Linux-Advocacy Digest #743, Volume #27 Tue, 18 Jul 00 02:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Of Free OS's and M$ pricing a little side trip! (Jim Broughton)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! ("Spud")
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Jacques Guy)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! ("Spud")
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! ("Spud")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("JS/PL")
Re: Star Office to be open sourced ("KLH")
Re: one step forward, two steps back.. (Jeff Szarka)
Re: Star Office to be open sourced ("KLH")
Re: one step forward, two steps back.. (Jeff Szarka)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Victor Schneider, Ph. D.)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (ZnU)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim Broughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Of Free OS's and M$ pricing a little side trip!
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 00:30:42 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So tonight I sat a little board of reading the crap that
winbloat advocates spew relentlessly into this NG.
So I thought why not take a trip and price some microscrew
software just to see how much it is. Since this IS the LINUX
advocacy NG this falls right in line.
Bellow I state many many times that LINUX is FREE!
It essentially is. You can download it free from the
internet. You can legally burn one from a friends CD.
For a small fee (read REALLY REALLY CHEAP) you can order
a version of just about any flavor of linux from several
sources for the cost of the cd plus S&H. What you don't
get is installation support or the nice fancy printed
installation and reference manuals that come with most
retail versions. Of course you don't get much support
for any of the microscrew products either. How does that
go again... reboot reformat and reinstall or is is
reformat reboot and reinstall or reboot reboot reboot.
So let us start with what everyone sees as the BASELINE
winbloat system. Winbloat 98 SE.
If you have winbloat 95 or the original winbloat 98
you can upgrade for 89 dollars. Gee isn't that the
same price they where charging 2 years ago for the
what is essencially same product? The winbloat 95 to
winbloat 98 upgrade. Also note that the price
of the winbloat upgrade NEVER changed in that for
over 2 years it stayed at the same price.
(note enhancements and bug fixes (insert laughter here)
taken into account.)
LINUX (or insert your unix clone here) FREE!
ok Lets move on to the winbloat 98 SE retail full version.
It is currently going for 178.99 Isn't this the same price
charged for the original retail full version of winbloat 98
back in eh er 98? You would have thought that by now they
would have gotten just a little greedier.
LINUX (or insert your unix clone here) FREE!
Now that the baseline system are out of the way let us turn
to the winbloat 98 SE tax that most users pay when buying a new
system at the local retail emporium. This is of course a
microsoft trade secret and in this paragraph I am making
suppositions and in general just guessing. I would assume that
given a large enough volume deal that the wintax is probably on
the order of 50-80 or so dollars (remember this is just a guess).
I only base this on the fact that I have an OEM version of the
original winbloat 98 and it cost me 90 smackers. (read dollars).
You can bet that when you buy a custom system from a smaller vendor online
or through a magazine that you are being charged the full 89 dollar
OEM price.
LINUX (or insert your unix clone here) FREE!
Let us now move to the more expensive line of microscrew products.
I will start with Winbloat 2000. This is microscrews new top of the line
workstation/server software. The UPGRADE pack is priced at $198. This is
for the WORKSTATION model only. A full retail version is $279. This is
about what they charged for winNT 4. Of course the service packs (read
bug and security fixes) were at least priced at the cost
of the cd plus S&H. I am of course reminded of the articles in most
major trade mags at the time where some of them where titled "Surviving
service pack 4 and or 5"(more chuckles).
LINUX (or insert your unix clone here) FREE!
We can now turn our attention to the SERVER section of microscrews
product line. For those of you on tight budgets now is the time to
cover your eyes. Lets start with the SERVER version of winbloat 2000.
The current price for the upgrade is around $399. You must own NT4. That
is for the 5 client version. It gets worse. The retail 5 client version
is around 899 dollars. The 10 client version 1199. The 25 Client Version
1799 and last but not least the unlimited version at 2000 dollars.
LINUX (or insert your unix clone here) FREE! UNLIMITED CLIENTS.
Winbloat proxy server 2. 499.
The PROXY server for Linux is of course FREE!
Of course there are other numerous products that microscrew puts out in the
server class with prices from WOW that's kinda steep to OH MY GAWD they charge
that much!
Most of these products come with limited help and or need extra add on service
agreements. Most MAJOR Linux distributions offer similar if not FAR less
expensive
service agreements and help plans.
If your interested in just how much its going to cost you to outfit your company
with microscrew software I have given you a starting point to see just how deep
your wallet is. Or if your like the rest of us here you can forgo the expensive
M$ solutions and get the LINUX solution for free.
Jim Broughton
--
(The Amiga OS! Now there was an OS)
If Sense were common everyone would have it!
------------------------------
From: "Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 21:30:02 -0700
[snips]
"Nathaniel Jay Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Pete Goodwin wrote:
> > Oh I thought we were talking about Gnome, KDE, FVWM, TWM etc.
> >
> > I didn't think we were talking about virtual desktops. I think
there is one
> > (or there was one) for Windows. I've tried them, but don't really
find much
> > use.
> >
>
> To some people they aren't, but to others (like me) we can't live
> without them. I think it's partially an aquired taste, and one
that's
> very hard to get used to if you come from Windows.
Shouldn't be - tools to do that have been around for ages in
Windows... at least as far back as Windows 3.1. I've used them since
that far back - but not for their multiple desktop capability, which
I've yet to see any actual use for, rather, for the other tools they
brought to the table.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 04:34:43 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Spud wrote:
> Oh, you don't have a backup? Fine. Your data is *gone*. Learn the
> lesson *now*, before you lose something that's actually worth
> something to you.
You have not read my post. Under DOS, my partition E: is
gone, UNKNOWN, AWOL, yukue fumei. Under Linux, it is still
there, I can read it, I can edit it, I can copy it. Which
I did. So which is kusottare na OS? (this to go with "yukue
fumei").
------------------------------
From: "Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 21:35:51 -0700
[snips]
"David Steinberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8kimpa$a3v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Well, I use them all the time. On my CDE desktop here at work, I've
> currently got four virtual desktops (CDE calls them "workspaces").
> I've got 9 different windows going on this workspace (mostly xterms
and
> emacs sessions), all for tasks that are running on a development
machine
> On another workspace, I've got another set of 14 windows, all
running
> tasks on a testbed machine. On yet another workspace, I've got a
similar
> set of 14 windows for a similar testbed, but one that has an older
build
> on it. And, on the fourth workspace, I've got various "other" stuff
> running locally: a couple of Netscape windows, a Frame Maker
session, a
> Citrix Metaframe session, and so on. My mail client and front panel
> "occupy all workspaces," of course, so they are always available.
If I
> want to see another window on more than one workspace, that is
easily
> done, too.
>
> I don't know what I would do if I had to juggle all 50-odd windows
on a
> single little Windows desktop. Yuck.
Smae thing you do now. "I need to get to application X." Okay, fine,
click the taskbar entry to take you to that screen. Only difference
is, you'd click to get to the application, instead of the screen. Big
deal. Been there, used those tools, on both platforms, they're at
best eye candy.
> I would say that virtual desktops are a very important feature, and
that,
> for me, Windows lack of them is a large impediment to the usability
of
> the system, However, I have the perspective to realize that my
needs and
> wants from a desktop system have been shaped by what has been
available to
> me: what I've used, what I'm used to, what I've learned to use
> efficiently.
I've had all those things available since way back as well. Never yet
found a use for them. Seems I'm able to click an application's
taskbar entry just as easily as a desktop's taskbar entry, so I don't
really gain any benefit.
------------------------------
From: "Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 21:43:29 -0700
"Jim Broughton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> > Linux lags behind Windows in some hardware products and
> > Linux desktop lags behind Windows.
> >
> > I believe there are (many?) other areas, but that's my opinion.
> >
> > --
> > ---
> > Pete
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
> WARNING WARNING WARNING Will Robinson RANTS AHEAD. WARNING!
>
> I finaly have to take exception to a comment here in this newsgroup
> (not that there aren't many to take exception too)!
> Linux does NOT lag behind windows in some hardware products, product
> manufacturers lag behind in writing drivers for thier products too
> work on linux. So don't blame Linux or the people who DO write
software
> for it.
I don't blame Linux for it... I just realize that until Linux *fixes*
it, either by providing drivers written by the Linux coders, or by
convincing the hardware vendors to do the job, Linux remains
effectively useless for most of my machines.
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[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: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 01:03:09 -0400
Reply-To: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Well we could start a large circular argument in which we both
> > eventually waste 8 hours of our lives comparing and quoting
> > "documents" I really don't wish to do this. I will tell you one
> > thing. Government made a huge mistake when they decided to try and
> > help Netscape compete and get on the evening news all at the same
> > time.
>
> Good thing the government didn't do that.
>
> > I'll just go on record by saying the appeal will result in the
> > whole judgment being thrown out.
>
> Riiiiiigth.
>
> > But if it were upheld....
> >
> > Splitting up Microsoft will not punish the principal shareholders at
> > all, in fact it will most likely increase their wealth beyond belief!
> > It will not benefit the consumer in the slightest because the price
> > of the consumer operating system will surely go up. The software
> > market will still be incredibly competitive,
>
> You imply that the software market is competitive now. Some segments of
> it might be. But please, which x86 operating system is a viable
> alternative to MS Windows?
Oh so you can see into the future. There is no chance to compete without the
government inserting themselves right between Microsoft and the consumer and
obstructing consumer choice. In ten years you in fact know that desktops
with Microsoft installed will be the dominant platform without the HELP of
Uncle Sam to show us all a better way?
>
> BeOS? With no apps?
>
> Linux? The OS that compsci graduates have trouble with?
>
> Perhaps OS/2? Totally abandoned by IBM?
>
> You must be thinking of all that middleware. Let's see....
>
> Java? The write-once tweak-for-a-few-months-and-it-might-work-anywhere-
> but-you'd-better-test-because-it-might-not platform that Microsoft has
> already tried to do significant damage too?
>
> Or maybe you mean YellowBox for Windows? Canceled by Apple.
>
> Hey! Someone could be sneaky and use a browser as middlewa -- err....
> oh. Wait.
> As if all this wasn't enough, Microsoft now wants to take over the
> entire Internet, and turn every web site into an "application" developed
> using Microsoft development tools. Just ask Bill Gates. He's very
> excited about the plan. And I hope you don't mind paying rental fees for
> software, and trusting all your data to Microsoft's servers.
>
> So, where is this huge threat to Microsoft's x86 OS monopoly? Please do
> tell. Even Microsoft couldn't do anything more than hand wave on this
> issue.
It's all around you. What OS are you using? I'll bet this newsgroup isn't
residing on an MS Server OS, I'll bet the 20 or so hops this message takes
to the news server do not touch a Microsoft product.
Nobody knows where the industry will be in ten years.
I can say this - I would rather not be using a stripped down operating
system that the government gave me (*for my own good).
>
> > so it will not help anyone at all. You'll just have Uncle Sam with
> > his bureaucratic grasp on something he has no business being involved
> > in.
> >
> > All you Anti-MS people who are embracing uncle Sam as your savior are
> > insane!
>
> Obviously. Why would anyone want a democratically elected body to have
> any control over anything? The power is much safer concentrated in the
> hands of wealthy individuals.
------------------------------
From: "KLH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 22:05:32 -0700
Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2000, KLH wrote:
>
> > This is one of the times that I think they are doing it precisely for
the
> > publicity. Notice the qualifiers, hence: "Sun is *considering* GPLing
> > StarOffice" not that they are actually doing it. I think it is part of
some
>
> I'm half-inclined to agree - although personally, I favour the BSD license
> over the GPL.
>
> > half-baked though probably successful strategy to increase mindshare for
> > StarOffice. Just wait and see: they will not go through with it. Sun is
one
> > of the most propietary companies there are. And Sun knows all about
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Bullshit. Non-open source != proprietory, something Open Source advocates
> should remember. For example, NFS, invented by Sun, is an open
technology:
> the specification is available for all to read, and you are free to write
> your own implementation. Indeed, UNIX is an open technology.
If Unix is an open technology, then how come we must call GNU/Linux a
Unix-like OS rather than an actual version of Unix?
>
> Compare this with M$'s approach, where almost nothing is documented, and
one
> is forced to reverse engineer file formats and some APIs: now *that's*
> proprietory.
True, but I was thinking as far as software goes. Sorry for my
miscommunication. I think I am trapped within a mindset.
>
> Open systems were around long before Linux and other "Open Source"
advocates
> even invented the phrase.
If I am not mistaken, didn't Sun invent the phrase "Open System" ?
>
> --
> Rich Teer
>
> NT tries to do almost everything UNIX does, but fails - miserably.
>
> The use of Windoze cripples the mind; its use should, therefore, be
> regarded as a criminal offence. (With apologies to Edsger W. Dijkstra)
>
> Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
> URL: http://www.rite-online.net
>
Best Regards, Kevin Holmes "extrasolar"
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: one step forward, two steps back..
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 01:14:10 -0400
On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 20:33:27 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>>
>>Yep, just like Ford considers anyone else making cars besides
>>themselves to be a threat. Welcome to the business world.
>
> Fortunately, Ford is considerably less able to exert their
> will on the rest of the industry and there are no natural
> barriers making it difficult for someone to buy Ford one
> year, Nissan the next and Oldsmobile after that...
Everyone always says Microsoft prevents people from buying
non-Microsoft products. What is stopping anyone from buying non-MS
hardware/software? Nothing at all. There never has been.
If you don't want to buy a computer with Windows... don't. There are
hundreds of vendors willing to sell you a machine with no OS. I don't
even think I've bought a system with an OS.
------------------------------
From: "KLH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 22:12:45 -0700
Jay Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> While I agree with the rest of your posting, I have to take issue with:
>
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:56:41 GMT, Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Even without Linux's input, UNIX is still the
> >only viable solution for mission critical applications.
>
> There are many other solutions out there even more suited for
> mission-critical work than Unix, even though they're out of hacker favor:
> OS/390, VMS, NonStop Kernel... The kinds of things hackers don't like
> playing with, but that can run for literally years without ever having to
> come down for any reason at all, *including* hardware failure.
>
> Unix is certainly more suited for mission-critical work than Windows of
any
> stripe, but that doesn't make it necessarily the best.
Sometimes I don't understand how anything as complex as UNIX can be as
stable.
It's complexity is one reason I think it should be killed. Not that I know
of any suitable replacement for a general-purpose operating system, but I
don't think it is the OS I want the future to use.
Best Regards,
Kevin Holmes
"extrasolar"
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: one step forward, two steps back..
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 01:20:26 -0400
On 17 Jul 2000 16:35:58 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>The only difference is: Ford doesn't own 90% of the roads, and
>designing them to only work with Ford-Compatible(c) cars.
Right and neither does Microsoft. The roads, in this case an x86 PC,
allows one to choose many different OS's.
I guess I just don't consider it shocking that MICROSOFT wants
everyone to use MICROSOFT products.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Victor Schneider, Ph. D.)
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 05:23:26 GMT
On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 12:49:15 -0600,
John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 17:36:24 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >Steve Mading wrote:
>> >
>> >Tell me, did you "Win" with the winmodem?
>> >A) Yes
>> >B) No
>> >
>> >If the answer is B, then it is a LOSEmodem.
>>
>> I think the term UNmodem works much better...
>
>In keeping with the lastest advertising fads, I suggest:
>
>Modem!Not
If that were all that is wrong with Linux, there would be no problem.
But, Linux doesn't support the latest sound cards fully, or supports
them without the midi synthesizer interface, which is a "win", i. e.,
software, interface that obsoletes completely the old OPL synthesizer.
And, the new X-Windows desktops are ridiculous space hogs that do
nothing but add twenty seconds to the bootup time for X-Windows and
consume half a gb. of wasted disk space. If you do a Linux system with
the latest X-Windows and only an fvwm-98 setup, it fits into 200 mb. of
disk space, complete with C compilers and complete text system. If you
use kde or gnome, you get a bunch of worthless clones of Windows freeware
internet appliances, most of which are still quite buggy or inadequate by
comparison with the Windows freeware. Most of this freeware, which is not
MS based runs under the Wine emulator, but not without some problems. In
other words, it is absurd to consider Linux-X-Windows as an alternate to
Windows on high-end systems with the latest and best sound boards and video
cards.
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[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: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 05:47:05 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Well we could start a large circular argument in which we both
> > > eventually waste 8 hours of our lives comparing and quoting
> > > "documents" I really don't wish to do this. I will tell you one
> > > thing. Government made a huge mistake when they decided to try
> > > and help Netscape compete and get on the evening news all at the
> > > same time.
> >
> > Good thing the government didn't do that.
> >
> > > I'll just go on record by saying the appeal will result in the
> > > whole judgment being thrown out.
> >
> > Riiiiiigth.
> >
> > > But if it were upheld....
> > >
> > > Splitting up Microsoft will not punish the principal shareholders
> > > at all, in fact it will most likely increase their wealth beyond
> > > belief! It will not benefit the consumer in the slightest because
> > > the price of the consumer operating system will surely go up. The
> > > software market will still be incredibly competitive,
> >
> > You imply that the software market is competitive now. Some
> > segments of it might be. But please, which x86 operating system is
> > a viable alternative to MS Windows?
>
> Oh so you can see into the future. There is no chance to compete
> without the government inserting themselves right between Microsoft
> and the consumer and obstructing consumer choice.
How does splitting Microsoft up obstruct consumer choice? Please explain.
> In ten years you in fact know that desktops with Microsoft installed
> will be the dominant platform without the HELP of Uncle Sam to show
> us all a better way?
I don't say nothing will ever come along and destroy Microsoft. I only
say it isn't likely to happen anytime soon. Microsoft kills or embraces
and extends any technology that might be a threat to it.
Web appliances a potential problem? Buy WebTV. Middleware threat got you
down? Break Java, crush Netscape. Worried about getting left behind the
the streaming media market? Threaten Apple.
> > BeOS? With no apps?
> >
> > Linux? The OS that compsci graduates have trouble with?
> >
> > Perhaps OS/2? Totally abandoned by IBM?
> >
> > You must be thinking of all that middleware. Let's see....
> >
> > Java? The write-once
> > tweak-for-a-few-months-and-it-might-work-anywhere-
> > but-you'd-better-test-because-it-might-not platform that Microsoft
> > has already tried to do significant damage too?
> >
> > Or maybe you mean YellowBox for Windows? Canceled by Apple.
> >
> > Hey! Someone could be sneaky and use a browser as middlewa --
> > err.... oh. Wait.
>
> > As if all this wasn't enough, Microsoft now wants to take over the
> > entire Internet, and turn every web site into an "application"
> > developed using Microsoft development tools. Just ask Bill Gates.
> > He's very excited about the plan. And I hope you don't mind paying
> > rental fees for software, and trusting all your data to Microsoft's
> > servers.
> >
> > So, where is this huge threat to Microsoft's x86 OS monopoly?
> > Please do tell. Even Microsoft couldn't do anything more than hand
> > wave on this issue.
>
> It's all around you. What OS are you using?
Not an x86 OS.
> I'll bet this newsgroup isn't residing on an MS Server OS, I'll bet
> the 20 or so hops this message takes to the news server do not touch
> a Microsoft product. Nobody knows where the industry will be in ten
> years.
Servers and dedicated routers are hardly relevant. Those markets are
tiny compared with the PC market.
> I can say this - I would rather not be using a stripped down
> operating system that the government gave me (*for my own good).
If Microsoft has its way, in 3 years you'll be using a stripped down
operating system (or a glorified web browser, depending on how you want
to look at it), storing all your data on MS servers, accessing web pages
created with MS development tools, renting all your software for a
monthly fee, and probably using MSN for Internet access.
Is that really what you want? Because that's what Gates says is coming.
> > > so it will not help anyone at all. You'll just have Uncle Sam
> > > with his bureaucratic grasp on something he has no business being
> > > involved in.
> > >
> > > All you Anti-MS people who are embracing uncle Sam as your savior
> > > are insane!
> >
> > Obviously. Why would anyone want a democratically elected body to
> > have any control over anything? The power is much safer
> > concentrated in the hands of wealthy individuals.
--
The number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected.
-- The Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd Edition, June 1972
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
