Linux-Advocacy Digest #602, Volume #27 Tue, 11 Jul 00 20:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Jim Broughton)
Re: Apache Up, MS Down (Mike Marion)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Lee Hollaar)
Re: C# is a copy of java (Bill Godfrey)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 11 Jul 2000 17:11:34 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Depending on how you structure the thing, copyleft may or
>>> may not be a burden on commercial development. The notion
>>> that free software is necessarily a burden on commercial
>>> development is just FUD spread by those with incompatible
>>> motives.
>>
>>The inability to combine code with any existing code not restricted
>>in exactly the same way has to be a burden on development. The
>
> No it doesn't. Do you actually DO software development?
Yes, and I find that it is 90% or more incremental type
of work. That is virtually everything involves re-using
and re-combining existing libraries or chunks of
pre-existing code.
> Quite often it is not required to alter some common
> facility or to treat it as your own personal property in
> order to build useful things.
But it is rare to start entirely from scratch with code
that has no existing copyright.
> If this were so, the current proprietary model would be
> a considerably larger burden.
What do you mean by that? The current proprietary model
has no problem with components from different sources,
unless one happens to be GPL'd.
>>notion that such restrictions are not a problem or that they
>>are necessary to prevent some imagined threat is FUD spread by
>>those with a peculiar political agenda.
>
> Your comments are simply out of touch with the realities
> of the vast majority of most software development projects
> and flatly contradicts the success of several industries.
What do you mean by that? I have yet to see the example
of open source code that was in any way broken by the
existence of some derived work.
>>And what possible motivation can someone claiming to produce free
>>software in trying to assert control over libraries done by
>>others, or in restricting the ways that this supposedly free
>>work can be redistributed?
>
> I don't know and it isn't really relevant. It's just a poor
> strawman on your part.
Of course it is relevant. What is the point of unnecessary
restrictions?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: 11 Jul 2000 22:12:13 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Help me understand something. You've got your linux box here, but it's not
>on a always-on connection. You didn't say so but are we to assume that it
>dials up your ISP every so often and downloads your e-mail? And then this
>script looks for e-mail from you and reads a coded line to determine when
>you'd like your PPP to go up/down?
Correct.
>A quick thought, I'd have Outlook set to check my e-mail every x hours,
>disconnecting after retrieval. A message rule would look for e-mail from
>adress xxx, containing string zzz in the body and perhaps also subject equal
>to yyy. The rule would write the text of the message body to a file. A VBS
>script that was running would look for this file, open and parse the start
>and end times and then connect to the ISP at the appropriate time and wait
>until the final time and disconnect.
Fair enough, but frankly I already expected this would be possible. What
does interest me, is how you would handle erroneous messages and
security. How would you prevend me from sending you a similar email that
would keep your line open for two days?
I think the question boils down to: is PGP scriptable in Windows?
>But, actually, I'd probably just telnet to my provider and run mail on the
>shell account?
For me this is not an option, because bSMTP mail is only present in a
queue on the ISP's mailserver and not accessible via a shell account
(yet, they're in the process of fixing this).
>Why not just have the box connect every hour for 15 minutes.
15 minutes may not be sufficient for getting onto the net :-(
Hey, there's wonderful nature in Suriname, but one really sh*tty telco!
And leaving my line open 24/7 for 6 weeks is a bit too much IMO.
>I think I now fail to see why you bothered writing this script at all? What
>did I miss?
I think I'll read my mail once or twice a week, so I want to be able to
plan it. And it was fun doing too ;-)
>(oh, any I LOVE how you couldn't resist but add: "So even if a Windows
>solution would be possible technically, it still would not be an option..."
>Nice how you just throw out any windows solution (which is what you are
>asking for in the first place) without giving a viable reason? Why should
>9600 baud make a windows solution necessarily unviable but not for linux?
>doesn't make sense)
Because with Windows you either have to telnet in (and we all know that
the functionality of a Windows system is quite limited with just CMD.EXE
available), or use a graphical remote access tool, or pull over the mail
to your present site. Neither of these three sound attractive to me with
such low a bandwidth. ssh OTOH, gives me full funtionality where only
the data amount of compressed text is passed through the line. Viable
enough for you?
BTW, as the subject line clearly indicated, the question stems from
curiosity. It was by no means a request for help because I don't have a
problem, I have a solution. :)
>p.s., thanks for reminding me why I hate perl - YUCK!
You're welcome. But... is there any [1..3]GL language that you do not
hate?
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP key 0xD61A655D
... then you wish to copulate?
-- Seven of Nine, stardate 51186.2
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 18:12:33 -0400
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> Ah but there are a few, they're here in COLA. They've asked me to modify
> my statement, so it becomes:
>
> Linux lags behind Windows in some hardware products and
> Linux desktop lags behind Windows.
>
So which version of Windows has eight desktops out of the box?
In KDE, just set the number of desktops to 8 in kwmrc.
Colin Day
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 18:18:07 -0400
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If there existed some libsockets package, the most likley
> copylefted licence to be associated with such a package
> would specifically be designed to NOT create the artificial
> situation you describe.
Explain readline.
-f, expects to be denounced for pointing out the painful truth
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 11 Jul 2000 17:21:56 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Quoting Roberto Alsina from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Mon, 10 Jul 200
>>> It is not "free" in that it dissallows others to restrict
>>> the freedoms that they themselves have exploited. That is
>>> liberty versus anarchy that devolves into despotism.
>>
>>It disallows that, and it also disallows much else.
>>For example, some say it disallows combining code under the GPL with
>>original code under other licenses.
>
>They would be factually incorrect. There are reasons to decide not to
>combine GPL code with code under other licenses, but the GPL does not in
>any way disallow it. In fact, it makes explicit allowances for it,
>although these may not be enough to convince some to decide to combine
>GPL and non-GPL code.
Where do you see any allowance for combining GPL and non-GPL
code - or is there some other bizarre license whose restrictions
match exactly so it would be permitted?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 22:23:06 GMT
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 18:18:07 -0400, Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> If there existed some libsockets package, the most likley
>> copylefted licence to be associated with such a package
>> would specifically be designed to NOT create the artificial
>> situation you describe.
>
>Explain readline.
An exception.
[deletia]
Notice the phrase "most likely".
--
The only motivation to treat a work derived from Free Software
as your sole personal property is to place some sort of market
barrier in front of your customers and to try and trap them.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 22:30:03 GMT
On 11 Jul 2000 17:11:34 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>> Depending on how you structure the thing, copyleft may or
>>>> may not be a burden on commercial development. The notion
>>>> that free software is necessarily a burden on commercial
>>>> development is just FUD spread by those with incompatible
>>>> motives.
>>>
>>>The inability to combine code with any existing code not restricted
>>>in exactly the same way has to be a burden on development. The
>>
>> No it doesn't. Do you actually DO software development?
>
>Yes, and I find that it is 90% or more incremental type
>of work. That is virtually everything involves re-using
>and re-combining existing libraries or chunks of
>pre-existing code.
">and re-combining existing libraries or chunks of
>pre-existing code."
doesn't necessarily require the creation of a derivative
work of someone else's code.
>
>> Quite often it is not required to alter some common
>> facility or to treat it as your own personal property in
>> order to build useful things.
>
>But it is rare to start entirely from scratch with code
>that has no existing copyright.
Not at all.
Although, one typically gets to exploit a wealth of
previously created code. However, one doesn't necessarily
need to modify any of that code that you are reusing.
It would be rather contrary to the goals of software
engineering if you did.
>
>> If this were so, the current proprietary model would be
>> a considerably larger burden.
>
>What do you mean by that? The current proprietary model
>has no problem with components from different sources,
>unless one happens to be GPL'd.
Except you can't modify them or treat them as your
own personal exclusive property. Yet commercial
software development somehow managed to continue
on.
>
>>>notion that such restrictions are not a problem or that they
>>>are necessary to prevent some imagined threat is FUD spread by
>>>those with a peculiar political agenda.
>>
>> Your comments are simply out of touch with the realities
>> of the vast majority of most software development projects
>> and flatly contradicts the success of several industries.
>
>What do you mean by that? I have yet to see the example
>of open source code that was in any way broken by the
>existence of some derived work.
Code reuse does not require the creation of derivative
works that code. The notion that it does is simply FUD
on the part of FSF detractors. A great deal of the
value of my own stock holdings is due to this sort of
exploitation of Free Software by non-unix developers.
>
>>>And what possible motivation can someone claiming to produce free
>>>software in trying to assert control over libraries done by
>>>others, or in restricting the ways that this supposedly free
>>>work can be redistributed?
>>
>> I don't know and it isn't really relevant. It's just a poor
>> strawman on your part.
>
>Of course it is relevant. What is the point of unnecessary
>restrictions?
That is disputable. That is highly disputable. Infact, in
most other industries such a 'hood welded shut' attitude
would be considered absurd.
That's the nice thing about Patents: at least you still have
to fully disclose those.
--
The only motivation to treat a work derived from Free Software
as your sole personal property is to place some sort of market
barrier in front of your customers and to try and trap them.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Jim Broughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 19:06:30 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> Linux lags behind Windows in some hardware products and
> Linux desktop lags behind Windows.
>
> I believe there are (many?) other areas, but that's my opinion.
>
> --
> ---
> Pete
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
WARNING WARNING WARNING Will Robinson RANTS AHEAD. WARNING!
I finaly have to take exception to a comment here in this newsgroup
(not that there aren't many to take exception too)!
Linux does NOT lag behind windows in some hardware products, product
manufacturers lag behind in writing drivers for thier products too
work on linux. So don't blame Linux or the people who DO write software
for it. Instead blame lazy organizations who are so caught up in
avoiding
billy boyz penetrating gaze that they can't do anything for fear of
retribution. We all know how M$ deals that out.
Now as for the Linux desktop! The linux desktop is about personal
CHOICE.
I run windows 98 in a dual boot system. I use it for what its good at.
GAMES
Nothing else. If I want to send personal mail I use Netscape under
LINUX.
If I want to surf the net same thing. If I want to print a document I
use
Linux. Word processing, a kde app under Linux! Programming, the GNU C++
free
compiler and kde dev system not an overpriced $500 set of bloated
visssuallll
applications.
THIS IS WHERE THE REAL RANTING STARTS!
My system has 128 meg of ram. Under windows it has a negetive amount of
FREE
ram for use by applications. Under Linux I have In excess of 64 meg free
at
almost all times.
So the other day I wanted to find a file in Win 98 that had been there
from before
I got linux. I booted up winbloat 98 and then loaded the explorer it
took in
excess of 20 seconds to load the damn explorer. In KDE the file manager
comes up
in less than 1 second. SWAP SWAP SWAP SWAP or is that BLOAT BLOAT BLOAT
BLOAT.
Under W98 I use a static 256k swap file and do not know how to find out
just
how much of that winbloat uses. I have friends with 256 meg of ram and
it still
uses the damn swap file. You can keep your pretty (not to me) and oh so
standardized interface styling and your bloated memory hog applications!
I myself prefer the freedom of choice in how I use the system and in
how it looks.
I am more productive with linux than I ever could be with a lesser
operating
system like Windows XX.
END OF RANT!
Damn that felt good!
Jim Broughton
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Apache Up, MS Down
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 23:07:49 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Cut and paste. Tim Palmer can cut. And he can paste. Probably with
> great difficulty, as he can't type well enough to use the keyboard
> shortcuts.
Yep, I admit that I'd replied hastily. I looked quickly at the page,
but hadn't scrolled far enough down to see the part that he'd cut and
pasted.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
Newspaper Editor: "We're looking for a new food critic, someone who
doesn't immediately 'poo-poo' everything he eats."
Homer: "Nah it usually takes a few hours." -- The Simpsons
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 11 Jul 2000 18:13:30 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Yes, and I find that it is 90% or more incremental type
>>of work. That is virtually everything involves re-using
>>and re-combining existing libraries or chunks of
>>pre-existing code.
>
> ">and re-combining existing libraries or chunks of
> >pre-existing code."
>
> doesn't necessarily require the creation of a derivative
> work of someone else's code.
Going by the example of RIPEM, it may be very difficult
to avoid creating something that RMS would consider
a derivative.
>>> Quite often it is not required to alter some common
>>> facility or to treat it as your own personal property in
>>> order to build useful things.
>>
>>But it is rare to start entirely from scratch with code
>>that has no existing copyright.
>
> Not at all.
>
> Although, one typically gets to exploit a wealth of
> previously created code. However, one doesn't necessarily
> need to modify any of that code that you are reusing.
It is not necessary to modify or distribute the re-used
code for RMS to consider your work a derivative.
>>> Your comments are simply out of touch with the realities
>>> of the vast majority of most software development projects
>>> and flatly contradicts the success of several industries.
>>
>>What do you mean by that? I have yet to see the example
>>of open source code that was in any way broken by the
>>existence of some derived work.
>
> Code reuse does not require the creation of derivative
> works that code. The notion that it does is simply FUD
> on the part of FSF detractors. A great deal of the
> value of my own stock holdings is due to this sort of
> exploitation of Free Software by non-unix developers.
But what is the point of preventing derivative works?
>>>>And what possible motivation can someone claiming to produce free
>>>>software in trying to assert control over libraries done by
>>>>others, or in restricting the ways that this supposedly free
>>>>work can be redistributed?
>>>
>>> I don't know and it isn't really relevant. It's just a poor
>>> strawman on your part.
>>
>>Of course it is relevant. What is the point of unnecessary
>>restrictions?
>
> That is disputable. That is highly disputable. Infact, in
> most other industries such a 'hood welded shut' attitude
> would be considered absurd.
What are you talking about. My comment is about the GPL
restrictions. GPL'd code is the part you cannot combine
with anything else under any circumstances and redistribute.
I am not in favor of any restrictions, yet I recognize
that other restricted code exists and is often worth
meeting the terms of its restrictions.
> That's the nice thing about Patents: at least you still have
> to fully disclose those.
And when you meet the terms of the restrictions of more than
one, you are allowed to combine them in useful ways. It is
the GPL that prohibits any such useful combinations.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 23:23:50 GMT
On 11 Jul 2000 18:13:30 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>Yes, and I find that it is 90% or more incremental type
>>>of work. That is virtually everything involves re-using
>>>and re-combining existing libraries or chunks of
>>>pre-existing code.
>>
>> ">and re-combining existing libraries or chunks of
>> >pre-existing code."
>>
>> doesn't necessarily require the creation of a derivative
>> work of someone else's code.
>
>Going by the example of RIPEM, it may be very difficult
>to avoid creating something that RMS would consider
>a derivative.
Except people manage in practice on a quite regular basis.
>
>>>> Quite often it is not required to alter some common
>>>> facility or to treat it as your own personal property in
>>>> order to build useful things.
>>>
>>>But it is rare to start entirely from scratch with code
>>>that has no existing copyright.
>>
>> Not at all.
>>
>> Although, one typically gets to exploit a wealth of
>> previously created code. However, one doesn't necessarily
>> need to modify any of that code that you are reusing.
>
>It is not necessary to modify or distribute the re-used
>code for RMS to consider your work a derivative.
Sure it is. It's all quite explicitly spelled out in the GPL
and LGPL. If those can't be considered definitive statements
of RMS's opinion on the matter not much else can be.
>
>>>> Your comments are simply out of touch with the realities
>>>> of the vast majority of most software development projects
>>>> and flatly contradicts the success of several industries.
>>>
>>>What do you mean by that? I have yet to see the example
>>>of open source code that was in any way broken by the
>>>existence of some derived work.
>>
>> Code reuse does not require the creation of derivative
>> works that code. The notion that it does is simply FUD
>> on the part of FSF detractors. A great deal of the
>> value of my own stock holdings is due to this sort of
>> exploitation of Free Software by non-unix developers.
>
>But what is the point of preventing derivative works?
The creation of anti-competitive barriers become a little
less trivial and would be Robber Barron have the burden of
building their own barricades first.
Besides, the need to create derivative works in order to
accomplish code reuse is simply bad engineering practice.
>
>>>>>And what possible motivation can someone claiming to produce free
>>>>>software in trying to assert control over libraries done by
>>>>>others, or in restricting the ways that this supposedly free
>>>>>work can be redistributed?
>>>>
>>>> I don't know and it isn't really relevant. It's just a poor
>>>> strawman on your part.
>>>
>>>Of course it is relevant. What is the point of unnecessary
>>>restrictions?
>>
>> That is disputable. That is highly disputable. Infact, in
>> most other industries such a 'hood welded shut' attitude
>> would be considered absurd.
>
>What are you talking about. My comment is about the GPL
"unecessary"
Being able to see and service the guts of a machine
is typically considered to be a fairly fundemental
capacity. Besides, FREE software is not merely
limited to GPL software.
[deletia]
To merely limit the discussion to the GPL is to indulge
in false strawmen and is remarkably dishonest.
--
The only motivation to treat a work derived from Free Software
as your sole personal property is to place some sort of market
barrier in front of your customers and to try and trap them.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 11 Jul 2000 23:27:53 GMT
In article <8kg9mq$1op8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
>Going by the example of RIPEM, it may be very difficult
>to avoid creating something that RMS would consider
>a derivative.
Until RMS becomes the federal court judge hearing your copyright case,
it makes little difference what he considers a derivative work.
------------------------------
From: Bill Godfrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: C# is a copy of java
Date: 12 Jul 2000 00:30:10 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Comp.lang.c added.]
Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The syntax, if I remember *my* K&R correctly, is that a[b]
> > translates to *(a+b). This is probably not a straight
> close *(a + b*(sizeof(*a))
Not quite. The original answer *(a+b) is correct, in terms of
the C language.
When you add a pointer (a) to an integer (b), the pointer moves
in units of sizeof(*a).
So when it fgets turned into assembly, (here listed as pseudo-assembly)
Load integer b into d0.
Multiply d0 by sizeof(*a).
Load pointer a into a0.
Add d0 to a0.
Dereference a0.
Bill, axe RH.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 23:36:10 GMT
On 11 Jul 2000 23:27:53 GMT, Lee Hollaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <8kg9mq$1op8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
>>Going by the example of RIPEM, it may be very difficult
>>to avoid creating something that RMS would consider
>>a derivative.
>
>Until RMS becomes the federal court judge hearing your copyright case,
>it makes little difference what he considers a derivative work.
What matters in the end is what the licence states and how
that is interepreted by the legal system. Copyleft doesn't
necessarily require giving up your firstborn. RMS may regret
that at this point but that's irrelevant.
--
The only motivation to treat a work derived from Free Software
as your sole personal property is to place some sort of market
barrier in front of your customers and to try and trap them.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
