Linux-Advocacy Digest #674, Volume #27 Fri, 14 Jul 00 13:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (George Russell)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it ("John Hughes")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Peter Seebach)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Re: A tale of 2 installs part IVVXIV ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Peter Seebach)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Christopher Smith")
Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots (Aaron Ginn)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (EdWIN)
Pipes (Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ?) (Jacques Guy)
Re: Some Windows weirdnesses... ("Stuart Fox")
Re: 11 Linux features I care about (was: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.)
("Stuart Fox")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [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 16:04:28 GMT
On Sat, 15 Jul 2000 02:00:19 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 23:30:01 +1000, "Christopher Smith"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >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 ?
>> >
>>
>> Not at all, as the first Amigas proved. They wiped the floor with the
>> slow Macs - it wasn't until years later that Apple had a Mac system
>> that could even begin to compete with the current Amiga systems.
>
>But the first Amigas had a lot of coprocessors to take care of things like
>graphics acceleration, sound etc.
This proves what exactly? That Apple wasn't bright enough to
design their systems better? That Apple didn't want to bother
with developing special purpose hardware to deal with the
inherent limitations of hardware at that time?
They were better engineers.
--
The LGPL does infact tend to be used instead of the GPL in instances
where merely reusing a component, while not actually altering that
component, would be unecessarily burdensome to people seeking to build
their own works.
This dramatically alters the nature and usefulness of Free Software
in practice, contrary to the 'all viral all the time' fantasy the
anti-GPL cabal here would prefer one to believe.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Russell)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 16:08:30 GMT
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 17:32:32 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If he's countering the FUD and lies you are spreading that
>> would be a considerable service.
>
>You know, you keep calling me a liar and not point to any lies I say.
>Are you lying?
>
>I know you don't like me, but could you at least keep an appearance of
>honesty in your actions?
Give up roberto.
Thats Jedi....
You could port krn to kde 2 quicker than get a sensible reasoned answer.
Thanks for krn
George Russell (who used krn when it was Qt 1.2 and a very slow tree widget)
------------------------------
From: "John Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 17:14:42 +0100
"Rob Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:396f2dc3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:W3qb5.3702$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > Which is better:
> > > a) server that run MULTIPLE functions and can stay up for a year or
more
> >
> > wow, like our NT4 servers!
>
> A game of Solitaire while running as a WINS (yeech... NetBIOS) server
> doesn't count.
>
Our NT4 main NT4 server serves up a web site and a 20GB database for a
client server application. We do 1000's of transactions per hour and its
NEVER went down.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Seebach)
Date: 14 Jul 2000 16:10:31 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I happen to think of software as living. See, this is part of the
>problem. You don't I bet. Yet, my friends and I talk about genetic
>bits of software all the time. It is reasonable to talk about their
>offspring as well. Software can die. What quality of life does
>software not possess? Carbon based? Is that the only thing?
Bacteria are alive, but you can't enslave them either.
>So, can slave only apply to humans?
Because we don't know of any other sapient life, and without sapience, the
concept of slavery doesn't make sense.
>>to say "software can be enslaved" -- until you can point out that
>>software has the characteristics that are generally associated with
>>slavery and enslavement.
>[ snicker ] I have, I will continue to do so.
Actually, you haven't come close. Software does not appear (for now) to
have motivations or desires. It doesn't have *volition*. Without volition,
the concept of "enslavement" is pretty much meaningless.
The analogy is a poor one at best, doesn't make points well, and indeed,
*HURTS* the goals of free software by making us look like idiots and kooks.
-s
--
Copyright 2000, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
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 16:11:05 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Thu, 13 Jul 2000 22:19:48 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 23:05:40 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>He's talking about the fact that desktop operating systems might be used
>>for multi-tasking, but desktop interfaces are still single-tasking. And
>
>Err...whaaaat? What in the world do you mean by that?
No longer true in any event; Win95's desktop has been multitasking
since its inception. Not that it's all that hot at it, since
Win95's multitasking is utter crud. But on a better operating
system, such as Windows NT, the multitasking nature of the desktop
becomes apparent, as a task can be launching while the user is
moving the cursor and readying for another double click; this is why
the arrow-hourglass. [*]
Note that Windows isn't alone in having a multitasking desktop;
Amiga had it back in the late 80's -- there were a few differences
in presentation, mind you; the Amiga used a "dreamcloud" instead
of an hourglass, and did not have a separate indication of
"one task launching, desktop ready", as the dreamcloud was
only an issue during the actual task launch -- once CreateProcess()
returned, meaning things were set up, the dreamcloud was once again
replaced by the pointer, even before the new task's windows were
opened.
Even Multifinder was, after a fashion, a multitasking desktop.
(Except for the fact that it was CMT, which kinda ruins it.)
There are also issues with respect to moving and copying files around.
Windows does reasonably well in that respect, although the destination
window is locked by the cute "flying pages/progress bar" anim.
There's also the issue of the *user* multitasking; most Linux desktops
have some sort of "multiple-screen" feature (except for twm, which is
extremely minimalistic). This means that the user can switch his
mind around, as opposed to the computer allocating its CPU to
various processes.
On NT and Win9x, while this is possible, it's definitely a third-party
add-on, and it's far from clear -- to me, anyway -- whether this
is something that is documented by Microsoft as being possible, or
something that was hacked.
[*] There is still the well-known problem, however, of a busy or
hanging application freezing the windows thereof, hobbling
the desktop, although not totally disabling it. On X, this
isn't even an issue as the window manager runs as a separate
process.
I haven't played with Multifinder much, so I can't say what
it does in this situation. Finder -- its predecessor --
is extremely stupid; that much I know. And then there's
MacOS8 and MacOSX, which I know nothing about.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 16:15:52 GMT
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 16:08:30 GMT, George Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 17:32:32 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> If he's countering the FUD and lies you are spreading that
>>> would be a considerable service.
>>
>>You know, you keep calling me a liar and not point to any lies I say.
>>Are you lying?
>>
>>I know you don't like me, but could you at least keep an appearance of
>>honesty in your actions?
>
>Give up roberto.
>Thats Jedi....
>
>You could port krn to kde 2 quicker than get a sensible reasoned answer.
Bad rhetoric.
>
>Thanks for krn
>George Russell (who used krn when it was Qt 1.2 and a very slow tree widget)
--
The LGPL does infact tend to be used instead of the GPL in instances
where merely reusing a component, while not actually altering that
component, would be unecessarily burdensome to people seeking to build
their own works.
This dramatically alters the nature and usefulness of Free Software
in practice, contrary to the 'all viral all the time' fantasy the
anti-GPL cabal here would prefer one to believe.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A tale of 2 installs part IVVXIV
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 16:16:08 GMT
Thank you for the suggestion.
DP
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 21:10:30 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 20:51:23 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[deletia]
>>So now my 3 kids are fighting like the hammers of hell over the iMac
>>and none of them will go near the Windows machine except for running
>>Catz 3, so they can care for their virtual pets :)
>
> Get them VPC or SoftWindows...
>
>[deletia]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Seebach)
Date: 14 Jul 2000 16:16:28 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wealth is created by production is what you are saying. Yes.
>But those with large amounts of capital get the benefits of this
>production, not the people who are responsible for that
>production. "To those who have, shall more be given".
This isn't entirely topical, but I'm not sure I buy your premise that the
people "producing" do not get the benefits of that production. There are
a number of issues:
1. Arguably, people with capital *are* producing something - opportunities
in which people can work to produce.
2. Are you going to try to convince me that the standard of living for even
the dismally poor today is *really* worse than what we had in the past? It's
gonna be a really hard thing to convince me of.
-s
--
Copyright 2000, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 16:21:23 GMT
Better yet, make up something absurd and describe how you feel the
failure/problem is related to it.
Ex:
I feel the BSOD's are coming from the "double-flush" buffer in
the ball-cock module. I've seen this happen before when a new memory
simm is installed and the user doesn't re-install Windows so it can
recognize the dual piping system now.
Or something along those lines.
It's kind of like the "muffler bearings" joke amongst auto mechanics.
You have to be convincing though and do it with a straight face :)
DP
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 09:30:24 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>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
------------------------------
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 12:23:47 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> 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. ;-}
>>
>
>I'm gonna have to go out and buy a couple of rubber chickens!
>
>When the NT guys start having problems...I'll get my dead chickens,
>and say, "Here, try these"
>
>When they ask "for what?", I'll simply reply, "I don't know, but
>that's what the NT guys used at the last site where I worked..."
I hope you don't think I originated this imagery. I thought every Unix
admin or developer had read The Jargon File, also known as the Hacker's
Dictionary. Search for it on-line, its all over the place. The
definition of "wave a dead chicken" was formalized in the mid-80s, I
think, but my usage does, I'll be the first to point out, vary slightly.
Here's the original, from
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/The-Jargon-Lexicon-framed.html :
To perform a ritual in the direction of crashed software or hardware
that one believes to be futile but is nevertheless necessary so that
others are satisfied that an appropriate degree of effort has been
expended. "I'll wave a dead chicken over the source code, but I really
think we've run into an OS bug." Compare voodoo programming, rain dance;
see also casting the runes.
Obviously, my revised connotation, more appropriate for admins than
programmers, is meant to take into account that the chicken-waver is no
longer necessarily aware of the dubious nature of voodoo. People have
become convinced, quite firmly, as evidenced by Nathan's insistence that
I'm attacking him personally with mere word-game pedantics, that waving
dead chickens is no longer as technically futile or unnecessary as it
seemed, before Windows. I'm sure I'm not alone in considering that this
might be a result of the practical futility of any alternative to simply
performing rain dances in explaining any particular instance of a
Window's glitch.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 16:24:48 GMT
On 14 Jul 2000 16:16:28 GMT, Peter Seebach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Wealth is created by production is what you are saying. Yes.
>>But those with large amounts of capital get the benefits of this
>>production, not the people who are responsible for that
>>production. "To those who have, shall more be given".
>
>This isn't entirely topical, but I'm not sure I buy your premise that the
>people "producing" do not get the benefits of that production. There are
>a number of issues:
>
>1. Arguably, people with capital *are* producing something - opportunities
>in which people can work to produce.
>2. Are you going to try to convince me that the standard of living for even
>the dismally poor today is *really* worse than what we had in the past? It's
>gonna be a really hard thing to convince me of.
We also have an enforced balance between the power of capitalists
and the power of the mere worker these days. Prior to that condition
working conditions were abominable. If Robber Barons were free to
abuse everyone as the saw fit it's not entirely clear whether or not
one would be better off in an industrial society.
[deletia]
One of the key problems of capitalism is that you need to already
have money to make money. This tends to increase the disparities
between workers and non-workers IMO.
Just consider what a little money in a good mutual fund could have
yieled you over the last few years, assuming you had those resources
to spare.
--
The LGPL does infact tend to be used instead of the GPL in instances
where merely reusing a component, while not actually altering that
component, would be unecessarily burdensome to people seeking to build
their own works.
This dramatically alters the nature and usefulness of Free Software
in practice, contrary to the 'all viral all the time' fantasy the
anti-GPL cabal here would prefer one to believe.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
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: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 02:33:50 +1000
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> There are also issues with respect to moving and copying files around.
> Windows does reasonably well in that respect, although the destination
> window is locked by the cute "flying pages/progress bar" anim.
That was fixed aaages ago, with IE4's shell update.
> There's also the issue of the *user* multitasking; most Linux desktops
> have some sort of "multiple-screen" feature (except for twm, which is
> extremely minimalistic). This means that the user can switch his
> mind around, as opposed to the computer allocating its CPU to
> various processes.
Personally, I've never liked multiple desktops :). I find them clumsy.
> On NT and Win9x, while this is possible, it's definitely a third-party
> add-on, and it's far from clear -- to me, anyway -- whether this
> is something that is documented by Microsoft as being possible, or
> something that was hacked.
It's quite possible. A utility shipped with the NT resource kit to do it,
and many video drivers also include the capability. The util in the
resource kit also allowed you to run each desktop in a different user
context, so you have an "admin" desktop and a "user" desktop.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots
Date: 14 Jul 2000 08:56:38 -0700
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Data processing is oftentimes best represented in the mind as
> 3+ dimensional processes. On the average, men's brains are MUCH
> more adept at this sort of thinking (in the same way as on the
> average, women's brain's are much more adept at acquiring and
> using linquistic skills)
Ugh. How about some data to back up your assertion. Women are just
as capable, IME, as men in picking up technical things. There may be
an issue in terms of getting women more interested and involved in
science and mathematics at a younger age, but this deals more with
social issues than actual ability. Boys tend to be more agressive in
terms of demanding an instructor's attention than girls.
I think you may want to retract that statement. There are several
very capable women that read this newsgroup. That sound you're
hearing is your name entering a lot of scorefiles.
> > on their ability to do anything. I know some women software engineers
> > that will put anyone to shame. (And yes, they can install Linux)
>
> the exception does not make the rule.
And your perception doesn't make it so either.
Aaron
--
Aaron J. Ginn Motorola SPS
Phone: (480) 814-4463 SemiCustom Solutions
Fax: (480) 814-4058 1300 N. Alma School Rd.
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Chandler, AZ 85226
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
From: EdWIN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 10:00:16 -0700
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ws.net...
>> On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 23:30:01 +1000, "Christopher Smith"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >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 ?
>> >
>>
>> Not at all, as the first Amigas proved. They wiped the floor
with the
>> slow Macs - it wasn't until years later that Apple had a Mac
system
>> that could even begin to compete with the current Amiga
systems.
>
>But the first Amigas had a lot of coprocessors to take care of
things like
>graphics acceleration, sound etc.
>
This is true. The advantages of the Amiga had as much to do
with its custom coprocessors as it did with its OS. The fact
that the software and hardware are so closely tied together is
what makes software portability between Amiga generations
difficult.
>
>
===========================================================
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 17:06:16 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Pipes (Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ?)
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> Ceci c'est n'est pas un pipe!
It's a blowjob! (ar yew hear, Tymm? Inn Phrentch pipe = blowjob, az
yn:
"fais-moi une pipe" = "givvus sum hed" -- izzat whie yew sai Lie-nux
sukxs, Timm? Yewre a klozzet Linnucks luvver, Tym!)
BTW the correct quote, from Magritte, is "Ceci n'est pas une pipe".
Magritte is Belgian, like Simenon, like Herge, like an incredible
number of great cartoonists. How could such a small country...
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Some Windows weirdnesses...
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 18:03:29 +0100
"V'rgo Vardja" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8kmlmh$1bh2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<snip everything>
Use Windows 2000 Professional...
Most Winvocates would agree with you, Win9x is a stinking pile of dog shit.
Stu
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 11 Linux features I care about (was: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares
about.)
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 18:05:19 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8klulq$gp4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I was going to post a humorous reply to this, but then I realized it
> would be attacked by a bunch of losers defending a dying operating
> system from a has-been company run by a geek and changed my mind.
I'm sure this will probably start a whole set of Linus is geekier than Bill
Gates discussions...
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
