Linux-Advocacy Digest #670, Volume #27 Fri, 14 Jul 00 10:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451740 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots (mlw)
Re: C# is a copy of java (mlw)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (John Jensen)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (John Jensen)
Re: New Linux user & damn glad!! (JoeX1029)
Re: Some Windows weirdnesses... (JoeX1029)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (John Jensen)
Re: LINUX NFS SUX !!! ("Rex Dieter")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451740
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 12:11:19 GMT
Ray Chason writes:
>> Here's today's Tinman digest:
>>
>> 1> Incorrect.
>>
>> Balderdash, given your failure to comprehend the evidence
>> presented.
>>
>> 1> You're merely demonstrating your difficulty in presenting any
>> 1> evidence.
>>
>> Incorrect, given that I presented it multiple times.
>>
>> 1> On the contrary, my answer was quite appropriate.
>>
>> Illogical, given that you didn't provide an answer, therefore one
>> cannot assess whether it was appropriate or not.
> And this is on topic for any of the above groups because....
Ask Tinman. I didn't choose the newsgroups.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 08:32:14 -0400
Iko wrote:
> A linux server is made in about 3 hours...even my girlfriend can
> do the job..
Oh boy, do you have a lot to learn. Either you think poorly of your
girlfriend or women generally. Either way, someone's sex has no bearing
on their ability to do anything. I know some women software engineers
that will put anyone to shame. (And yes, they can install Linux)
How about: "...even a politician can do the job." or "... even a G.W.
Bush could do it." (Well, actually that's probably blatantly false)
Cheers.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
Nepotism proves the foolishness of at least two people.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: C# is a copy of java
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 08:34:18 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > I used to hand-assemble C-code, so I know what you mean.
> >
> > A simple hi-res screen-fill took about 3 seconds in machine language,
> > but over a minute in Microsoft BASIC.
>
> Translating assembler into machine code. In the early day of home
> computing, I used to do that myself, until I wrote my own editor, assembler,
> and monitors in assembler and hand translated it into machine code and
> entered it a byte at a time into the computer. How many of the new people
> entering the field would still be willing to do that the way we used to?
Most couldn't
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
Nepotism proves the foolishness of at least two people.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 08:38:59 -0400
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>> And personally, I think that end-users should be writing their own
>>> software. Certainly businesses should be developing their own stuff; it
>>> ain't that hard. Take a wordprocessing object from over here, stick it
>>> with an email client object over there. Simple, easy, affordable.
>>> What, it isn't that easy?
>> *snort* *guffaw* *laugh*
>> Software development, you overblown asinine twit,
> <G>
>> is not putting
>> together Lego blocks.
> It should be. It will be when it has to be or you programmer's won't
> make any money. Three cheers for RMS. Next?
This is where you are simply, completely, and unalterably *wrong*.
Software will no more be Lego block building than building skyscrapers
will be. There are sets of techniques used, and there are general rules
when putting together the problem domain and the solution for it, but
the solution is always specific to the problem domain.
I'm not pretending that it's difficult -- much of software development
isn't difficult, and any fool (including you) could learn how to do
it. The problem comes in where twits like you don't *want* to learn
anything about software development and turn around and project their
idiotic notions of software development on everyone else. It's about as
arrogant as telling an author that you could write better than they can
-- when you haven't bothered writing anything but pencil-pushing memos
of no value.
Or maybe you think that you can turn around and tell a surgeon how to
make an incision. Many idiotic business managers have believed they
could do that -- Dilbert *is* a documentary.
>> Business managers have been wanting that since
>> computers first arrived -- and every time they have been given the
>> ability to do so, the products have flopped or not been used by the
>> original targets.
> That's because business managers aren't the ones who are going to put
> the Lego blocks together. Users are. Eventually.
Business managers *are* the users, nitwit. Then again, as you've so
amply demonstrated, business managers don't tend to have the first clue
about logical *or* creative thinking, so it's rather clear that they'll
*never* have the ability to program even a VCR or a toaster.
>> COBOL is a grand example. Yes, it's used everywhere. But it's used by
>> programmers, *not* by business managers. It was originally created so
>> that business managers could write their *own software*.
> BASIC is a better one (real BASIC; Visual Basic doesn't have anything to
> do with it.)
Business managers *still* don't write programs with BASIC of any flavour.
> All you asinine arrogant software "engineer" twits can
> scoff, and go on ignoring the fact that you are only confusing the issue
> when you insist that only a language fit for writing kernels and device
> drivers can perform mundane and obvious tasks like open an object
> written in one of those languages and automate its use with another
> object so that the operator can have the computer doing whatever he
> needs it to do right now.
Nope. Never said that. Even if we get to the point of Lego blocks,
you're going to need a massive infrastructure of developers to *make*
those Lego blocks -- and there will never be enough of them. At some
point, Lego block construction will get so complex that you'll be
hiring folks together just for their expertise in gluing them together
-- you'll be back to working with software developers.
>> Novell came out a few years ago with a visual program building
>> environment. It isn't sold anymore.
> Lots of stuff along these lines aren't sold no more. Visual Basic cut
> off their air supply. Notice.
This program didn't compete with VB. "Visual Basic" ain't. This thing
*was* -- you literally took code-objects and linked them together and
your program went through that program flow. You never coded a thing.
>> Software development is a very labour and capital intensive *art*.
> Capital intensive? Are you on drugs? *LABOUR*??? You sit around and
> fucking THINK for a living!!!!!
You work three eighty-hour work weeks in a row in order to get the
software working *right* on deadline.
You get carpal tunnel because you spend all your time typing faster
than any fucking management puke ever has to do.
You get fucking management pukes (like Maxine here) pretend that it
isn't capital and labour intensive because they haven't the first
fucking clue about what real work is -- they're management pukes, after
all.
>> Software development requires highly imaginative workers, not mere
>> worker drones. These are *facts*. They're a hell of a lot more useful
>> than the stupidity that you have so far exhibited.
> Yea, well, you wouldn't know that from looking at software developers.
> Maybe in some hidden rooms some where there's "imaginative workers", but
> everyone I've ever met is either a code jockey or a project manager.
Then you don't know what you've met.
[snip the rest of the stupidity from this management puke]
-f
--
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: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 07:40:24 -0500
OK, in this previous posting you are starting to make sense. The issue
that I had that caused me to get pissed off was the fact that you seem
to continually attack things that I did not say. I know Windows
crashing is random. All I am saying is there are some things you can do
that will help prevent some of the crashes some of the time.
Here's what I've seen, and why it pissed me off so much:
According to you my sins (based on things I actually said) were:
1. I said 'not common' instead of 'unlikely'
In my mind:
not common=uncommon=rare=not likely=unlikely
They are all the same. Perhaps this is a case of semantics that I am
not aware of, or perhaps you are trying to add distinction where there
is none. I don't know which is correct. All I know is that the english
language allows you to say things in different ways *without* changing
the meaning. In my mind this is one of those cases.
2. I said can never be sure of instead of non-deterministic, as in: You
can never be sure of Windows stability. To you this is fundamentally
different than saying Windows stability cannot be determined (unless I
am completely hoarking up the meaning of non-deterministic). Again, see
number one for what I see as the problem.
Now, the part that truly bothered me about your arguments is that you
blamed me for four character flaws that even if I possesed them were not
demonstrated by my statements or my arguments backing up that statement.
1. I am narrow minded. According to you, not believing that there is
only one way to say this particular thing is grounds for calling me
narrow minded.
2. I am a poor trouble shooter. Where did I give you grounds for saying
this? I did not realize I demonstrated my trouble shooting skills (or
lack thereof) at any point of the conversation. Poor trouble shooting
is saying: That isn't possible because this little MS handbook says it
isn't, therefore you are lieing. I've never done that. And I've worked
with plenty of people that have.
3. I blame others for my problems. You accused me of this and then
supposedly quoted me as saying, "It's not my fault, so it must be
someone elses." I never said that, and you insist that I did.
4. Your last attack on my character was that I was making up factually
incorrect scenarios to back up my statement. According to you any
company that installs Windows would be just as well off to hire a bunch
of morons, not train them at all, and buy cheap hardware. It would be
cheaper in the beginning and it wouldn't change the "randomness" of
Windows crashes. I say that's bull, but this has basically been your
argument.
Now, you seemed to seize onto the idea that if you falsely accused me of
something it would piss me off to the point where I would stop making
sense and would therefore make myself look like a fool. You are
probably right about that. My greatest nightmare (and has been since I
was a child) is to be accused of a crime I didn't commit (especially
murder) and being put to death for it. Anyone that makes false
accusations towards me is going to get my dander up. If you had
actually tried to correct my statement rather than saying 1-4 above, I
probably would have listened. As it was I blew my top.
I still say that different words can mean the same thing. You still say
they can't. Which of us is right? I don't know. The only point I told
you that you were wrong about was in saying my statement was false while
yours is correct. I say we are both correct, each saying it slightly
differently. You say this means I have a glitch in my brain and (see
1-4). Very well.
Everyone, I have a glitch in my brain. I blame others for my problems.
I'm narrow minded. I'm a poor troubleshooter (I'm guessing this is
because I actually try to solve problems instead of dismissing them as
non-existant because they aren't in my little book of magic). And I lie
to back myself up (because I actually think you can say things in more
than one way).
I do know you cannot change the randomness of Windows crashing. But you
can lessen the overall numbers of crashes by following some guidelines.
If you could have stuck to that part of the conversation (and told me
why that is completely incorrect), then I might have been a little more
"open minded" about the entire thing. Somehow from that single
statement, you took it upon yourself to determine that I posses all of
the above character flaws.
I would not have stuck with this so long but I thought you actually had
a point somewhere that you were just working your way around and not
coming to. If your point is simply that you cannot predict the
randomness of Windows crashing I would agree. I have from the outset.
I just said it in a slightly different way. And I will insist that
there are steps that can be taken to lessen the instability of Windows.
No, you can't be absolutely certain of it performing flawlessly (what
you call non-deterministically), but you can be certain that it will
change the overall stability in certain situations. If by me saying
there are ways to work around some of the problems in Windows when you
have to this leads you to conclude I am (1-4 above) then you have my
apology. I truly believe this is still a question of you using
different words from me. We are saying the same thing in different
ways. You insist this isn't correct. Obviously neither of us is going
to give (the english language is a mess isn't it?). Unless you bring
forward some brilliant insight that you have been holding back, I will
consider this conversation over.
Sorry that you feel I am (1-4 above). I wish you could have shown me
where I made statements that actually show these character flaws in
myself. Then I could apologize for them and we could move forward.
But...
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 14 Jul 2000 12:55:57 GMT
Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: >
: > On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 20:41:34 -0700, Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: > wrote:
: >
: > >The more fundamental reason is that the Mac simply didn't have the
: > >memory to do it. So there is at least one example of a benefit:
: > >cooperative multitasking is more efficient in terms of memory used.
: >
: > The Amiga did it - beginning with the 256k Amiga - and color and a
: > bigger screen, too. And it did it quite well, too, for 1985 or so.
: But the Mac had half that amount of memory.
We did it with 64k of total memory on a 2 Mhz Intel 8085. The executive
itself (implementing the PMT) occupied 1k.
As I explained in these groups a couple years ago, it is less the
resources than the design orientation. The Original Mac was very tight on
memory. If they had given up a few K for a simple PMT system, they would
have had the orientation from the start. For whatever reasons (perhaps
valid) they felt that other features needed to be there first.
When they wanted to add MT, they were in a hard place. I remember that it
was considered "impossible" for a time, until the CMT hack appeared.
(I can't believe I'm in such a stupid thread.)
John
------------------------------
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 23:30:01 +1000
"John Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8kn2kt$bk7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
> : [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> : >
> : > On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 20:41:34 -0700, Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> : > wrote:
> : >
> : > >The more fundamental reason is that the Mac simply didn't have the
> : > >memory to do it. So there is at least one example of a benefit:
> : > >cooperative multitasking is more efficient in terms of memory used.
> : >
> : > The Amiga did it - beginning with the 256k Amiga - and color and a
> : > bigger screen, too. And it did it quite well, too, for 1985 or so.
>
> : But the Mac had half that amount of memory.
>
> We did it with 64k of total memory on a 2 Mhz Intel 8085. The executive
> itself (implementing the PMT) occupied 1k.
>
> As I explained in these groups a couple years ago, it is less the
> resources than the design orientation. The Original Mac was very tight on
> memory. If they had given up a few K for a simple PMT system, they would
> have had the orientation from the start. For whatever reasons (perhaps
> valid) they felt that other features needed to be there first.
>
> When they wanted to add MT, they were in a hard place. I remember that it
> was considered "impossible" for a time, until the CMT hack appeared.
I would have thought, wrt to hardware resources, it had more to do with the
amount of CPU grunt available - wouldn't the overhead of a PMT scheduler
have a quite noticable impact on a GUI OS with such a slow CPU ?
------------------------------
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: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 09:30:24 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
[...]
>> everybody ends up just waving dead chickens, proud of their voodoo power
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>HA!
I take it you recognize the issue I'm trying to discuss, right?
Whenever I ask an MCSE a tough question, and they start their little
"Microsoft shuffle" where they pretend to know how to answer, as if the
Lego blocks they saw in those diagrams have any relation whatsoever to
the code they're supposedly competent on but have never seen, I always
get this image flashing into my head of those ceremonies where the
islanders shake and spasm, claiming that they're being "ridden by gods".
I think of this line you've highlighted, and have a little giggle. ;-}
--
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! ======
------------------------------
Subject: Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: 13 Jul 2000 18:14:51 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Pipes don't exist on Windows. DOS "pipes" are done with intermediate
>files. Unix pipes are done entirely in memory, and command shells are
>not the only programs that use them.
Ceci c'est n'est pas un pipe!
Take from MSDN Library Oct. 1999 (search for "named pipe")
"The NamedPipe Demo: Multiple Communication Channels
An anonymous pipe serves the needs of the AnonPipe demo’s Parent and Child
programs perfectly well. They communicate in only one direction, use only
one instance of the pipe at a time, and both run on the same machine. The
NamedPipe version, however, allows the parent to create any number of
children and communicate with several of them at once. Rather than creating
a new anonymous pipe for each client, this version creates two instances of
a single named pipe."
Windows 9x has unnamed pipes.
Windows NT/2000 has named pipes.
I think what you're referring to are the kind of pipes you get on a command
line which DOS supports by files.
--
============
Pete Goodwin
------------------------------
From: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 14 Jul 2000 13:40:12 GMT
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: "John Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: news:8kn2kt$bk7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: > We did it with 64k of total memory on a 2 Mhz Intel 8085. The executive
: > itself (implementing the PMT) occupied 1k.
: >
: > As I explained in these groups a couple years ago, it is less the
: > resources than the design orientation. The Original Mac was very tight on
: > memory. If they had given up a few K for a simple PMT system, they would
: > have had the orientation from the start. For whatever reasons (perhaps
: > valid) they felt that other features needed to be there first.
: >
: > When they wanted to add MT, they were in a hard place. I remember that it
: > was considered "impossible" for a time, until the CMT hack appeared.
: I would have thought, wrt to hardware resources, it had more to do with the
: amount of CPU grunt available - wouldn't the overhead of a PMT scheduler
: have a quite noticable impact on a GUI OS with such a slow CPU ?
I think the Mac did (and still does?) a bit of the GUI operations by ISR
(interrupt service routines). Things like clicking and opening a menu
don't rely on an application to release control CMT-style. The latency
would be too high.
It would be a design decision if that ISR method should be retained with a
PMT scheduler for other operations.
As far as "grunt", I think PMT is often considered with a lot of
"assoicated" overhead for things like inter-task communication, etc. I'm
assuming that a hypothetical 1984 PMT Mac wouldn't have too many bells and
whistles. The core PMT functions themselves should be fairly quick IMO -
maintenance of a process queue and launch of the top process.
John
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029)
Subject: Re: New Linux user & damn glad!!
Date: 14 Jul 2000 13:40:27 GMT
Hey alright good for you! I rember how I felt seeing my first # and $
prompt... It was Solaris though.. Anyway cool though...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029)
Subject: Re: Some Windows weirdnesses...
Date: 14 Jul 2000 13:47:01 GMT
Hey guy got another problem for ya. On my Win box (95) at the "login" prompt
if I hit the windows key it brings up the tasks menu therby allowing me to hack
the fsck out of it. I cracked passd files, used LPR to read saved passwds and
got on the net! Only thing you don't get is the desktop which is useless
anyway. Disable the windows key.
PS Find a UNIX admin job... No kids to fsck up the computers
------------------------------
From: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 14 Jul 2000 13:53:57 GMT
John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: : I would have thought, wrt to hardware resources, it had more to do with the
: : amount of CPU grunt available - wouldn't the overhead of a PMT scheduler
: : have a quite noticable impact on a GUI OS with such a slow CPU ?
I should have said, as someone who had been assembly programming 8080s
running a 1 MHz, a 8 MHz 68000 did not seem remotely slow ;-).
: I think the Mac did (and still does?) a bit of the GUI operations by ISR
: (interrupt service routines). Things like clicking and opening a menu
: don't rely on an application to release control CMT-style. The latency
: would be too high.
I'm posting back again becuse I remember a bit more. In the original Mac,
your application loop pulled events off a queue. When the user clicked on
anything, the motion was tracked by ISR and the click was accepted by ISR.
The ISRs resulted in a click event going in the queue. It _was_ the
responsibility of the app, in its event loop to examine the event, and if
it was a menu click to call back into the OS for menu processing.
There would be several options in recasting that in a PMT system.
John
------------------------------
From: "Rex Dieter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LINUX NFS SUX !!!
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 09:02:07 -0500
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 13:58:08 GMT, ne... wrote:
> >Prepare to be flamed... sorry I can't help you tho.
>
> As an advocacy veteran, I have asbestos skin (-; Anyway, it looks like
> a few people helped out. THe userland NFS server's still working like
charm
> after a few hours an several logins/logouts from me ... fingers crossed
(-;
The kernel nfs works well, provided you use a relatively recent Linux
distribution: in particular, a recent kernel + nfs-utils-1.6.0 (or newer).
More information regarding the nfs-utils package can be found at
sourceforge:
http://sourceforge.net/project/?group_id=14
I'd personally recommend against using the userland nfs daemon. It's not
been supported a long time, and it is fairly non-compliant to NFS specs. I
will concede that it works pretty well in a Linux-only environment.
--
Rex Dieter
Computer System Administrator
Mathematics and Statistics
University of Nebraska Lincoln
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
