Linux-Advocacy Digest #547, Volume #27 Sun, 9 Jul 00 07:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k (Steve Mading)
Re: Advocacy Newsgroup, Right? (Cihl)
Re: What happens when all the bit twiddlers are gone? (Cihl)
Re: Who was that wo was scanning my ports--could it be Simon? (abraxas)
Re: DOJ File Suit Against Tiger Woods (Yet Yu Lee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k
Date: 9 Jul 2000 09:07:02 GMT
James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Check out the MS advert in the June 6 edition of PC Magazine, where MS
: endorses the study by National Software Testing Labs which states that
: Windows 98 is 13 times less reliable than Win2k. I am no linvocate, but I
: find it incredible that a company can make this admission and then still
: push this (Win98/WinMe) onto the market.
: Shame on you MS!!!
What the hell is "13 times less reliable" supposed to mean? How do
you attach numbers to a concept like "reliability"?
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Advocacy Newsgroup, Right?
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 10:18:30 GMT
A very nice, reasonable article.
Doug Begley wrote:
> =
> I'm surprised by the exchanges in here, though I understand som=
e. Anyway,
> I thought I'd say my piece and await some, ahhh, further discussion.
> I've been waiting for Linux to become a workable desktop system=
for
> business and personal use for the last few years. I went through the
> routine of "wrestle and give up" a couple of times. What I loved was th=
e
> astounding stability, and what I hated was the nasty configuration and
> seemingly bizarre routines behind mundane stuff like sticking in a flop=
py
> and seeing what's there.
Yes. The Linux community has been working on all those issues in the
last few years. It's still not easy, however, to give a fully modular
OS like Linux, or any sort of Unix for that matter, a nice way of
configuration. We now have LinuxConf and Webmin, but it still needs
more work, in my opinion.
The unintuitive mounting end-user trouble with floppies is mostly
solved, apart from a few details, like with ATAPI Zip-100 drives, for
instance.
> So I must say that, although all is not perfect, Linux seems pr=
etty darn
> usable now! There are issues I have with some applications, but I'm fin=
ally
> beginning to be able to install, configure, and use it seriously.
> Considering that it was not originally built to be a desktop wonder, th=
at's
> quite good. It's finally more fun than frustrating.
If you find it to be good already, you should try and take the time to
see the latest improvement, like on http://www.kde.com and
http://www.gnome.org. As you can see there, the developer-teams are
still working on it in almost a fanatic manner.
> Why did I keep coming back to try it again? I was motivated by
> "unacceptable losses" in doing my work. Graphic apps and word processin=
g,
> mostly. And lots of CAD on non-PC's. Typically, on PC's, once a renderi=
ng
> is begun, it takes quite awhile to complete, and any glitch can lose
> several hours work. This kept me trying different OS's as time went by.=
> Win3.1 and WfWG were great for the end user, but crashed a lot =
compared to
> DOS. They also ran out of memory and I was forced to reboot several tim=
es a
> day.
At least in Win3.1 you could still run older DOS-versions of these
programs in their native environment. These programs were often more
stable than their Windows-variants. The DOS-version of AutoCAD was, in
those days, not bad at all.
> In the meantime, I noticed that HP UNIX (for CAD) cranked right=
along, but
> you couldn't very well buy it and its box for personal use. $$$
It was still very nice for professional environments, though.
> I tried OS/2 Warp4 for awhile with much better results, especia=
lly for its
> native apps. I never ran out of memory. Win3.1 apps still crashed, but =
did
> not often take down the entire machine. I did suffer a couple of myster=
ious
> episodes of data loss, but finally gave it up when some WIn apps I need=
ed
> required more recent 32 bit Win patches than OS/2 could support. I miss=
ed
> the built-in voice and dictation that OS/2 came with.
I never tried any version of OS/2, but every time i hear someone speak
of it, it sounds very good. Why did it never catch on? Well, i must
admit that i also went to Windows 95 at once. This was mainly because
everybody i knew had Windows 95 too.
> Win95 promised superior memory management and, lo, did not need=
to be
> rebooted more than twice a day unless misbehaving applications caused
> crashes. That has been its main vice. If you load the "wrong" combinati=
on
> of apps on one machine, they will conflict and can cause a tremendous
> amount of lost work. I found Seagate Backup and Quarterdeck Cleansweep =
to
> be the main culprits, but needing to swap in hardware for specific task=
s
> also created similar problems. Many I know had no problems, but they ha=
d
> installed a few apps and did not alter anything. Of six PC's I oversaw,=
it
> ran without problems on one and refused to install on one (a generic P9=
0).
> The last difficulty was that trying to do anything while faxing or
> downloading internet files would either drop the connection or crash th=
e
> OS. OS/2 had not had this problem at all, as it threw high priority at =
the
> modem.
Was that Windows 95 that caused that modem-hangup problem? Back then i
always thought that the ISP had hung up on me or something.
Conflicting programs? I've seen worse. I've seen it that the drivers
for two different peripherals would overwrite the same DLL, and then
only the one i installed last would work. Very, very frustrating
indeed.
> At the same time, an SGI box with IRIX (UNIX) ran without ever =
going down
> once in 5 years. That was very good, because I know only two commands i=
n
> UNIX other than hitting the power switch. The CAD app occasionally
> core-dumped, but the OS was unaffected. I wished it was available for a=
PC,
> for less than the rip-off price it had.
> That one reluctant PC forced me to try WinNT4. It did not run o=
ut of
> memory, but did produce the blue screen of death in odd cycles. It also=
> seemed to mess with hard drives, swapping drive letters, which made
> installing other OS's lots of fun. It was also murder to get it to shar=
e
> anything on a simple peer network, like a printer or HDD. I was startin=
g to
> get quite annoyed with Microsoft products and PC's at this point. I als=
o
> learned the limitations of data recovery via tapes.
This makes me remember those times, when i was in school, that there
were some Amiga-users who always tried to make fun of and put down
PC's. They always ranted about the 640K border.
I can't count the number of times i tried to tell them that the PC
didn't have this problem, the OS had.
> That SGI/IRIX box got me wondering, and so when "UNIX-like" Lin=
ux surfaced
> for me with Red Hat 4.2, I had to see what it was. I got it and fought
> through several installs. Once I got it in, I sat and stared at it tryi=
ng
> to figure out what I, the office worker, could do with it. Never got it=
to
> print anything and dropped it.
Yep, that was the old Linux. It worked, but didn't actually do
anything.
> Tried Red Hat 5.0 and got it to at least see the printer, thoug=
h all I got
> was gibberish. Linux never went down, though. I didn't care for the bas=
ic
> desktop at all, but did install WordPerfect or some other office app or=
> suite. I could tell it was a memory hog, so I opened it on each of four=
> desktops twice, and some other apps. I knew three apps was all Win95 co=
uld
> stand before it locked up or "encounted a problem" on that particular
> machine. Darned if Linux didn't keep going. It barely crawled, but did
> respond to input. I goofed with it for awhile and went to bed. By morni=
ng,
> it had finally ceased to be. Screen was up, but no response. I was much=
> impressed. Then I got too busy to mess with it.
> I recently tried Red Hat 6.1 and had trouble installing it. I'd=
also
> ordered the boxed set of Caldera 2.3 and tried that. The simplicity of
> installation was astounding. Even I understood what was going on, and
> autodetection worked. All I really needed to know for insurance was my
> model of video card. And using the CDROM and floppy drives was now easy=
> with the pretty KDE desktop. Put it in and click its icon once. And it
> printed. And quite a bit was configurable without having to hand-edit a=
ny
> files.
You see how quickly all this evolves? Wait another 6 months and the
installation will be as easy as BeOS. (BeOS is often considered the
ultimate goal for ease of installation and usability, that is: put CD
in drive. Wait for it to finish. Start OS.)
> My laptop arrived with Win98 preloaded. Notably better than Win=
95. It
> still locks up regularly, however, and has had to be completely wiped a=
nd
> reloaded twice in three months. I'd have tried Win2000 but it's not
> compatable with the hardware and demands more RAM and disk space than I=
> care to pack in. Win98 also can't come back from suspend while the SCSI=
or
> USB network cards are plugged in. I'm pretty gunshy about anything new =
and
> wonderful from MS now, considering the cost in both dollars and rebuild=
> time. You just can't afford to risk a hand-to-mouth business on it.
If you *do* have the hardware for it, Windows 2000 actually isn't bad
at all. It looks like Windows 98, but with enough stability for normal
desktop use.
In my opinion, Windows 98 (SE) and and any future derivatives should
be taken out and shot. The only reason why people are still running
this poor excuse for an OS is because all their games run on it.
Try connecting a new USB-device, for instance. First it will pop up a
dialog and lock up your desktop for ages for some database to be
assembled. Then you must supply a manufacturers CD, the Windows CD,
and then you must reboot.
What's the point of hot-swapping if you do all this? I just want to
plug in the hardware and get going.
> Just for a cross-check, I also tried TurboLinux 6.0 on the same=
old
> desktop as before, but struggled through the install only to find that =
my
> video card wasn't supported. Oh well.
> I've also tried Caldera 2.3 on a newer Asus motherboard with an=
AMD 500
> processor. The boot stops at "LI" of LILO, which indicates a problem
> interpreting the HDD geometry, so I've had to stall on that machine.
> Disappointing, but I haven't yet tried thorough fixes on the SCSI HDD l=
ike
> low-level formatting before installing. It'll get there.
As i said, Linux is not quite finished with these issues. It's getting
better every week, though.
> What's good about Linux in a demanding user desktop situation? =
Stability
> much closer to true UNIX than to Windows or even DOS. A few real apps t=
hat
> work quickly and well, such as WP8 and StarOffice. The availability of
> plenty of free or trial software to explore. Installing software or
> reconfiguring with no need to reboot again and again. Install it and us=
e
> it. No "phantom" problems to vex the soul; an app either always works o=
r
> never works. No registry to get screwed up. There's no "uninstall" rout=
ine
> available for programs, unfortunately, but user-installed programs are
> often mostly just dumped into one directory. Deleting it does not appea=
r to
> ruin anything else. Desktops are now great, and KDE doesn't require muc=
h
> adaptation from the Win95 interface. Small-vendor help on Linux app
> software is great, probably due to the small traffic. Linux app support=
> from big Win-oriented outfits still stinks in places.
The features you mention are mostly the features that have always been
there in Linux. They make a pretty good base system, don't they?
I've started to notice lately that these nice desktops like KDE are
really only for the new users coming from Windows. Once you really get
used to working with Linux, you will often start to use the more
basic, powerful WM's. I often use Sawmill, for instance. It only has a
blank screen, and with the middle mouse-button you can get an XTerm
and some other apps. It does everything i want and doesn't clog up the
desktop with bars and buttons.
> What isn't so good about Linux? The current unwillingness of bi=
g
> commercial Win app software companies to write for Linux. I still need =
a
> cheap, true-GUI raytracing rendering app and heavy-duty solid-modeling =
3D
> CAD program. PTC offers Pro/Engineer in every major flavor of UNIX exce=
pt
> Linux. How much effort would it take? They won't even talk about it.
Hold on. We're getting there. Things like this take time. Because
Linux isn't a commercial company, we can't afford to create large
advertising campaigns and things like that. These developers, as well
as the end-users, will have to find out about Linux by themselves.
> "Market's too small". Out of the box, on-screen font appearance can sti=
nk.
> Prints well on some printers, poorly on others. There are the mysteries=
of
> what to do when an app stops. "Stop the process", of course, but how?
> Various unexpected oddities that occur can make the user feel helpless,=
> because, like MS-Windows itself, no supplied documentation spells out h=
ow
> to get out of a bad situation. The assumption is that everything will b=
e
> fine. The documentation in boxed sets is very good for what there is, b=
ut
> overall, most of the other documentation available is still geared towa=
rd
> the main users, experienced UNIX administrators. For MS-oriented deskto=
p
> end users, the only alternative is to e-mail user groups such as Calder=
a's,
> carefully select true beginner-oriented books, and tour various Linux s=
ites
> looking for topics. The amazing configurability of Linux to do just abo=
ut
> anything imaginable is counterproductive to the desktop end-user, who's=
> just looking for the ability to intuitively meet common situations from=
the
> GUI. Linux is now fairly good here, but again, online program help and
> printed documentation is sparse, the printed ones somewhat above that
> supplied with OEM installs of MS-Win. Considering the low cost, this is=
> understandable - you can't pay $0-$30 for a reliable OS and expect grea=
t
> documentation and online help. Like MS, Linux distribution vendor help =
is
> nonexistent. Program interfaces are sometimes unique if not bizarre,
> although many complex MS-Win apps are nearly as confusing. The new Linu=
x
> user still needs tenacity and a spirit of adventure, not expecting that=
> everything will be handed to them on a plate. That's where Linux is rig=
ht
> now. Darn close to getting to where it was never intended to go, but do=
ing
> commendably.
The problem with documentation is, again, that Linux is a highly
modular system. The developers of particular programs have to write
this documentation themselves. If they won't do that, then there is no
documentation. Developers from the KDE and Gnome teams often forget
about documentation.
All the rest of us can do is make documentation on common installation
and administration issues, often in the form of Howto's and such. See
http://www.linuxdoc.org for most of the Linux-documentation.
> To me, all the "Linux is everything vs Linux sucks" myopia does=
not apply.
> In some cases, it merely reveals personal issues that aren't being deal=
t
> with. Most MS end users will be unable to install, configure, and get
> comfortable with Linux on their own, alone. Most will be too end-orient=
ed
> and easily frustrated to push through problems. Their interest is in
> completing tasks, not taking up a new hobby. On the other hand, a
> significant number would survive just learning new Linux apps (GUI) if
> that's all they had to do. MS-Windows users who haven't hit any of the
> inherent problems of MS-Windows should stay there and be happy. MS-Wind=
ows
> users who have suffered the heartbreak of repeated downtime and data lo=
ss
> need to commit to persistance, courtesy, and to looking for information=
> when they evaluate Linux and its current level of apps. The help and in=
fo
> is there. The trick is finding it.
Yep. Right now the qualities are divided. The problem is that you have
to make Linux much, much more userfriendly than Windows to get all the
end-users to switch over voluntarily.
The question is: will Linux achieve this user-friendliness first, or
will Windows achieve Linux' stability first?
I think the next few years will prove to be very interesting. Linux
will no doubt make it's impact on the computer industry. If Linux
doesn't make it itself against Windows, at least it will have made
Windows more stable by providing much needed competition.
> Just my 7.5 cents
> DougB
-- =
=A8I live!=A8
=A8I hunger!=A8
=A8Run, coward!=A8
-- The Sinistar
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What happens when all the bit twiddlers are gone?
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 10:27:38 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Today's generation of computer wizards don't seem to have a clue what
> we, and those of you (not me!!) that remember when a "bug" was a real
> insect hiding among the vacuum tubes (I did study those in college!
> Tubes that is, not bugs).
> =
> These folks have been spoon fed the gui in all of it's ease of use and
> for the most part die when it is taken away from them.
> =
> I am not talking about programmers, geeks and techies, but average
> folks.
> =
> My point is that these type of people who have been weaned on gui are
> not going to accept cli.
> =
> Linux needs to offer up a clearly superior GUI to attract these folks.
> Eye candy? Yep sure is, but that is the reality. When all of us bit
> twiddlers head for that great bit-bucket in the sky the next
> generation will take over.
That's what i've been saying. For the end-users to come over to Linux,
the Linux interface will have to be MUCH better than the Windows one.
Just being "as good as" doesn't cut it. People don't like change,
unless change is clearly better.
=
> Will they be using Linux?
Nobody can tell the future, but, i'd like to think so! :-) =
> Maybe. But not in it's current state, or it's focus on geeks.
Linux is changing every week. The "current state" is no longer the
current state, if you know what i mean.
> I suspect however Mac OS-X is going to be the future. Just a feeling,
> with nothing concrete to back it up.
Only if it will run on Intel machines, have Linux' stability and
Windows' familiarity and third party support. Sound pretty hard to
achieve, i think.
-- =
=A8I live!=A8
=A8I hunger!=A8
=A8Run, coward!=A8
-- The Sinistar
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Who was that wo was scanning my ports--could it be Simon?
Date: 9 Jul 2000 10:52:23 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8k6shm$2ekh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Let me get this straight. You are using a firewall AND a router, and your
>> pipe to the internet is a 56k analog line?
>
> What is wrong with using router? How else would you connect one network to
> another? What is wrong with using a firewall? It is a zero cost option on
> my router since the landline is the limiting factor on performance. What is
> wrong with using a dialup PPP connection, when it is sufficient for my
> needs? And what is wrong with the combination of these three items?
>
Its overkill and underkill all at the same time, in very many ways. In short,
if you half to ask....
>> What the hell is the matter with you?
>
> Nothing, what is your problem with my setup?
>
I think its unbelievably moronic.
> Network firewalls are like the locks on the enterances into our homes, are
> you suggesting that only the owners of mansions should lock their
> properties?
>
I actually do not believe in firewalls. They are sold to the unsuspecting
public who do not understand network security. There is never a reason to
have a ROUTER and a FIREWALL at the same time. If you have a decent
router, you can do all the filtering you need at its point.
>
>> And beyond that, are you absolutely positive that the person in question
> is
>> the only one youve annoyed from that area? The ip address you gave
> corresponds
>> to an analog modem interface; 99% probably dynamic.
>
> Since this message of yours and an other in this thread have brought up more
> or less this same question. I will provide more information that I have
> gathered since my original posting of this thread.
>
> As I mentioned before in the my original posting in this thread, the
> attacker's IP address was 209.246.107.110 which corresponds to the hostname
> dialup-209.246.107.110.NewYork2.Level3.net.
>
Neat. A dynamic ip.
> Take a look at these header lines from a posting, they are from the last
> article posted with the Simon777 identity on that day. Note the IP address
> of the posting host? The same as that of the attacker's IP address.
>
Neat, two people got the same ip.
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
> Subject: Re: Linux is just plain awful
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548
> X-No-Archive: yes
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Lines: 22
> Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 01:39:47 GMT
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.246.107.110
> X-Complaints-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> X-Trace: newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net 962933987 209.246.107.110 (Thu, 06
> Jul 2000 18:39:47 PDT)
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 18:39:47 PDT
> Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
> Xref: mindspring comp.os.linux.advocacy:410139
>
>
>
>> Not really. I deal with this kind of thing every day. Its extremely
> common.
>
> What are the odds that on a day that Simon777/Susie Wong and I had an
> exchange, Simon777 would post an article from a certain IP address then
> disconnect. Some else then connects through his ISP and get the same
> identical IP address and then target me for a port scan?
>
Not terribly good, but not all that bad either. You havent got a leg
to stand on, and your apparant network security skills are only hurting
your case.
> To many coincidences to accept. If it was not Simon777 (now deadpenguin),
> then it was someone who was spoofing his source IP to make it appear to be
> him.
>
Quite possible. I think you are a paranoid loon.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: Yet Yu Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
microsoft.public.win2000.general,microsoft.public.win2000.new_user,comp.os.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: DOJ File Suit Against Tiger Woods
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 11:06:51 GMT
I think you Microshaft people fans are hopeless. I'm sure M$ lawyers will do
all the blood sucking scheme to twist the law. There was AT&T, Standard Oil and
IBM, did they resist the break up order? It's the law and precedence, M$ might
add up to the list.
"Tim Hines. MCSE, MCP+I" wrote:
> On the heels of their victory against Microsoft, the DOJ has announced they
> plan to "break-up" Tiger Woods. DOJ's lead prosecutor, Joel Klein, claims
> Tiger uses unfair golfing techniques which stifle his competition. Klein
> also stated that he doesn't necessarily want to "break-up" Tiger Woods;
> however, if they can't find some way to handicap him enough to allow other
> golfers to win then there would be no other choice. Under a break-up plan
> Tiger Woods would have to play half his tournaments as "Tiger" and the
> other
> half as "Woods". Although this may not give other golfers an advantage it
> would increase the tax revenue to the government.
>
> Tiger Woods said he plans to fight these charges. He has done nothing
> wrong
> except practice hard and play-to-win.
>
> Mark Fitzpatrick, anti-trust expert, said, "This "play-to-win" attitude is
> what started all Tiger's problems. If Tiger would just allow other's to
> win
> he would not have a monopoly on the golf course. He really brought this
> upon himself. He should have known the government couldn't allow this much
> golfing power in the hands of just one person. If I was Tiger, I would
> settle out of court. An appropriate remedy might be that he has to wear
> handcuffs when driving and stand on one foot while putting."
>
> --
> Tim Hines, MCSE, MCP+I
Q: How many Bill Gateses does it take to change a light bulb?
A: One. He puts the bulb in and lets the world revolve around him.
Q: How many Microsoft executives does it take to change a light bulb?
A: We can see no need for uninstallation and have therefore made no provision
for light bulbs to be removed.
Q: How many Microsoft support staff does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Four. One to ask "What is the registration number of the light bulb?", one to
ask "Have
you tried rebooting it?", another to ask "Have you tried reinstalling it?" and
the last one to
say "It must be your hardware because the light bulb in our office works
fine..."
Q: How many Microsoft tech support people does it take to change a light bulb?
A: We have an exact copy of the light bulb here and it seems to be working fine.
Can you tell me what kind of system you have? Okay. Now exactly how dark is it?
Okay, there could be four or five things wrong ... have you tried the light
switch?
Q: How many Microsoft technicians does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Three. Two to hold the ladder and one to hammer the bulb into a faucet.
Q: How many Microsoft vice presidents does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Eight. One to work the bulb and seven to make sure that Microsoft gets $2 for
every light bulb ever changed anywhere in the world.
Q: How many Microsoft testers does it take to change a light bulb?
A: We just determine that the room is dark; we don't actually change the bulb.
Since we have a dead-bulb result on file from a previous test, rest assured that
Development is working on a bug fix.
Q: How many Microsoft shipping department personnel does it take to change a
light bulb?
A: We can change the bulb in seven to ten working days. If you call before 2pm
and pay an extra $15, we can get the bulb changed overnight. Don't forget to put
your name in the upper right-hand corner of the light bulb box.
Q: How many Microsoft managers does it take to change a light bulb?
A: We've formed a task force to study the problem of why light bulbs burn out,
and to determine what, exactly, we as supervisors can do to make the bulbs work
smarter, not harder.
Q: How many Windows users does it take to change a light bulb?
A: One. But they'll swear up and down that it was JUST as easy as it would be
for a Mac user.
Q: How many Microsoft engineers does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None. Bill Gates will just redefine Darkness(TM) as the new industry
standard.
Q: How many Microsoft programmers does it take to change a light bulb?
A: 57; one to write WinGetLightBulbHandle(), one to write
WinQueryLightBulbStatus(), one to write.....
Q: How many Apple Newton users does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Foux! There to eat lemons, axe gravy soup.
--
Go LINUX, Go OS X!
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
