Linux-Advocacy Digest #604, Volume #27 Tue, 11 Jul 00 22:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: License? (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 (Karl Knechtel)
Re: Student run Linux server. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Lee Hollaar)
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 (tinman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: License?
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 01:38:34 GMT
In article <8kd99o$5dc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
darkstar51 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a Red Hat CD. Can I install it on company computers. Is there
> any License Agreement that I might violate? The Network Manager keeps
> swearing you have to have a license.
As wierd as it sounds, your Network Manager is quite correct. Legally,
it is his responsibility to make sure that all licenses are in
compliance. For his needs, either the license included with the
shrink wrapped software, or a printed copy of the GPL, BSD license,
and Apache licenses should be suffecient. If you can point him to
the appropriate licenses on the CD-ROM, this should also be sufficient.
There are a few caveats.
If you are licensing a web server, there are additional licenses
which are included in the "Shrink Wrapped Package Price" such as
the license to serve GIF files, the license to use RSA encryption,
and, in the case of the Commerce Server, the license to issue
certificates.
While the software may be freely copied, support contracts are a
different issue. Costs for support contracts can range from
$35/incident (still far below comparable NT per incident charges),
to $1500 per year/user (total hand-holding agreement for small
number of unskilled users) to as little as $35/user/year (large
corporation with internal "FAQ" support).
The terms for these licenses varies from company to company (providers
include VA Linux, Red Hat, Caldera, IBM, et al) and is very competitive
in terms of pricing (cheap), yet very profitable compared to comparable
levels of support for NT at comparable prices.
Finally, Red Hat and others usually provide a "Distribution" CD,
which contains all the freely distributable software. They offer
a separate "Commercial Applications" CD which includes software
which can often be licensed to corporations for a little as
$2/application/user for 1000 users or more.
Premium products such as Office Productivity suites are licensed
separately. The version of WordPerfect, for example, is fully
functional but only includes a few templates and wizards and the
software "breaks" after the trial period (about 60 days). Again,
quantity discounts are available but need to be negotiated separately.
The commercial software with licenses usually gets shipped with
upgrades. For example, Commercial WordPerfect Office for Linux
has a full compliment of wizards, templates, backgrounds, fonts,
and tools that can put Microsoft Office to shame. Commercial versions
of Applix come with numerous ELF extensions which extend the
capabilities substantially. I'm not sure what Sun is offering with
StarOffice. I've always hated their MDI model, but that's just my
personal taste.
Put simply, you can give you Network manager the "puppy dog close".
We can install all of the free stuff on as many machines as we want,
put the commercial stuff on a few designated "trial servers" (remember,
you can use X11 to make Xclients on a "server" appear as if they are
running on your X11 enabled workstation (even NT).
Another good idea is to just have a few "boat anchors" for running
Linux "X-Client" applications. Many NT users who wouldn't be caught
dead loading Linux into their Windows 2000 capable SuperComputer on
a desktop (some of these boxes deliver over 1 billion instructions
per second - including the video graphics chips, run 1/4 gig of RAM,
and run 35-40 gigabytes of hard drive - and run Windows 2000 slowly)
would be willing to run hummingbird or Exceed on their Win2k machine
and get access to the "high-gloss" Linux apps.
The best corporate policy is to permit the installation of Linux
on desktops - as desired, with no requirement other than that the
installation be reported, either via e-mail or via a web form. This
will help the corporation plan resources that may eventually be needed
to support the rapidly expanding user base.
The other thing the network manager should know is that he should
plan on getting at least one Linux SAMBA server. Under normal
circumstances, end users only function as either clients or servers,
but Linux does also have the ability to function as a WNS domain
master, and has the ability to outvote anything but another Linux
machine. This means that the administrator wants to make sure it has
one Linux machine that can outvote even other Linux machines (and can
flag anyone who tries to be a "Level 63 Master"). Any competent
Network manager should consider it his duty to not only know that
Linux exists, but also how it can help him do his job better.
As far as your Netwark administrator is concerned, he may want Linux
to quietly disappear, but he doesn't have that option. The fact is
that nearly 3 million copies of Desktop versions of Linux were sold
in 1997 and the market has about tripled (annual growth between 170%
and 240% depending on who's counting and when). The growth rate
hasn't slowed signifantly since the month after the release of
Windows 98 (big dip that month), and while it isn't growing as fast
as Windows 98 did in it's first two years, it's sustained a steady
growth rate (170% +- 240%) for nearly 7 years.
I'm not one of those who realistically expects that Linux will take
over 100% of the marketplace. Either new competitors such as BSD
variants will join the party, or Microsoft will conform to Linux
standards and provide enough of a value-add to protect some of it's
market share (35-60%). It just means that Microsoft will have to
learn the same lesson in 2002 that IBM learned in 1992, that you can't
tell customers what they will eat, you have to serve them what they
want. Holding a gun to the user's head only works up to a certain
point. After that, your competitors will gain more support than
you can generate.
I also disagree with Bob Young. Bob seems to think "The war is
over, we've won". I have held one of the most agressive estimates
of the Linux base in the industry (at one time estimating 90 million
Linux machines or users), but I'm acutely aware that there are nearly
300 million machines running Windows 98, nearly 300 million machines
that may still be running Windows 95, and nearly 200 million machines
that were originally sold with Windows 3.1 or WfW. This doesn't even
count the 80 million NT 4.0 machines and the 3 million Windows 2000
machines. Add it up, even if Linux had 90 million machines (I've since
recalibrated my estimate to 40 million users) that's only 40 million out
of 783 million Microsoft machines (give or take a few million). The
Microsoft estimates were taken from Microsoft's own web sites over the
year or so. This still leaves Linux with only about 7% of the total
market. It's a bit like Patton claiming he'd be in Berlin in a month
before the beach-head at Normandy had even been established enough to
land the tanks.
As the WinTrolls have suggested, Linux has to establish some branded
applications, some "killer apps", and some functionality that isn't
available (and can't be emulated) on Windows 9x. This isn't a matter
of innovating something that doesn't exist, it's a matter of
exploiting and promoting that which does exist.
Nearly every PC user now spends about 1/2 of his career depending on
the reliability, stability, and security of access to UNIX systems via
Web Browsers. Linux on the desktop provides a quantum leap above that.
But Linux users need to use any means necessary to get Linux onto
corporate desktops where Linux applications and functionality can be
demonstrated and experienced.
The establishment of Linux on the desktop will have as much of an
impact in the next 5 years as the establishment of the Web Browser
and Web Server had in the previous 5 years.
Today, it's hard to imagine the day when advertizers gave out
telephone numbers instead of URLs. It's hard to imagine the time
when you had to search through bookshelves full of catalogues just
to find the best price on basic office supplies. It's hard to imagine
the time when people would say "What is the Internet"? Or they'd say
"I don't need the internet, I have a Prodigy dial-up account".
5 years from now, it will be hard to imagine the day when people would
try to put all their work on a single desktop. It will be hard to
imagine the day when users would poll for news every few hours. It
would be hard to imagine the day when people would repeat the same
basic tasks (checking mail, checking stock prices, checking news,
checking project status, checking for availability of documents,
waiting for something that was done an hour ago, and rewriting the
18th draft of a document that didn't "look right".
Of course, this means that people will have to think more originally,
be more creative, and respond to requests and notifications more
rapidly, but then again, there will be less time wasted doing things
that aren't terribly productive. There will be fewer unpleasant
distractions like "My PC Crashed", or "I can't find that report, I had
it here last week", or "Are we there yet?" (is it ready yet?). This
will tend to reduce the stress as people spend less time being
frustrated over what hasn't happened and spend less time being
excited about what is happening.
Linux is a new paradigm, just as the Internet (World Wide Web) was
a new paradigm compared to the single-service dial-up services that
gave you access to a few hundred megabytes of semi-useful information
that was barely worth the cost of obtaining it. Today, we can search
millions of documents electronically in a few seconds, and we can even
narrow those documents to the most recently published ones.
Today, we give Price-Line a bid an in a few hours we get confirmation.
With Linux, we'll get real-time quotes filtered to our interests fed to
us with the ability to see available seats and current price, we may not
want to wait for the last seat (since someone else could pick it up
before we do). I wouldn't be suprised if PriceLine even developed a
Linux-Only product line.
Today, we poll E-bay for auctions and see, 20 minutes later, that
we didn't get the item we bid on. With Linux, thousands of bidders
will be bidding in real-time until everything is snapped up. By
the time the Windows users get their "poll", the item will be gone.
Today, we poll for stock quotes that may be 20-30 minutes old, and
get prices on 5-10 stocks in a simple table. With Linux, we'll get
the whole feed on a time-delay line (or real-time for a few extra $$)
and have the ability to get immediate 2-way feedback on real-time
requests and confirmations.
And what of the corporate manager? Instead of sweating out the entire
quarter, wondering whether or not the number will come in, he will have
the ability to see the actual earnings of his entire corporation
accurate to within about 30 seconds. He can intentionally slow things
down if the orders aren't coming in, and he can intentionally speed
things up if the 8 hour back-log is disappearing.
Options and futures will extend to everything from PC chips to
Swanson TV Dinners. Furthermore, we will see many countries
besides the U.S. routing futures to their countries (getting
products at commodity prices rather than retail + shipping).
Cash flow will accelerate and globalize in ways we can't
even imagine. Imagine the productivity of the planet doubling
again in the next 5 years, with that additional wealth being more
broadly distributed (simply because you can only buy so many suits
before your closets are full).
Imagine an entire world where anyone who is willing and able to
contribute to the benifit of others will have the ability to harvest
the fruits of good service rendered well.
Even the garbage will be a valuable commodity.
Linux will actually not only make this possible, but will make it
possible with less effort, less "frantic panic", and less "brute
force".
Even more important is that quality of life will improve. Since
location is no longer the prime consideration, effective communicators
can be located anywhere. Instead of jamming into skyscrapers in New
York City because you have to be within shouting distance of the buyers
and sellers, only the shipping requires location. And with airports and
large cargo carriers making air-freight, truck-freight, and
train-freight more efficient, it's pretty much possible for anyone to
create anything anywhere. If you want to be a Wall-Street tycoon and
live in Forgo North Dakota, you can do it! If you want to be a
a trucker who only has to drive 6 hours a day - from the rail-head to
the ship yard or the airport - you can do it! If you want sell jewelry
made by your family in India, you can even sell it on the futures
market.
Many have indicated that Linux is a symptom of Communism or Socalism
gone berzerk. Linux is a product of Capitalism in it's purest form.
On a Linux distribution, several competitors compete for each niche,
providing the best service, quality, and support they can, in hopes of
garnering revenue from informed customers making informed choices.
Microsoft claims to be a product of Capitalism, but is in fact, a
product of facism. Microsoft produces a product, usually only one,
and incorporates it into a bundle which the OEMs much buy. Competitors
are quickly purged (usually within 6-9 months of Microsoft entering the
market) and the blood flows in the form of red ink. Once Microsoft has
established it's "fair share" (100% of the market), it raises the price
OEMs must pay for the bundle. Microsoft doesn't ask you what you want,
they tell you what you are going to get. When Microsoft says "where do
you want to go today?" they don't care what your answer is, they are
going to put you in the unventilated box-cars, lock the doors behind
you, and take you wherever they want for 2-3 years before they finally
let you out and herd you into the next trainload of box-cars.
I wanted to Write documents that my customers could read after I printed
them out. With Linux/Unix, I created documents in NROFF, FIG, and LyX
and printed reports that generated millions in revenue. But Microsoft
insisted that I use MS-DOS, MS-Word for DOS, and avail myself of a
WYSIWYG interface, RaNSoM NoTE FoNtS, and then I could spend 3-5 weeks
trying to create something "pretty" enough for my boss to approve - by
which time the customer had gone to a competitor.
I wanted to switch from one application to another without having to
quite one application entirely and start another. With UNIX and Linux,
I had csh with it's "jobs", I had emacs with windowed interfaces, I had
sunview with multiple overlapping windows, all active, and I had X11
with the ability to manage multiple windows over a serial port
connection like a 9600 baud modem. Microsoft insisted that I use
Windows 3.0 or 3.1, MS-Word for Windows, and hope and pray that the
"5-minute autosave" hit before Windows crashed. Of course, since many
of my documents were too big, and now contained not only the graph, but
also the spreadsheet used to calculate the graph, the formulas used to
calculate the graph, and a fully uncompressed bitmap of the entire
graph, in 256 colors (even though I only used 8) it often caused the
applications to crash. The documents were late, and the customer
got tired of waiting.
I wanted to communicate over the Internet. UNIX and Linux gave me the
ability to send e-mail, conference via newsgroups, publish documents
via a web server, and allow others to view them using a web browser
that could display nice text fonts, graphics, and even tables and
photographs on a unified display. But Microsoft insisted that I use
Windows 9x, Internet Explorer, Messenger or Outlook, and BackOffice.
The users couldn't talk to each other, the documents contained viruses,
the "groups" required private copies on every machine, the BackOffice
server made even the most confidential documents available to anyone in
the Administrators group, the trusted Domains didn't trust each other,
and the untrusted domains seemed to have more access than the untrusted
domains. The expensive firewalls used to protect the network from
hackers attempting to make inbound connections were completely breached
by ActiveX controls in IE 4.0, IE 5.0, VBScripts embedded in Outlook,
and autoscripting enabled by Back Office. The Word attachments had
Macroviruses, the Excel attachments had script viruses, and the
PowerPoint presentations had "show" viruses. Microsoft would release
one placebo patch after another, claiming the problem was "cured", only
to have yet another outbreak of viruses derived from the source code of
it's predecessors.
Now, I want to conduct some business, in real-time. I want to send
messages that are processed in milliseconds and confirmed as they
are delivered. I want to get responses as quickly. I also want
to use established standards for Multimedia. Linux gives me UDP,
IRC-II, and players that can handle any MPEG, JPEG, MP3, GIF, or
other standard format that can be delivered via "standard input".
But Microsoft wants to "protect" me by surrounding that simple
pipeline with XML and COM/DCOM interfaces that make it entirely
possible to embed even the most hidious of killer viruses in SOAP
transactions that call ActiveX controls that pull in embedded
viruses that can do anything from read my e-mail to reformat my
hard drive (low level reformat) without even asking for my
permission).
I wanted to manage a desktop without having to travel 3000 miles
to get to it. UNIX and Linux gave me the ability to access it
via X11 which allowed me to be one of several users simultaniously
connected to the server, with each of us protected from each other
and from damaging the core system. Microsoft insisted that I use
PC-Anywhere or SMS which makes me the sole user, makes everybody
else wait (sometimes for days), and still requires the presence
of a physical operator when the box refuses to accept my connection
or initialize properly. Unfortunately, the day-shift is so busy
rebooting production boxes that I have to wait until 9:00 PM before
my test box gets any attention.
The bottom line. Your network manager is either going to react to
Linux in fear and terror of this horrible operating system that's
going to render all of his previous MCSE certifications obsolete,
or he's going to react to Linux with hope and excitement that
this wonderful operating system will give him the chance to
get a good nights sleep for a change, that he can produce higher
productivity (more cash-flow, better service...) with less
resources. How he perceives it is largely up to you, the user
asking him to let you install Linux on 50-60 machines in his
company. Offer to set up a "boat anchor" (an older Pentium 90
with 16-32 meg of RAM and 1/2 gig hard drive or better) and set
him up with some goodies. If he likes printed manuals print some
out for him. If he likes pretty pictures, put those on his Linux
desktop. If he likes playing free-cell, install all of the games.
Let him show you what he likes most about his Windows system and
give him everything he loves the most. THEN give him the extras.
Once he sees that Linux is no longer this "Wizards Magical Crystal
Ball" but instead is something well within his capabilities, he
will be the first one to chime up for Linux.
Some hints: DON'T let him install Linux all by himself, after hours,
without your help. The quickest way to create a WinTroll is to give
him a raw cheap-bytes Linux disk, say "stick this on your desktop
machine", and check back in about 2 months later and ask "did you
try than Linux disk yet?". If he doesn't make you eat the Linux disk,
he will politely tell you what a horrible time he had installing it,
how much time he lost because he repartitioned his hard drive (losing
everything that was previously installed instead of resizing the
partitions using Partition Magic) and how one of his peripherals didn't
come up (video, sound, network, SCSI drive, USB device).
If you start out with the boat anchor, there's a pretty good chance
that Linux will support the hardware. If you have a problem, you
can spring $30 for a workable peripheral to get him up and running.
If his first exposure to Linux is a nice pretty "family portrait"
(Mandrake has a cute family of penguins if you start xdm first),
an hour of really cool games (or whatever he likes best), and
most of his favorite gifs, jpegs, and mp3s or mpegs in the
background, on the wallpaper, or wherever else he likes it,
you won't be able to get that Linux box out of his office.
Show him how he can publish using communicator to publish to his
personal web site and he will be publishing everything from the
latest upgrades to the daily status logs on that web site.
Show him how to use rdist to push those web pages to a corporate
UNIX or Linux site automatically and he won't remember what
Microsoft Word was for.
The most important thing is to make sure that his first experience
if Linux is as positive as possible.
The people you should target - in this order:
Network Administrator (he already uses unix-stuff
for routers and firewalls).
(show him the SNMP network monitor features).
System Administrator (he wants a good night's sleep,
show him how to get one).
Project Managers (when they realize that there is less risk due to
failures, shifting standards, upgrades, and viruses
he'll want Linux in his next project).
A product manager whose product is in trouble (they are so desparate
to rescue the project from disaster they'll thank
you forever - but not right away).
A senior technical person who:
1 - is willing to listen.
2 - has executives listening to him.
3 - is willing to pass it up the line.
Don't expect immediate glowing praise - or credit. You must
give him the space to be the champion. It sorta sucks but
it's necessary. Later, he will want you as his visionary.
A senior executive who:
1 - is worried about his budget, staffing, or overhead.
2 - has some technical abilities.
3 - is known as a bit of a maverick.
4 - has been successful in the past but is hitting a wall now.
By the way, these are tricks from the "Microsoft Playbook" - enjoy.
> Thanks,
> darkstar51
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 40 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 7/2/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 21:52:00 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Nathaniel Jay Lee from alt.destroy.microsoft; Tue, 11 Jul 2000
16:15:30 -0500
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> Unless I said that, I didn't. I try very hard not to insinuate, so I
>> apologize if I 'seemed to' be saying you were defending MS. I do
>> believe you were defending Microsoft's position, and that unknowingly,
>> not the company. By shifting blame for computers which don't work from
>> the computers to those running them, and further pointing out that this
>> is an assumption, because you have never seen a company that runs their
>> computers well, you defend Microsoft's position as "most popular and
>> therefore it must be OK, at least, if you know what you are doing."
>>
>
>This is such a load of crap. I never said any such thing. I do not
>think that MS is OK.[...]
They why did you post:
"I agree that Windows seems to crash a lot more often that what was
originally stated, but in some cases it is possible to set it up to run
without crashing *a lot*. But you have to have an administrator that
knows what he is doing, users that don't fiddle with the control panel,
and a solid network/server setup in a business to really keep them
running smooth."
It sure sounded to me like what I said. Again, you are not defending
MS, or saying it is OK. You're defending Microsoft's *position*, and
saying that Window's crashes can be avoided by competence. This is a
mistaken position, so forgive me for disagreeing with it.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[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! ======
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl Knechtel)
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 01:06:43 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Prove it, if you think you can.
: Here's today's Tinman digest:
On the contrary.
: 1> On the contrary.
: 1> On the contrary.
: 1> On the contrary.
: 1> On the contrary.
Argument by repetition? Ineffective.
: All you could was pontificate,
Taking word omission lessons again?
: while ignoring the evidence for your reading comprehension problems,
What alleged "evidence"?
: as evidenced by the questions I reproduced that you called "alleged".
Prove it, if you think you can.
Karl Knechtel {:>
da728 at torfree dot net
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Student run Linux server.
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 01:48:42 GMT
Sure. Buy a copy of "Maximum Linux Security", lock the damned thing
down tighter'n'hell, firewall the shit out of it, and announce to the
students you've got an unbreakable server on the net. It'll get more
hits than the class nympho on prom nite, plus you'll get to practice
your re-install procedures. And when you're tired of that game, put it
up on the public network, open it up wider than the aforementioned
nympho's knees, and challenge the students to make it secure. Just for
fun you could put all their classwork on it for added incentive.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 12 Jul 2000 02:04:28 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>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.
>
>Spoken like a lawyer. (Sorry, Lee, but it had to be said.)
I should be insulted by that.
> It makes a
>crucial difference in one respect: he appears to be willing to sue over it,
>and to the average non-lawyer, getting sued is a Very Bad Thing, costing
>large amounts of money and headaches and heartache. The mere threat of
>getting sued is, to the average non-lawyer, often enough to produce the
>desired action.
A defendant in a copyright suit can get his attorney fees if he prevales
and the court feels that the suit wasn't justified.
But you're right, most people try to avoid litigation. But there are
ways to lessen its impact.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 22:04:50 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl
Knechtel) wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Prove it, if you think you can.
>
> : Here's today's Tinman digest:
>
> On the contrary.
>
> : 1> On the contrary.
> : 1> On the contrary.
> : 1> On the contrary.
> : 1> On the contrary.
>
> Argument by repetition? Ineffective.
>
> : All you could was pontificate,
>
> Taking word omission lessons again?
>
> : while ignoring the evidence for your reading comprehension problems,
>
> What alleged "evidence"?
>
> : as evidenced by the questions I reproduced that you called "alleged".
>
> Prove it, if you think you can.
>
> Karl Knechtel {:>
> da728 at torfree dot net
Jumping into conversations again Karl? Cool, have fun!
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
