Linux-Advocacy Digest #718, Volume #27 Sun, 16 Jul 00 18:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Can we qualify the versions please!!! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Pete Goodwin)
Re: This thread has needed a new name from the beginning (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Karl Knechtel)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Jay Maynard)
Re: one step forward, two steps back.. (Ed Cogburn)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Jay Maynard)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Jay Maynard)
Re: Quickie Script for "Staircasing" Printers. (Ray Chason)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Ray Chason)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Can we qualify the versions please!!!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 20:32:42 GMT
Wouldn't it be a good idea if both Linux and Winvocates alike qualify
their statements with version information?
I try to do this when I discuss my Linux problems and even when
acknowledging Windows many faults.
Also, and this is aimed more at the Linvocates, let's try and keep
things current. Problems with Win 3.1 and Win95a are well documented
and I don't think that even the most pro-Windows person would try and
deny that claim. We have all suffered through some absolutely
miserable versions from Microsoft and we all have the war stories and
wounds to prove it. And I am not saying the current versions from MS
are perfect as they are far from perfect, but they are a lot better
than they were 3 years ago. And so is Linux for that matter, even more
so in fact.
How about discussing Win 2k or Win98se or Linux SuSE 6.4 and Caldera
2.4 instead of RedHat 5.2 and Windows 95?
It's my opinion that this would clear the cloud of why some people
have miserable problems with Windows/Linux and others have few if any
problems. It would also allow us all to focus on shortcomings in both
Osen and address the weak points so maybe they can be fixed. I doubt
Microsoft is listening, or even cares at all, but based upon some of
the offline mail I have received from Linux developers THEY are most
definitely listening. And that is good for all of us!
Comments?
DP
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 16:34:32 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>> It is mysterious to me because whether or not bundling IE with Windows
>> to kill Netscape by trying to "cut off their air supply" is not a
>> question of designing an OS, but of building and selling a product. It
>> is, indeed, incredibly lousy OS design, IMHO, but that is, indeed,
>> beside the point. Microsoft is free to make stupid design decisions.
>> They are not free to force them on the market through monopolization or
>> tying.
>
>Yes- they are free to tie whatever they want with their software (*including
>a ham sandwich), and it is their right to have their product distributed in
>a un altered state.
They are free to have that right if there motivation is benefit to the
consumer, not if there motivation is to limit competition.
>Every software maker has the right to insist that 2nd
>party distributors not re-write the software before distribution.
Copyright owners have the right to their property. Trade secrets are
not property. Software "makers" do not have the right to tell their
customers what they can do with the property they have purchased from
the software makers, any more than Ford has the right to tell you that
you are not allowed to use Exxon gasoline. That both products bear the
label "software", and you assume therefore they are identical, is the
reason you are confused on these issues.
>It is ludicrous to assert that OEM's should be allowed to delete MSIE before
>distribution or remove the Microsoft Windows start up splash screen as some
>wanted to do a few years back.
Why not? I'm not buying a computer from Microsoft. Are you aware of
the reason that PC companies are called "Original Equipment
Manufacturers?"
>Netscape didn't have any supposed "air supply" cut off by Microsoft
>including a browser with the OS.
Microsoft seemed to think they did.
>Netscape was included on nearly every OEM
>master restore disk anyway, and they had deals with many major software
>makers to be included on many install disks. And Netscape was always freely
>downloadable! It was basically free even before they officially gave it
>away. Free in the sense that they was an unspecified "trial period" with
>absolutely no nag screen or reminder- ever.
You argue from an intentional position of ignorance. Its boring.
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 16:44:42 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Peter Seebach in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said Peter Seebach in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>It depends an awful lot on the software. Windows has been sold to tens of
>>>millions of people, many of whom didn't want it or need it. Niche market
>>>software often sells for a fixed 25% cut over what it costs to write.
>
>>Only for creative values of "what it costs to write it".
>
>I dunno. If I have to pay a guy $N/hour to write a piece of software, and
>I sell it to the one customer for $N*1.25/hour, I think that's a 25% markup.
And what is the markup when you sell it to the next customer, without
having to re-write it. The customer after that? The thousand later
customers? The million customers over a three year period?
>>Other than getting bought out or having their market disappear, I'm not
>>sure if very many have. Not the large commercial ones. One product
>>developer's trying to play the trade secret game die off all the time,
>>of course, but that's not the same thing.
>
>This depends; look at the game industry, where companies fail routinely.
Because you have to continually come up with *new* software to stay in
business; not just re-sell the old ones over again to the same customers
as an "upgrade". Most game companies that "fail routinely" were
startups. We aren't talking startups - we're talking about established
companies with established products.
>>I'm not sure if you're clear on how "profit" relates to "fixed" and
>>"variable" costs. The trick with software is its all in the fixed
>>costs.
>
>Most of it, yes.
>
>>That's why they're really more of a services business model.
>
>In general, yes. Or at least, they should be.
They were, until Microsoft changed the rules, I've heard. I don't know
the specifics, but I have been told by accountants, who would be the
ones who know, that the IRS allows software developers to treat fixed
costs as variable costs. Essentially, they say that the five hundredth
customer still required $N/hour, because they're still paying
developers. But the developers are coming up with *new* products, so
the company is essentially capitalizing on the margin.
>However, video games have never done very well on that, and it may not be
>possible to make certain kinds of software viable under such a model.
Games will *always* be different; they're entertainment, not
functionality. I heartily agree that certain kinds of software are
different then others. Magazines are different then books, but they're
both "publishing", and they follow the same laws. And neither of them
require trade secret licenses to be forced on their customers.
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 16:50:07 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Jay Maynard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On 16 Jul 2000 12:15:11 GMT, John S. Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Note the interesting comment by some GPL being called free advocates
>>that the GPL is now something that one can/should selectively enforce.
>>This totally blows away any argument, because you are dealing with
>>individuals who don't necessarily believe in the license that they
>>advocate!!!
>
>Yeah...and these are, often, folks who would find selective enforcement of
>laws against those not in political favor abhorrent because of the potential
>for abuse, never realizing that that's exactly how selective enforcement by
>GPVed copyright holders would work: to abuse those who disagree with their
>goals. If you espouse the GPV's politics, why, of course you can violate
>it...
There is no "selective enforcement" issue; this is a straw man you've
razed in effigy. Confiscation of stolen property is not "selective
enforcement" of property rights. Not being able to shout "fire" in a
crowded theater is not "selective enforcement" of free speech rights.
The fact that free software is not an absolute merely illustrates that
this is a true extension of *rights*, not *ideals*. The ideal is that
everyone should always have all the software they want; the right is
that they have what they have legally acquired, free from the mandate of
trade secret licenses.
GPL as free software is not a religious debate. It is a rational debate
of civil matters, not ideology.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 20:54:50 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Osugi Sakae) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> 3. You are either a troll or you have the absolute worst luck
>>> with computers of anyone I have ever heard of.
>>
>>More insults.
>
>Actually, I did not intend this as an insult. As you no doubt
>know, there are sad individuals who attempt to discredit Linux as
>an OS because it does not support the specific hardware that that
>individual has in their computer. You seemed to be trolling in
>this way - generalizing from a few specific personal experiences
>to a general conclusion. The chances are pretty slim of anyone
>interested in trying linux "accidently" getting as much
>unsupported hardware as you seem to have. Thus, my comment.
"Troll" is hardly a complementary comment. At least not in the context of
COLA.
As for "accidentally" getting as much unsupported hardware, well it
happens. I didn't deliberately pick a system that I knew would fail on
Linux, I just tried it out, and found a few problems.
As for taking a few personal experiences and generalising upwards, I
apologise. Others have patiently pointed this out to me, and I think I
understand what they're saying.
>I would not disagree at all on that last point - everything could
>use some work. I could, you could, Linux could, Windows could.
I agree. Where are we now with Windows 95? 98? Me? NT 4.0, 2000?
As for me, why I'm absolutely perfect as I am 8*}!
Pete
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: This thread has needed a new name from the beginning
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 16:55:48 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Yannick in alt.destroy.microsoft;
[...]
>Until some recent time, *nix never crashed due to bad drivers because they
>weren't any drivers for any strange hardware provided by 3rd parties. On Windows
>we have a bunch of horrible legacy, of people writing drivers without knowing how to,
>etc... (read on)
That's a complete fabrication.
[...]
>I don't know much about what happens for Windows 9x systems running for a very long
>time.
I do. I call it "reg rot".
>Although I spend the major part of my free time on my computer, I do not use it all
>the
>time, I switch it off when I don't use it for more than an hour, which means that
>"rebooting on
>a daily basis" has no meaning for me.
This isn't a personal issue; it doesn't matter if you just like seeing
the startup logo screen every twenty minutes or so, so you power cycle
constantly, or if you need your PC for more than leisure activities, and
need it running for weeks at a time. You personal situation is not the
issue.
>As for reinstallation, I did not reinstall Win98 at home
>since November 1998. Though I use it a lot and install/uninstall lots of things,
>including some crap
>found on magazine CDs.
Thanks for the data point.
>As for NT-based systems...
[...]
>But of course, you'll answer that's a teardrop in the sea of existing computers...
Yes, it is. Most NT-based systems are relatively stable; some are
pathetic. None can be compared to a robust and solid system, such as
any Unix.
--
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: 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: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 17:00:17 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Gary Hallock in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
>> Well, near as I can figure, its the default state of the human
>> condition. Like being rude. The difference is, while you are still
>> rude, I am now less dense. You see how that works? Why couldn't you
>> just answer the question?
>
>I DID answer the question.[...]
I know you feel you did, but it is a matter of perception and opinion.
Try to chill; you're getting yourself worked up over nothing. I'm
entirely harmless, believe me.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl Knechtel)
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 20:36:46 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 16:34:41 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: wrote:
<snip>
: If your frontmost task is waiting for human input in a CMT system, the
: rest of the tasks get very little CPU time, and end up starving.
: That's the major flaw in CMT.
: If your frontmost task is waiting for human input in a PMT system, the
: rest of the tasks get the vast, vast majority of the CPU time, and the
: system continues to run cleanly. That's the major benefit in PMT. A
I highly doubt that. Unless your computer is psychic, how is it supposed
to know when will be the next time the foreground app actually *receives*
input? It won't. And if you don't give very much processor time to the
foreground app, there's a good chance (because the distribution is
effectively random) that it won't have processor time at the moment the
input is received. You're going to get either dropped keystrokes or choppy
responsiveness, unless the timeslice is small (probably not a problem) *and*
you have a way of buffering that input when the app that has to deal with
it doesn't have CPU time. I'm not a hardware engineer, but that last bit
seems to imply (to me anyway) that *something* has to be watching the input
device on every cycle, possibly an additional processor. (I'm going to go
further out on a limb, based on assorted things I've heard, and speculate
that this is how Amiga handles it.)
: background render will continue in the bg and will get almost 100% of
: the CPU time and the user will never know the difference.
: If the frontmost task requires CPU time in a CMT system, it will get
: it - to the exclusion of (nearly, depending on implementation)
: everything else. If that's what you want, wonderful. If it isn't,
Not at all. If something in the background also requires CPU time, and both
apps are written properly, they will constantly yield to each other, and
thus get as good a split of processor time as they likely would under PMT.
: you don't have the leeway (in MacOS, at least) to do a whole lot to
: change that. A render put in the bg under MacOS generally dies or
: gets very poor performance, and the system can become (depending on
: software) jumpy or 'uneven' as a result.
It slows down POV-Ray for me, but not excessively. On less co-operative
settings (the Mac POV-Ray is conscious of the CMT environment, and lets you
're-nice' the software in its settings) it sometimes jumps to the foreground,
which is admittedly disconcerting.
Other apps I have which 'render' things do such tricks as reducing their bit
depth and dithering in order to reduce their demand on the CPU, conscious of
the fact that they have been backgrounded.
: If the frontmost task requires CPU time in a PMT system, it will get
: it - and everything else that's sleeping will get no CPU time, and the
: system's idle time indicator (Hi, Chad!) will not increase anymore as
: the system devotes all CPU time to the active app, and anything else
: that also required CPU time would "share" the CPU time cleanly;
: depending on process and priority levels, you might automatically get
: a 50/50 split, which could be changed at will (I can effectively get a
Again, properly written CMT apps can acheive that split, and exceptionally
well written ones can allow you to make those changes.
: CMT system in W2k/NT by making a fg task 'real-time', which is a
: misnomer but gets the point across). The user will freely be able
: to switch between applications with little or no impact to the
: processes that require CPU time, while also being able to interact
: freely and without penalty with apps that don't need much CPU time
: (like, say, a newsreader). That's a MAJOR advantage of PMT.
"Without penalty"? What about all the extra CPU time the OS itself has to
use up to figure out how to schedule everything?
The thing about the newsreader you give as an example is that the *average*
need for CPU time is indeed low, but the *peak* is not. The app sits around
most of the time, but needs to get several cycles after each keystroke. The
OS doesn't know when the next keystroke is coming.
<snip>
Karl Knechtel {:>
da728 at torfree dot net
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 16 Jul 2000 21:11:36 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 12 Jul 2000 02:45:13 GMT, Lee Hollaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You're also assuming that I'm a lawyer, rather than, say, somebody
>who teaches intellectual property law ...
One normally assumes that someone who talks knowledgeably about the law is
indeed a lawyer, just because the rest of us (except for some obvious
blowhards) know we don't know enough about the law to talk about its
intricacies...
>In general, unless there is a special law or a provision in a contract
>that says that the loser may have to pay, then each side has to pay
>their own costs. But there is such a special provision in both patent
>and copyright law. So you can't look at suits in general.
Okkay, so back to my original question, slightly modified: in copyright
lawsuits, how often does someone who gets sued and wins recover their costs?
Is it even a substantial minority of the time?
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 17:13:00 -0400
From: Ed Cogburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: one step forward, two steps back..
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > It was the Sat, 15 Jul 2000 20:13:55 GMT...
> > ...and [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >Desktop domination?-- it's a LONG way off, if at all. And I think
> that's a
> > > >good thing for Linux. And computer users in general.
> > >
> > > My PERSONAL opinion is that Linux should focus on the
> server/technical
> > > user market and should forget going for the desktop.
> >
> > Linux cannot focus on anything because Linux is neither an
> > organisation nor a product.
> >
>
> Linux is focused enough to become a treat to Microsoft! Seems focused to
> me!
Microsoft considers anyone writing PC software besides themselves to
be a threat.
--
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." - Voltaire
Ed C.
====== 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] (Jay Maynard)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 16 Jul 2000 21:14:41 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 18:35:39 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Many of the rest of us don't have any problem with people who
> would seek to use common code as if it were their own personal
> property (with all that implies in software) being restricted.
Of course, you're not going to apologize to the BSD developers for calling
them, in essence, thieves, now are you? Of course not.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 16 Jul 2000 21:16:39 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 15 Jul 2000 22:41:09 +0200, Stefaan A Eeckels
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Before you start whining about RMS' opinion of derivatives, know
>that I'm aware of that opinion, and don't agree with it. RMS'
>opinions don't have an influence on the GPL, however.
No, but RMS' opinions have a very large, if not in fact controlling,
influence on the FSF and its propensity to pursue legal action; thus, even
if someone wins in a RIPEM-style case, vindicating your opinion on the
subject, they've still had to deal with all that goes with being the
defendant in a test case.
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Quickie Script for "Staircasing" Printers.
Date: 16 Jul 2000 20:27:06 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking) wrote:
>If I knew how to get a script to read an argument like "lpr file.txt" I would
>have done the easy though fucked up thing of renaming lpr and name the script
>"lpr". Something like that is how I made "pico" the default text editor on my
>box instead of vi.
Any ocurrence of $1 will be replaced by the first argument. $2, $3, etc.
work similarly. "info bash" for the rest of the gory details.
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 16 Jul 2000 20:45:01 GMT
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Thank you. That's quite illuminating. Interesting, don't you think,
>that while many people were saying "the app decides when to yield, not
>the OS", they probably thought this is just what they were explaining,
>but none of them thought to put it like that. Perhaps this is why I
>kept getting flamed for not paying attention when they thought they had
>answered my questions; none of them realized their answers were
>misleading. It isn't the OS controlling the multi-tasking which makes
>the difference; its the notion of a maximum quantum.
That's part of the difference between PMT and CMT. The other part is that
an I/O event -- a key press, a mouse click, a character arriving or
departing on the modem -- can at any time wake a high priority process,
which then gets a chance to process that event.
There isn't really any difference, in the OS code, between the maximum
quantum and the wake-on-I/O. The quantum is enforced by a timer which
generates a pulse when the quantum expires. It's just another I/O event.
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
