
ignored until there were nearly 20 million Internet users using
Mosaic and Trumpet or Netscape and Trumpet winsock.
> They would never give up all that
They will use what comes with the computer. If the OEMs came out
with a machine that booted Linux, came with a full suite of
preconfigured Linux applications, and published documents that could
be read and generated by either Microsoft Office or a low-cost
application, there would be a percentage of the market that would
choose Linux over Windows. The question is merely what percentage?
One thing is for sure, the percentage would be higher than it would
be in a market in which Microsoft is allowed to exclude Linux and
UNIX variants through the use of exclusive clauses forbidding the
alteration of the boot sequence, forbidding ports of USB, DVD-CSS,
and PCI PnP to Linux, and forbidding the inclusion of Linux on
a separate partition.
The percentage would certainly be higher if people could walk
into Sears, K-mart, Radio Shack, Circuit City, or CompUSA and
have a hands-on experience with a fully functional, fully configured
Linux system.
What is truly astonishing is that nearly 5% of the user base has
not only obtained copies of Linux CD-ROMs, installed them on their
machines with minimal assistance (typically one 10 minute phone call),
configured dual-boot environments, and routinely boot Linux as their
operating system of choice.
What is more amazing is that nearly 1% have reached the point where
Linux is their PRIMARY operating system, either not using Windows at
all or using WINE to provide windows emulation required for older
windows-only programs.
What makes the latter particularly funny is that Linux does a better
job of emulating MS-DOS, Windows 3.1, and Windows 95 than
Windows NT 4.0 does. Furthermore, Linux can read NTFS, FAT32, E2FS,
and FAT, as well as NFS, IPX, and SMB remote filesystems from a
single operating system. I don't think even Windows 2000 can do that
out of the box.
> just to run Linux and its shitty little beta-test apps
Some of the apps really are pretty rough. Most however are actually
remarkably high quality and simply lack the multimillion-dollar budgets
required to advertize, market, and finance inventory and flooring for
hundreds of itty-bitty-little 8"x10"x2" boxes. After all, there are
about 1600 packages with an average of 20 programs per package. If
you tried to floor all 30,000 of them, you'd need about $60 billion
dollars.
Instead, software publishers are rallying around the Linux trademark,
using it as a means to identify the entire athology of software which
can even be run under a BSD kernel, but provides a brand identity as
Linux. As some of the companies are getting a few megabucks through
internet-provided upgrades, they are going directly to the shelves as
well. Good examples are Applix, Corel Office, and some of the other
Linux applications.
Many companies offer software that runs under virtual machines that
can run under Mac, Windows, or Linux. Due to exclusionary contracts
with Microsoft, the Linux VM can't be included in the "shrink wrapped
box", but nearly all of the PC Game manufacturers now offer Linux
VMs via the Internet.
> except if they were tricked into it.
Actually, that may be easier done than said. With PCs like e-machines
doing everything they can to create a unique desktop with a unique
look and feel and trying to look as little like Windows as possible,
and KDE or FVWM95 looking enough like Windows to make it trivial to
walk up to a fully preconfigured computer running some funny demo
software and start "mousing around", it might actually take them 5-10
minutes to realize that this isn't the Windows they've grown to hate.
> 8. It's "free"
Free like free speech, not free beer. There are no royalties,
but you pay for support.
> ...but it costs lots and lots of time,
Copies are free, but support is paid for. In your case, you
chose not to pay for the support and spent a lot of time doing
things that you really didn't want to do.
Some women think that men would rather die than ask for directions.
There's a commercial where the husband and wife fight over whether
to push the "OnStar" button. If this were really true, Microsoft
has nothing to worry about. However, most people are willing to
hire professional help when it's appropriate. The hard-core
do-it-yourself types bend their own conduit, thread their own pipe,
and wire their own houses. The professional plumber can do the job
in 1/10th the time, the electrician can get the permits, do the job,
and pass inspection in the time it takes our do-it-yourselfer to
fill out the permit application.
The real power of "Free" Linux is that I can obtain it however I want,
then I can get my support from Red Hat, Caldera, LinuxCare, IBM, or
a recent college graduate who has configured a machine just like mine.
I might have to barter differently with the college kid than I would
with IBM or Caldera, but Linux isn't free.
In fact, most people seem to be willing to pay as much as 10% more for
a properly configured Linux system than they would for a comparably
equipped Windows NT system.
The service contracts range from hourly rates to per-incident.
> a little time at first during the installation, and
Today, because I have a bit of experience, I can install a Linux
system in about 30 minutes to an hour. Adding a few of my favorite
commercial applications adds about 30 minutes. In about 2 hours,
I have a fully functional system.
I also have LOTS of experience installing Windows NT. I usually budget
about 16 hours. About 2 hours to install NT itself, and then about
an hour for each application including Works, Office, Project 98,
Netscape, Lotus Notes, Lotus Smart Suite, antivirus software, and
a couple of programming languages.
> then more and more time after the installation
> as one thing after another goes wrong.
Again, this sounds like you might want to ask for help from a
qualified source.
> 9. It's Open-Source
Open Source is to Linux supporters what the "Chilton's Manual" is
to Mechanics. A skilled mechanic familiar with the basic principles
can refer to the Chilton's manual when they have to perform a major
repair.
The average driver couldn't read a Chilton's manual if you read it
to them allowed and explained it to them part-by-part, but when
they need a new alternator and they have the choice between a
dealer who will charge them $500 labor and $200 for a factory
new part, and a mechanic with a Chilton's manual who will do
the job for $150 including parts and labor,they are awfully
glad that their friendly neighborhood mechanic has that
Chilton's manual.
Keep in mind, the mechanic doesn't have to understand the physics,
engineering, or even the thermodynamics of the part. They only
have to know that they need to provide 20 foot-pounds of torque
to the bolt that holds the alternator down.
> ...but nobody want's to waste time
> fixing all the bugs it has
Actually, what makes Linux remarkable is that bugs get FIXED.
Sure, the fixes come from the "mechanics" who provide the
service and pass up their discoveries to newsgroups, mailing lists,
and conference boards. These fixes are then incorporated into
the next generation of the product.
> when they can just run Windows
> like they've been doing
Where the notion of a FIX is Restart, reboot, reload, reinstall,
reengineer.
> and have world-class sofrware.
well advertized anyway.
> 10. It's been ported to 16,000 different hardware
> platforms that alreaddy shipped with UNIX
> to begin with.
The main advantage is that Linux limits the number of
"mysterious proprietary extensions" you can add to the
kernel. One of the problems with UNIX throughout the 1980s
was that the BSD license allowed the base product to be copied
and enhanced, but then each version of UNIX had a whole series
of proprietary, even patented technology bolted on.
>From 1983 to 1995, the UNIX community went through balkanization
and unification several times. Linux eventually provided a common
ground, a foundation on which distributions could be built. Rather
than pushing hard for key strategic proprietary standards, Open
Standards were adopted by all, and then proprietary software was
added as - proprietary software, not a "better Linux".
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 90 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
