Linux-Advocacy Digest #658, Volume #27 Thu, 13 Jul 00 23:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Web Browsers? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Student run Linux server. (James deBoer)
Re: Are Linux people illiterate? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Numbers for users,hackers? (Jim Richardson)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Mike Stump)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Peter Ammon)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 21:36:44 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting ZnU from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 18:40:28 GMT
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
>You keep repeating such things. CMT doesn't put the user in control, it
>puts the apps in control. This is bad, because the apps can't know what
>else the system is doing, so they have no idea when they should be
>yielding CPU time.
What is bad is forgetting that the user is supposed to be in control of
the apps, not the other way around.
[...]
>Most innovation and adaptation in in the user interface department just
>makes things worse. In the rare case where an application developer does
>actually come up with something that works better for a particular app
>than the standard, any potential productivity gains are typically offset
>by the fact that the user needs to learn much more to use the app, and
>has to consciously remember how things work in that app vs. in
>everything else.
It is *very* important that you realize that this last bit is
counter-productive and mistaken. The cost of learning an interface
cannot be considered a component of its *use*, merely of its adoption.
User's don't have to "consciously remember how things work" if they are
going to use the software. Yes, software designed for infrequent use
should have a simple interface. No, software designed for frequent use,
should *not* have a simple interface. It should have an appropriate
one, but it is the *user*, not the *app*, which is the determinant
factor in what is appropriate, or useful.
>This is one of my big fears about Microsoft's .Net platform: there won't
>be any more UI standards than there are on the web in general. Every app
>will work differently.
That's already happened; MS is just trying to re-capitalize on it.
Almost every non-engineer in the world is entirely and completely
convinced that putting an interface on a web page makes it work *the
same* as all the others, in direct and obvious contrast to their senses.
>This is also a big problem under the Unix OSes, of course, where nobody
>can agree on a toolkit.
Nobody should agree on a toolkit; innovation requires diversity. But I
understand your point.
[...]
>They can cooperate all they like. It still won't work as well as PMT,
>because the apps don't know anything about what else is running on the
>system.
That is a valid reason not to put the apps in charge. In PMT, the apps
are in charge (via the consistent and algorithmic rules of the
scheduler.) In CMT, the user is in charge, not the apps. If the app I
bring to the foreground doesn't yield sufficiently and stops my
download, then I will get rid of that app and get one that works.
Personal computers should always put the user in charge. If the user
cannot be assumed to know what they're doing, then it is the job of th
engineer to present the choice through an interface analogy they can
understand, not to make the decision for them, nor to put the software
in charge. Second guessing the user is what Windows does wrong. I'm
not saying that putting PMT on a desktop is as bad as Windows. I am
saying that the assumption that technical issues for the engineer are
the same as, or even pre-eminent in comparison to, the operational
issues of the PC user is something I've noticed causes a lot of subtle
problems on down the road, while everyone is concentrating purely on the
task at hand. No doubt the future system will do PMT, sure, because it
is technically important when dealing with servers and high-speed I/O,
and desktop need to do those things as well as be a client. But it will
mimic a CMT system, if it is going to be optimized for efficiency by or
for the user operations which is its purpose for being there.
>> which *does*
>> require a mandate to be implemented, given the differing perspective of
>> the vendor and the end user versus the ultra-geek that knows what a
>> real-time OS is.
>
>A real-time OS is an OS that _guarantees_ a given response time. I'm not
>quite sure why you seem to be against the idea, given what you've said
>about the importance of the issue.
For the same reason I am against the *ideal* of "guaranteed response
time" in all guises and facets. Its a doomed proposition. The Internet
only works because some very smart engineers back in the early 70s
realized it wasn't necessary. Maybe someday soon software engineers
will recognize the same. Build the apps so they don't *need* guaranteed
response time, even if you think the operations they are supposed to
perform seem to require it. Then, even if they don't get guaranteed
response time, they will be able to handle it, and if they don't, they
will be all the better off. To proffer a "virtual" guarantee, which is
all any piece of software or hardware can do, is merely to encourage
development of systems that depend on it, and will immediately and
ungracefully fail when they don't get it, because they were designed to
assume it and cannot do without it.
Somewhere real-time OSes might be positively and unavoidably necessary.
There is no reason to think that they are anywhere near where humans are
trying to get work done.
>> It also contributes (without either guaranteeing or
>> prohibiting the alternative) to allowing the operator to have control
>> over which applications get priority, without having to actually
>> implement a priority system, by simply assuming (and it is a valid
>> assumption almost all the time on a desktop client system) that whatever
>> program the user is working in is the one that should have priority.
>
>No. That isn't what happens in a CMT system. I've pointed this out
>multiple times. Once the foreground app gives up the CPU, it can be
>grabbed and held by any other app for as long as that app wants, causing
>the foreground app to become unresponsive.
I see your point. I did miss it; my apologies. Hmmm. See, the
background app that grabbed it is even easier to identify than the
foreground app that didn't yield it. Engineers are trained not to leave
things to chance. But the market isn't, and this is a
consumer/user/operator/end/client/desktop system we are talking about.
CMT systems encourage proper app design. PMT allows the app designers
to handwave the issue because the OS has already taken the decision out
of their hands. A much more responsive PMT system, responsive to
*human* things, not just *interface* things, able to provide
optimization to the user without second-guessing him, would be optimal.
Like I said; a PMT system that pretend to be CMT might be optimal in
practical terms.
>> I'm glad we could find something to disagree on, Jedi, but I do hope you
>> will consider that you might be over-extending your knowledge of the
>> specialties involved, and making assumptions about the practical value
>> of theoretical benefits.
>
>None of this is theoretical stuff. Compare the responsiveness of Mac OS
>9 vs. BeOS or Mac OS X DP4 or some Unix under load. There is no contest.
>Mac OS becomes unusable. A PMT OS doesn't.
None of this is theoretical stuff. Compare the performance of my Aunt
Sue, who's sixty one and types 100 words a minute while also keeping
books in Quicken, to my son Alex, who surfs the web at two clicks per
cheat code, or Gary down the hall, who gets three stock tips per three
vendor presentations. There is no contest; the human has to be in
charge.
--
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: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 11:48:10 +1000
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Quoting Christopher Smith from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Thu, 13 Jul 2000
> [...]
> >Max, you spend hours every day adding nothing useful to discussions, why
> >should this be any different ?
>
> That's even funnier than the bit about asking me to supply you with
> details of a proprietary specification.
I'd be satisfied with an explanation of why you think it's proprietry.
> At least considering I don't
> have any interest in PnP technical specs, and considering that I post so
> much verbose exposition that several have remarked (correctly) that I
> must not have a life.
You don't need any interest in technical specifications to explain why you
think it's proprietry.
> I could really have fun with you over in alt.destroy.microsoft. Let's
> all go over there and watch me take apart trolls, OK? Note the
> cross-post; followup set to adm.
My server doesn't carry it, so I've set the groups back to what they were.
In any case, I'm interested in somewhat technical discussions, which you
repeatedly demonstrate to be ill-equipped for, despite your penchant for
leaping into the middle of them.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 21:46:45 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting void from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 13 Jul 2000 03:13:04 GMT
>On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 21:38:58 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Quoting void from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 12 Jul 2000 05:12:33 GMT
>>>On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 04:44:14 GMT, ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[...]
>>>
>>>A modern scheduler is sufficently self-tuning to work well on servers or
>>>desktops without modification. When my FreeBSD machine runs its nightly
>>>2 am maintenance scripts, I can only tell if I'm physically present to
>>>hear the disk drive's noises.
>>
>>All right, so I've been overstating the case.
>
>You haven't been overstating the case so much as you've been just plain
>wrong.
Thank you. Please to explain this to me; I am not a eingeneer.
(Sorry, just having a bit of fun; this ain't a troll.)
Seriously, I want to hear what your thoughts are on how I am wrong. I
know I am; I just don't know how. But if you can explain it to me in a
way that doesn't mandate or entirely stem from an engineer's view of
optimization and functionality, but takes into account the operational
level of the humans interaction and supports people *learning* how to
control what needs to be controlled, instead of building software that
requires that it be taken out of their hands, then I will learn from it,
I promise you. And I will then go so far as to explain to you how I am
right, as well, but simply to salve my own ego, for having to admit that
I am wrong..
My computer is incredibly stupid about what should and should not be
given priority. I am constantly waiting for things to happen, and it
has no way of knowing what they are, other than the possible (and
flawed, you're entirely correct) method of which one I've got on top of
my desk. You say that isn't a good system, because it requires all the
applications to cooperate. I say, at least it allows *some* operator
control, without going so far as to require explicit and
engineering-level configuration in advance of a static algorithm
scheduler. What do you say in response?
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Web Browsers?
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 01:36:11 GMT
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Christopher S. Arndt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm a linux newbie, and am looking for a good browser for my linux
laptop.
> I have tried mozilla, but it really take a lot of memory, and is
always
> crashing, as does netscape 4.x and 6.x. I would really appreciate it
if
> someone could give me some suggestions to try.
> Chris
>
I've seldom had a Netscape crash on my Caldera system. Caldera is
unique in that they pre-configure the browser with all the available
plugins for Linux, so that likely contributes a lot to the stability. I
haven't turned off anything, although I did set it to notify before
cookies and such. But I've got Shockwave, RealAudio, Acrobat Reader,
and a whole lot more by default, and it all seems to work as well or
better than it does under Windoze.
Mozilla is still less than beta, and Netscape V6 is Mozilla with an AOL
drug addiction. I haven't had much luck with either yet, but when they
do run, they seem to render pages much quicker than Netscape 4.x, and
they have a smaller footprint than IE. Given time, Mozilla could
probably catch up to IE if only MSFT would quit "innovating" non-W3C
protocols that only they support.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James deBoer)
Subject: Re: Student run Linux server.
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 01:49:37 GMT
That is an interesting idea, there is a couple business courses in the school
where students learn about HTML, if approached I bet the teacher would be
happy to incorparate Linux into the course.
However, the idea that we should teach 'them' (those people using the server)
that the Internet is bigger than the web. The idea was to show them other
things like IRC, etc...
What do you think of this idea?
James deBoer
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JoeX1029 wrote:
>My school (which runs on AIX 4.0:-) has a "tech lab" filled with NT and 98
>boxes. Students are given access to FrontPage and are allowed to create
>webpages. Try letting the kids create web pages about learning Linux, as they
>learn they help others to learn (when given access to a box I always find out
>as much as I can and try to teach to others). Set up 5 person groups (learning
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Are Linux people illiterate?
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 01:46:13 GMT
In article <8kkloi$gqo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Nice try, typical Linux user trying to skirt the issue.. My post is
not
> Linux Documentation. If you are posting technical documentation on
the
> web site, it should be at least readable. How lame.
Your post was about illiteracy. You have demonstrated that you are
illiterate. All of the responses pointing that out were on topic.
BTW, preferred phraseology would be "it should, at least, be readable."
Have a nice day.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: Numbers for users,hackers?
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 16:01:43 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 13 Jul 2000 18:34:23 GMT,
Anthony D. Tribelli, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Still not accurate.... typically one CD is used to install several machines.
>
>No. Linux CDs are US$12 at local 'fancy' retail stores. Smaller shops,
>swap meet vendors, and user groups sell factory pressed (not recordables)
>Linux CDs (ex. Redhat) for around US$3. I know many people who spent $3 or
>$12 out of curiosity, tried Linux briefly, and then decided it isn't for
>them. Of people I know use Linux many have multiple CDs. For many it is
>easier and/or cheaper to buy another CD for an incremental release (say
>RedHat 6.0 -> 6.1 -> 6.2) than to download.
>
>In college dorm/lab type environments I saw much of the behavior you
>describe, the one CD is so easily accessible few bother to get their own.
>However in home environments it seems more people like to have their own
>CDs, and with the cost being so low there is virtually no dis
>
>Things are far more complicated than you suggest.
>
>Tony
>------------------
>Tony Tribelli
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have been using Linux since 2.0 came out, and with the exception of a
powermac clone I owned a while back. Each linux distro wound up getting
installed on 3 or 4 systems. Of course, after the first RH5.0, I have been
upgrading, so it's been a pretty constant number of linux boxes on the boat.
(4 now, plus my brother's server in Alaska.) I only buy one copy of SuSE, I
install all the systems from that.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 01:59:12 GMT
In article <8kkrhe$ljr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Well, I'd like not to work and have money. I just don't see it
>happening.
Then you're doing something wrong. :-)
Hint find a pre-IPO company that is gonna do well, get in early, get
stock, lots of it, wait until just before they IPO, sell just before
it tanks (but before anyone else can because they are all insiders),
invent in boarder instruments, and presto...
(Dyson, did I get that right?)
------------------------------
From: Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 19:10:53 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> ZnU wrote:
> >
> >
> > It would require app rewrites if Apple did. Carbon
> > (http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/carbon/CarbonOverview/index.html)
> > is essentially an reentrant version of the Mac OS toolbox, but even that
> > won't let you get PMT in Mac OS 9. I'm not sure why, but I strongly
> > suspect it's because Carbon itself calls the toolbox under OS 9, and
> > Apple would rather require people to upgrade to OS X to get PMT anyway.
>
> OH, god, that sounds SO lame.
>
> The only thing you have to worry about in PMT is race conditions.
>
> Restructuring critical code sections to be guarded with "lock"
> flags normally takes all of a couple minutes for most algorithms.
> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
I'm pretty sure that these "lock" flags are used. Apple states that
much of the Human Interface Toolbox is not yet reentrant and won't be in
the first version of OS X.
There's more to Carbon than that. Mac developers are used to accessing
memory directly, including low memory system globals, handles, and
common data structures like windows or menus. For some reason that I
don't understand, this isn't conducive to preemptive multitasking, and
it obviously has issues with virtual address spaces. Carbon no longer
allows developers to directly access many of the structures that they
are used to accessing, and provides instead accessor functions, a la Windows.
Furthermore, the Carbon Event Manager rocks compared to what we used to
have to go through to get a working event loop.
-Peter
------------------------------
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: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 22:16:51 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Nathaniel Jay Lee from alt.destroy.microsoft; Thu, 13 Jul 2000
>This conversation is obviously going nowhere.
[...]
>ME: What are you talking about?
You are working WAY too hard at this.
>Seriously. I have absolutely no idea what the hell you are trying to
>get at.
...Or not enough, as the case may be.
>I know Windows crashes are random. But I also know that given
>two companies with the same number of computers and these conditions:
>Company1 Company2
>Knowledgeable Admin Computer illeterate dumbass admin
>Solid hardware Cheapest hardware money can buy
>Restricted users Users have free reign
>
>Company 2 is going to have more crashing and difficulties with their
>systems than Company1. This is all I was saying. If you take that to
>mean that I am blaming my problems on someone else, I have no idea where
>to go from here.
I really hate to seem to belabor the point, but could you just please
consider one small thing, as a favor to me and the group? If it takes
you less than ten seconds to answer, I believe it is because you
absolutely refuse to consider anything that you are won't already assume
without questioning it.
What you said above was incorrect. You don't quite seem to understand
what it means to be "random". I realize that you only want to consider
practical cases, and will believe that I'm just being pedantic and
rhetorical and trying to talk about theoretical cases, but I'm not.
This is the crux of the issue, and why we've gone back and forth so
long, and why what you're saying seems to make sense, and why what I'm
saying does not. This is not theory; this is, essentially, the result
of careful (though undocumented, because it is not empirical)
observation.
Random means Windows crashes randomly. The amount of administration,
the thick-headedness of users, the technical configuration of the
hardware and network; all of these do not deterministically (check a
dictionary if you aren't *really* sure you know what that means; it
isn't as simple as you might think, and it doesn't simply mean
"pre-determined") seem to impact Windows crash behavior. There are
places where careful implementation does not impact the level of
instability, and there are places where pure anarchy reign, but crashes
are rare. You statement, as counter-intuitive as it may appear, is, I
believe, basically incorrect. That is all I am saying. I know it
sounds crazy. It is. That doesn't mean its not true.
Company 2 is going to have more problems with their systems, yes, your
right. But Company 1 does not have a lower likelihood of *Windows*
crashes.
>You can tell me I'm wrong all you want, but that is a fact.
That is an anecdote. Anecdotal evidence might be interesting, but it
doesn't make it particularly valid.
>Now, whatever the hell you are talking about, why don't you just say it
>rather than throwing back my statement and repeating over and over again
>that I am blaming someone else for my problems? Windows is next to
>impossible to administer properly anyway, adding an incompetent network
>person into the mix just makes it that much more difficult (imagine
>someone randomly choosing machines to install things on and then you
>have to go clean them up). I'm sorry you feel that means I am blaming
>my problems on someone else, but I did my job.
I am sorry if I have insulted you. The muddled type of thinking I am
trying to work against is your penchant for declaring other's competent
or incompetent, when they work outside of your field. That, to me,
sounds like blame-shifting, even when there isn't anything that causes
blame. I don't understand, for instance, what "Windows is next to
impossible to administer properly" means, for instance. Its just too
muddled; I know what you're trying to say. I don't even disagree with
it, necessarily. But to me, it isn't that Windows is impossible to
admin properly; it is easy to *administer*. It just doesn't do any good
in preventing crashes. Perhaps I'm not thinking of the same thing as
you when you say "administer".
[...]
>Prove it. Show me what the obvious thing is that I'm missing.
You're missing the definition of the word "random". A random event is
not influenced by non-random events; 'proper' administration, solid
network infrastructure, and knowledgable and/or cowed users aren't just
insufficient for avoiding Windows crashes. Their application has not,
to me, in my experience, dealing with IT for the past ten years, had any
real impact on Windows crashes. Some Windows crash, some don't. There
doesn't seem to be any deterministic effect which can mitigate this
randomness, AFAIK, and there certainly has never been any empirical or
statistical studies that I am aware of which would prove me wrong.
Because you can't empirically or statistically study such a complex
system in this way, as it tends to fail to act deterministically. Any
study of Windows crash behavior would have to have millions upon
millions of tests (thus approaching real life, which means it is an
uncontrolled experiment) or would need to pre-determine the crash
behavior. Studying how many different ways you can crash Windows on
purpose doesn't lead to useful data.
>Show me how godlike you think
>you are (I've sensed quite the ego coming off of you.
I'm an arrogant son of a bitch, I'll admit it. But your response is
only contributing to it. I DO NOT KNOW I AM ABSOLUTELY CORRECT IN WHAT
I AM TELLING YOU. I am *guessing*! But then, my only real point is
that you are, too. Nobody has ever been able to provide me with any
reliable data to contradict my point, only anecdotes. And my guess does
match the observed behavior. Yours, I must point out, does not. I have
worked with too many companies that have your three criteria, and I have
not seen any noticeable impact on Windows' behavior, either way. There
are counter-indications, as a matter of fact. Places that live in
anarchy, and don't have an unusual number of Windows crashes. Also
places where extreme care and attention fails to prevent Windows from
repeatedly puking on itself. These aren't isolated examples, exceptions
which prove the rule. These are, AFAIK, an average statistical sample
of modern technology use.
>You really
>believe you know better than anyone else whatever it is you think you
>know, yet you don't apparently know it well enough to actually say it,
I've said it repeatedly. I cannot help it if you don't want to
understand it.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
