Linux-Advocacy Digest #448, Volume #27 Tue, 4 Jul 00 02:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: I hope you trolls are happy... (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: I hope you trolls are happy... (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: We WANT different enviroments (Was: Linux, easy to use? (salvador peralta)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Roger)
Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users? (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Uptime 6 months and counting. ("Brian")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Rick)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Rick)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Roger)
Re: Linux code going down hill (T. Max Devlin)
Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users? (Pim van Riezen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I hope you trolls are happy...
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 22:54:07 -0400
Leslie Mikesell wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>Have you ever loaded a driver on LoseDos?
> >
> >I write Windows device drivers for a living. You know, with all the crashes
> >and stuff (my own fault of course), not _once_ did Windows trash the disk.
>
> I have an NTFS partition that was corrupted when my CPU fan quit
> working and the machine crashed a few times before I found
I *LOVE* my new DFI board.
100 MHz bus, nad has the folowing monitors built into the BIOS:
* CPU TEMP
* CPU FAN SPEED
* AUXILLARY FAN SPEED (video card fan or case fan)
> out what was wrong. Scandisk went through the motions of fixing
> it and the files mostly seem ok, but now I have trouble getting
> setup to unpack the files in self-installing exe files. They
> keep telling me that I don't have disk space for the temp files
> even though I do. I managed to install service pack 6a by putting
> it and the temp directory on a network drive, but I still can't
> get a Netscape update to install.
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
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: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I hope you trolls are happy...
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 22:54:57 -0400
Tim Palmer wrote:
>
> On Sun, 02 Jul 2000 19:48:58 -0500, Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Tim Palmer wrote:
> >>
> >> On 1 Jul 2000 00:34:24 GMT, David Steinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >: On 30 Jun 2000 18:44:10 GMT, Brian Langenberger
> >> >: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >: >I went out and bought a nice Logitech PS2/USB one, plugged it in,
> >> >: >adjusted a couple of config files and had no trouble since.
> >> >
> >> >He bought the hardware, used available software, and and found that it
> >> >supported the hardware. The software supports the hardware. Period.
> >> >
> >> >Jeff Szarka ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >> >: No... There is where you are wrong. You're not susposed to edit any
> >> >: config files. As far as I'm concerned, Linux does not support wheel
> >> >: mice unless they just work.
> >> >
> >> >Now, because truth seems to get in the way of your FUD, you wish to
> >> >re-define support?
> >>
> >> It supports the hardwere only after you force it to. In Windo's it just works.
>You half to fight with LIE-nux to make it do annything.
> >
> >Have you ever loaded a driver on LoseDos?
>
> You just popin CD and it lodes the driver no plobem not like UNIX where
> everything's a plobem and you half to recompial.
And you know what happened when LoseDOS lost my freaking CD
driver???????
>
> >--
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Nathaniel Jay Lee
--
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: salvador peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: We WANT different enviroments (Was: Linux, easy to use?
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 20:08:31 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> In article <8jm4v4$tnk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
> > i.e. you want ten years worth of development done RIGHT NOW, because
> > YOU NEED IT.
>
> Ten years... my god is it really going to take that long? Blimey, I may
> as well stick with Windows, it has it now!
How can windows have full interoperability between multiple desktop
environments when it doesn't even have multiple desktop environments? How
is linux worse off for providing its users with a choice of desktops? If
you want a single, consistent UI, then don't install a half dozen desktops
on your system.
This is only an issue for micros~1 shareholders looking to FUD the
competition.
> > If you werent such a helpless putz, youd be helping create it.
>
> Why should I help a bunch of people who call me names?
Oh you poor, unfortunate soul.
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 03:24:55 GMT
On Mon, 03 Jul 2000 17:43:42 -0700, someone claiming to be Peter Ammon
wrote:
>An IRQ conflict occurs when the Windows demon-gods arbitrarily decide to
>prevent your various pieces of hardware from working together until you
>prove your devotion. You can prove this by spending several hours in
>the Device Manager changing obscure numbers and rebooting to see if it
>works. Watch out: the demon-gods will throw obstacles in your path.
>Some pieces of hardware can't use certain IRQs. Others require multiple
>IRQs. Some combinations of IRQs won't work. Sometimes the IRQs have to
>be in a certain order. And if, in the end, your tortured sense of the
>rational survives, then all the bounty of Windows shall be yours...until
>you want to install something else.
Which is the fault of Windows .. why, exactly?
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users?
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 03:39:51 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 12:04:45 -0400,
> Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote:
>
> >> As long as Rex Ballard spreads lies about the number of Linux
users,
> >
> >prove it.
>
> Typically the burden of proof lies on
> the person making the outrageous
> claim. Rex Ballard can concoct some
> evidence proving that the Easter Bunny
> exists, but I don't have to disprove him.
I have covered this topic in depth at my
web site www.open4success.com
Linux counting is largely speculation, I admit that. There is
some anectodal evidence.
> Saying that there are 90 million
> Linux users is an outrageous claim,
> in line with the existence of the
> Easter Bunny. Extraordinary claims
> require extraordinary evidence.
What is provided is 11 articles that show the basis for this number.
The "hard number" could be anywhere between 30 and 90 million users
world-wide, including India, China, and the rest of the world.
> Rex Ballard's "evidence" consists of
> a several year old user base estimate
> grown exponentitally with the rate of
> growth at the time.
Followed by a number of other indicators showing that
the Linux user base has continued to grow at a rate
of roughly 270%/year.
> The room for
> propagation of error is just tremendous;
Absolutely. Given hard counts and real numbers, the count
could be less than 10 million users, or as many as 100 million
users. I always give the top number.
> if either number were off by a
> hair, the entire number could be off
> by an order of magnitude.
Exactly. Until someone comes up with a reliable method
of counting Linux users, Linux unit sales, and actual
duplication factors, we can only guess at numbers ranging
from 10 million to 90 million.
> Evidence is not formulated by taking off hand
> comments made by non-experts, and then
> propagating them to your ideals.
True. But counting Linux in 2000 is still a bit like counting
Internet users in 1994. Back then, the user estimates ranged
from 16 million users. But with duplicates, spoofing, and other
Linux users
> Of course, since IDC said 0.3% of desktops run Linux,
Actually, IDCs number is about 4%. The 0.3% number provided
was by an equally tainted survey in which only those Linux
systems which were the last used operating system and were
specifically identified as Linux systems.
It is interesting to note that the same survey lists nearly
4% as UNIX/X11, which is the signature used as the standard
signature for all Linux system prior to the release of Red Hat 6.1,
SuSE 6.4, and Mandrake 7.0. In other words, that survey, which
was last published over 1 year ago, was counted based on software
that was only available for less than 5% of the product's life-cycle.
The current estimate is roughly 4-7% of the entire systems.
> that means with
> Rex Ballard's estimate of 90,000,000 Linux users that
> there are 30 billion computer users in the world.
Actually, 90 million was an estimate based on 18% of the
global market, roughly 500 million PCs sold in the last 3 years.
Granted, there are many users who have more than one computer
(including many Linux users). I myself am running nearly 5 machines,
and since 3 of those machines were sold in the last 3 years,
I'd be part of that market. Of course, only one was sold with
Microsoft bundleware, but then again, I have 3 NT Workstation licenses,
1 NT server license, 2 Windows 95 licenses, and one Windows 98
licenses. Only one of the NT licenses and one Windows 95 license
is currently being used. Each is on a dual-boot hard drive.
> Interesting, considering there are only 6 billion humans.
Yes, and only one in 10 has computers :-)
Or perhaps 1 in 100 has 10 computers.
Microsoft says they've sold 500 million copies of Windows 95 and
Windows 98. This is believable, but 90 million copies of Linux
is too far out. :-)
In prior posts, I've offered the possibility that I could be off
by as much as 60%. Given that there are 10 million Linux servers,
and that IDC has estimate that Linux made up 4% of the total desktop
and Laptop market last year, and that Linux is growing at a rate of
270% per year, which would put the estimate at
4% of 500 million desktop/laptops machines (20 million machines)
and growing at 270%/annum would put the Linux market share at
roughly 54 million machines by the end of the year. It's still
a drop in the bucket, but it should certainly put Linux on the
radar screen.
One key factor to point out is that Linux didn't direct efforts
toward "taking the Desktop" until Linux announced the initiative
in July of 1998. It is exacly 24 months later, and Linux now has
KDE and GNOME in production quality that makes it possible for
novice users to use a preinstalled Linux system almost as easily
as Windows. Linux still requires some study, but it can be learned
quickly.
Microsoft is still erecting illegal legal barriers including
nondisclosure agreements that prevent OEMs and VARs from creating
Linux drivers for DVD-CSS and complex USB devices such as many
scanners. Furthermore, Microsoft offers incentives, penalties,
and economic threats that prevent numerous vendors from cooperating
with the Linux community.
> This is evidence that Rex Ballard is wrong in counting the
> number of Linux users. In fact, it puts
> an absolute limit of 15 million
> Linux users, and that's only if
> EVERY human had a computer. China and
> India alone account for over 1/3
> of the world's population, but PC's there
> are limited to the elite.
> There probably aren't more than 600,000,000
> computers in use worldwide,
I had estimated 500 million, but 600 million is probably
a valid number as well, for the global market.
> which puts the actual Linux user base at 1.8
> million, almost two order of magnitude less
> than Rex Ballard's figure.
But that's based on the "Browser signature" survey of 0.3 percent,
which I have already demonstrated to be bogus. In fact, that company
has already altered their survey techniques (and no longer publishes
this information for free).
The official IDC estimate as of the end of 1998 was that 4% of
all workstations, including laptops, are Linux enabled. Given
your estimate of 600 million machines, that would put the number
at about 24 million. If you figure that the overall growth is
still about 280%/year, That puts the estimated growth at around
67 million by the end of 1999 (no, I don't buy that either), and
at 181 million by the end of 2000. Actually, I would guess more
like 30 million at the end of 1999 with 90 million by the end
of 2000.
--
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.
------------------------------
From: "Brian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Uptime 6 months and counting.
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 04:05:14 GMT
Aaron Kulkis wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>All decently-built battery backups have these things called
>....circuit breakers.
Ya, and they work great.
However, under heavy transient conditions the expensive and fast-acting
transistors often burn out in an attempt to save the inexpensive but
slow-acting circuit breakers.
Best regards,
Brian
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 00:17:34 -0400
Shock Boy wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Shock Boy wrote:
> > >
> > > "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael Marion
> > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >Full Name wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> We recently had a Mandrake box rendered unusable when the machine that
> > > > > >> was used as a backup failed to answer the mount request.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Why don't you configure it properly...
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah... the usual UNIXhead answer whenever someone complains about falling
> > > > > into yet another UNIX misconfiguration trap: "It's not the fault of
> > > > > UNIX, it's the fault of the user for not configuring UNIX properly."
> > > > >
> > > > > And they wonder why the Linux companies have fallen on hard times...
> > > >
> > > > Just exactly what hard times would those be? Linux continues to increase
> > > > marketshare, mostly with servers, but also some desktops.
> > > >
> > > > as for configuration...you should see the nightmares that arise when
> > > > Windoze isnt correctly configured.
> > >
> > > Every linux install I have withnessed had the difficulty in configuration.. but
>i've yet to see
> > > any nightmares over windows.
> > >
> > > Insert CD, click install.. sip some coffee.. then install one's applications.
> >
> > Cant use this, IRQ conflict, cant use that, IRQ conflict. Its a
> > nightmare.
>
> Would you please define what an IRQ conflict is? I've never experienced one, on the
>Mac or PC side of life..
How the hell should I know what it is... all Iknow is everytime I put a
card inthe Widoze machine at work there were all sorts of conflicts.
--
Rick
To reply by email remove the obvious from my address.
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 00:18:34 -0400
Roger wrote:
>
> On Mon, 03 Jul 2000 17:43:42 -0700, someone claiming to be Peter Ammon
> wrote:
>
> >An IRQ conflict occurs when the Windows demon-gods arbitrarily decide to
> >prevent your various pieces of hardware from working together until you
> >prove your devotion. You can prove this by spending several hours in
> >the Device Manager changing obscure numbers and rebooting to see if it
> >works. Watch out: the demon-gods will throw obstacles in your path.
> >Some pieces of hardware can't use certain IRQs. Others require multiple
> >IRQs. Some combinations of IRQs won't work. Sometimes the IRQs have to
> >be in a certain order. And if, in the end, your tortured sense of the
> >rational survives, then all the bounty of Windows shall be yours...until
> >you want to install something else.
>
> Which is the fault of Windows .. why, exactly?
Um, becasue its designed that way?
--
Rick
To reply by email remove the obvious from my address.
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 05:50:49 GMT
On Tue, 04 Jul 2000 00:18:34 -0400, someone claiming to be Rick wrote:
>Roger wrote:
>> On Mon, 03 Jul 2000 17:43:42 -0700, someone claiming to be Peter Ammon
>> wrote:
>> >An IRQ conflict occurs when the Windows demon-gods arbitrarily decide to
>> >prevent your various pieces of hardware from working together until you
>> >prove your devotion. You can prove this by spending several hours in
>> >the Device Manager changing obscure numbers and rebooting to see if it
>> >works. Watch out: the demon-gods will throw obstacles in your path.
>> >Some pieces of hardware can't use certain IRQs. Others require multiple
>> >IRQs. Some combinations of IRQs won't work. Sometimes the IRQs have to
>> >be in a certain order. And if, in the end, your tortured sense of the
>> >rational survives, then all the bounty of Windows shall be yours...until
>> >you want to install something else.
>> Which is the fault of Windows .. why, exactly?
>Um, becasue its designed that way?
Um, tell me, exactly where in the software known as Windows are IRQ's
defined?
hint: it's a hardware thing, not a software thing...
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux code going down hill
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 01:58:51 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting abraxas from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 2 Jul 2000 13:22:47 GMT
[...]
>Solaris is an exceedingly specialized UNIX, linux is not UNIX at
>all. Linux is 'gnu-nux'.
Obviously a matter of perspective as well as opinion. I think AIX might
count as a "specialized Unix", but I think you'd have to go to terminal
servers or something before you could call something "exceedingly
specialized Unix". Certainly Solaris isn't necessarily designed as a
general user's OS; it is a bit more specialized (but just a bit) than a
typical Unix distro for professional workstations. But only the
internals people would care to dissect whether any one Unix is UNIX or
something else.
>If you do not know exactly why you need solaris, then you do not
>need solaris.
That, I love. Beautifully put, and almost unarguably self-evident.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Pim van Riezen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users?
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 07:11:55 +0200
> I'm just comparing the overall count of TCP/IP addresses attributed
> to AOL compared to the number of Cookies attributed to all available
> providers. AOL hosts about 10% of all the Cookies, but about 70% of
> all the IP addresses.
hardly. Even IBM has more:
[pi@nexus:~]$ whois [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[whois.arin.net]
AOL (NETBLK-DIVEO-47) DIVEO-47 200.51.67.0 -
200.51.67.31
AOL (NETBLK-AOL-216-44-42) AOL-216-44-42 216.44.42.192 -
216.44.42.255
AOL Argentina (NETBLK-IMP-ARG-AOL-1) IMP-ARG-AOL-1 200.41.72.0 -
200.41.75.255
AOL Argentina (NETBLK-IMP-ARG-AOL-DU11) IMP-ARG-AOL-DU11
200.41.72.0 -
200.41.72.255
AOL Argentina (NETBLK-IMP-ARG-AOL-DU12) IMP-ARG-AOL-DU12
200.41.73.0 -
200.41.73.255
AOL Argentina (NETBLK-IMP-ARG-AOL-DU21) IMP-ARG-AOL-DU21
200.41.74.0 -
200.41.74.255
AOL Argentina (NETBLK-IMP-ARG-AOL-DU22) IMP-ARG-AOL-DU22
200.41.75.0 -
200.41.75.255
AOL Canada (NETBLK-AOL-CALGARY-NET) AOL-CALGARY-NET204.148.9.0 -
204.148.9.255
AOL Canada (NETBLK-AOL-VANCOUVER-NET) AOL-VANCOUVER-NET
204.148.8.0 -
204.148.8.255
AOL Japan, Inc./Tokyo Opera City Tower 16F (NETBLK-AOLJ-NET) AOLJ-NET
207.25.102.0 -
207.25.102.255
AOL Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. (NETBLK-AOL-RED-1) AOL-RED-1
200.52.48.0 -
200.52.63.255
AOL Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. (NETBLK-ALESTRA-CLI-AOL-C1)
ALESTRA-CLI-AOL-C1
200.52.112.0 -
200.52.127.255
AOL Network Operations Center (ANO3-ORG-ARIN) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (703)
453-5862
AOL Network Support Services (NETBLK-SPRINT-C64543) SPRINT-C64543
198.69.67.0 -
198.69.67.255
AOL Transit Data Network (NETBLK-ATDN-ISP) ATDN-ISP64.236.0.0 -
64.236.255.255
America Online (NETBLK-SPRINT-AOL1) SPRINT-AOL1205.149.192.0 -
205.149.255.255
America Online (NETBLK-SPRINT-9EFD00) SPRINT-9EFD00158.253.0.0 -
158.253.3.255
America Online (NETBLK-AOL-NET) AOL-NET2-B 198.81.0.0 -
198.81.31.255
America Online, Inc (NET-AOL2) AOL 152.169.0.0 -
152.169.255.255
America Online, Inc (NET-AOL3) AOL-168 152.168.0.0 -
152.168.255.255
America Online, Inc. (NETBLK-AOL-172BLK) AOL-172BLK
172.128.0.0 -
172.172.255.255
America Online, Inc. (NETBLK-AOL-96-103) AOL-96-103
204.148.96.0 -
204.148.103.255
The site you got your statistics from is probably just one that appeals
mostly to the kind of drooling idiot who has an AOL account?;)
> Part of the problem was that AOL tried to switch to NT for POP servers.
> In general, were actually seeing fewer cookies per IP addresses than
> we do with any other ISP.
How about AOL's proprietary browser? It probably didn't set cookies.
> It depends on what you're counting. I do remember that
> when I was using AOL, you didn't need to set up passiv
> FTP. It could be that this was one of the many reasons
> for farming out the control. Again, I'm looking at a
> statistical anomole combined with anecdotal evidence.
> Any regualar AOL users wanna give out their addresses?
> Addresses of 10.x.x.x are proxied.
No ISP in his right mind uses masquerading. First of all, it breaks far
too many things. Secondly, it eats resources on the NAT router up the
wazoo.
Cheers,
Pi
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
