Linux-Advocacy Digest #760, Volume #27 Tue, 18 Jul 00 19:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it ("Drestin Black")
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451743 (Tholen) (tinman)
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451743 (Tholen) (tinman)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it ("Drestin Black")
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it ("Drestin Black")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Mark Kelley)
Re: MacOS X: under the hood... (was Re: There is only one innovation that
matters...) ("James Addison")
Re: I just don't buy it (Jim Broughton)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: 18 Jul 2000 17:09:06 -0500
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Otto wrote:
> >
> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > : This is all well and good, however, you are missing some very
important
> > : facts when dealing with Microsoft.
> > :
> > : The "support" you get as a fortune 500 company is hell and away far
> > : better than anything one could hope for in a mere regular sized
company,
> > : and using Windows NT as a solution, you WILL need that tech support.
> >
> > Versus Linux, which doesn't need tech support? Get real....
>
> Linux does need tech support, all complex systems will, however, the
> APIs are all public, the knowledge is freely available. With Microsoft
> one has to pay for everything and sign a whole bunch of non-disclosure
> forms.
Untrue and if you'd actually worked with MS you'd know this. Sure, you pay
for their products. MS is one of those _rare_ companies that actually
charges for their product and sometimes even returns a profit for it's
shareholders. non-disclosure is only if you need to get in deeper/closer
than a typical end-user/developer/integrator needs to. I've never seen a NDA
used on a end-user site (except in beta or benchmarking). The MS support
system is far better than the insults and spotty linux user support that
depends on if the moon is full and who you know and how you phrased a
question less you be labled a troll or told to RTFM in four langagues...
>
> >
> > :
> > : Fortune 500 companies make "strategic partnerships" for technology,
i.e.
> > : they do not pay full price Microsoft for technology and support, and
> > : Microsoft gets to claim the fortune 500 company as a "customer." There
> > : is usually a stock exchange involved as well.
> >
> > Care to substanciate this claim with actual data?
>
> I can, just do a web search on a good engine you'll find lots of
> "Strategic Marketing" agreements between MS and whom ever.
Why don't you do just what and give us the results. Perhaps you'll do better
than I did. Of COURSE F500 companies do not pay full price. Hell, who pays
full price? CDW.COM hello? same product, cheaper. And are you telling me
that you are not aware that the bigger you are the better prices you'll get?
Why does this suprise you. What makes you think that MS would NEED to
exchange stock with a F500 company to get it to "lie" that it's a MS
customer, when all the Fortune 500 companies are already using MS products
(somewhere, some more some less). When one company lets MS use them in
greater detail for advertising, I'm sure there is SOME compensation, but,
sure, why not. Doesn't change the facts of what was done and how.
>
> >
> > :
> > : There is a HUGE and important gray area between someplace like
dell.com
> > : where MS and Dell have strategic business dealings, and someplace like
> > : valinux which does not. It is also arguable that between "joes web
site"
> > : and the fortune 500, exists a vast area of the economy which employs
99
> > : percent of the working people in the USA.
> >
> > I just disagree with the 99% share....
>
> OK, maybe 98% The number is not completely important, it is an estimate,
> the bulk of the economy is outside of the fortune 500. Small companies
> are the largest segment of employers and the fastest growing segment as
> well.
>
so if you are guessing maybe the number is 1%?
> >
> > :
> > : To simply say that the fortune 500 use NT, so it's good, is false. The
> > : fortune 500 companies can pay for the huge expenses that an NT
> > : environment will incur in exchange for the "strategic" business
> > : opportunities which the monopoly Microsoft provides. For the merely
> > : normal sized companies that do not have the clout to grab Microsoft's
> > : attention and good graces, NT is a disaster of unreliability and poor
> > : cost/performance.
> >
> > You are contradicting yourself. In one hand you claim that "Fortune 500
> > companies make "strategic partnerships" for technology, i.e. they do not
pay
> > full price Microsoft for technology and support", in another you claim
that
> > "The fortune 500 companies can pay for the huge expenses". Make up your
> > mind....
>
> Actually, I am not contradicting myself at all. Windows NT (W2k) is a
> buggy, unstable OS.
Let me say this very clearly: Bullshit. W2K is NOT buggy nor unstable -
quite the opposite. And all your bluster and whinning cannot change this
fact. The OS has proven itself already (and did even in beta) to millions.
> Fortune five hundred company have to pay for
> support, people to run the computers, and lots of consultants. NT is
> expensive, and fortune 500 companies can afford it BECAUSE MS will make
> deals with them for support, referrals, stock swaps, and other such
> stuff that non-fortune 500 companies could only wish for.
Again: crap. ANY OS installed on hundreds of PCs will have a huge support
staff. NT is not more expensive to support than another OS. Every study I've
ever seen done, including real world ones by myself and people like my
clients have proven over and over than, in fact, it's cheaper to support
Windows than any other OS. NT is even less expensive than W9x cause it
crashes far less and and W2K simply blows all previous records away. Our
support calls on W2K are shy of non-existant - almost every single issue is
to do with getting new drivers, we're talking 99.9% And the drivers are
forthcoming.
I say you simply making up BS regarding these stock swaps. Such things would
have to be, by law, recorded and do you not think Sun would have a field day
parading the fact that MS had to give stocks to a F500 company in order to
claim it used MS products? I mean, Sun is not below dumpster diving and they
wouldn't expose the easier to verify and much more harmful tactics you claim
MS uses? HA! mlw, I doubt you've ever worked in the industy above the
personal consultant level - otherwise you'd not make such obviously false
claims... simply silly... you have no concept of how it goes negotiationg at
these levels!
>
>
> > Disregarding unsubstantiated claims about NT.
>
> Unsubstantiated? Perhaps in this particular post, but through the last
> couple of years, I have made quite a few substantiated statements about
> NT and instability.
and FAR more unsubstantiated statements. And I dont' consider
"substantiated" to mean, "cause it happened to a guy I know"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451743 (Tholen)
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 18:09:36 -0400
In article <yUWc5.40484$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Jacques Guy writes:
>
> > Yes, Phillip Glass *is* a bit repetitive, isn't he?
>
> There's a great "knock-knock" joke involving Philip Glass,
> but it's hard to find someone willing to play along for
> long enough to make it work:
Jumping into conversations again, eh Dave? ("
[snip]
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451743 (Tholen)
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 18:10:53 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Eric Bennett writes:
> >
> > > Jacques Guy wrote:
> >
> > >> Soon, these newsgroups are going to consist of
> > >> nothing but messages from bots and to bots. Raw
> > >> bots, rough bots, tin bots, tholen bots
> > >> (those with a speech impediment). I wish
> > >> they'd post the source code
> >
> > > You can start with the source provided by Dave Wang, and work from there:
> > >
> > > main(){char *a[]={"Illogical.","Balderdash.","Non sequitur.",
> > > "Incorrect.","See what I mean?","Irrelevant.","Poppycock."};
> > > for(;;)puts(a[rand()%7]);}
> >
> > Insufficient, Eric, given that the code includes nothing to determine
> > when it is appropriate to use each response.
>
> Evidence of his C comprehension problems. The function "rand" is called.
No, he's blind--he does not C. ('
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: 18 Jul 2000 17:12:03 -0500
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > so tell us, specifically, why servers running Windows could not do what
the
> > servers running linux @ Google do? Forget needing 6000 boxes. Why would
the
> > OS be a limitation? Impress us by showing ANY technical knowledge
> > whatsoever!
>
> Someone sounds grumpy because Microsoft was caught cheating on their
> Windows 2000 launch TPC-C score. :>
caught cheating? Hahahaha - that's a twisted way of putting it. Not
cheating, but an error. and the results were pulled and no one bitched. MS
simply fixed the error in their *beta* SQL server and are as we speak
retesting with Compaq. Meanwhile MS and IBM (who had to fix the iDENTICAL
problem in their db2 software (no doubt planning on "cheating too")) turned
around and delivered a TPC-C score twice as high as the compaq scores - four
times better than the next *nix score at half the price!
>
> (not that such meters are important, mind you)
oh but they do - as they did to the unix weenies before they lost and lost
huge - now they feign lack of interest... hahahaahah
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: 18 Jul 2000 17:16:13 -0500
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > [snippage]
> > > To simply say that the fortune 500 use NT, so it's good, is false. The
> > > fortune 500 companies can pay for the huge expenses that an NT
> > > environment will incur in exchange for the "strategic" business
> > > opportunities which the monopoly Microsoft provides. For the merely
> > > normal sized companies that do not have the clout to grab Microsoft's
> > > attention and good graces, NT is a disaster of unreliability and poor
> > > cost/performance.
> > >
> >
> > unreliability and poor cost/performance? You couldn't be more wrong and
if
> > you'd quit living in 3.51 days you'd know this. When is the last time
anyone
> > not a linux zealot ever saw a blue screen?
>
> Actually, I saw one today with a dual processor domain controller.
sigh... sure ... sure... and even if true - why is it that these things only
happen around you and things you are near? hmmm...
>
> > I can't remember. It's been over
> > a year I think. Crashes? That's what W98 is for, and even the beta of
> > Windows ME is as stable as most would want. W2K is as stable as any *nix
you
> > could name.
>
> I don't buy it, I don't believe it, and nothing I have seen indicates
> that anything has changed with Windows NT. This is the game MS always
> plays. The mantra is "The current release is really stable, unlike that
> last release." This has been done in the 3.1 -> 3.5, 3.5 -> 3.51, 3.51
> -> 4.0, 4.0 -> W2K. (Ignoring all the crap about the SPs)
and have you actually looked? took an unbiased look? I doubt it, seriously
doubt it. Comments you've made in teh past and in this very thread prove to
me that your level of experience with NT is minimal, programmer wanna-be
level attempts at best.
>
>
> > SP1 is coming out in the next week and it addresses a handful of
> > issues, most esoteric and minor and just add to the 5 9's of reliability
W2K
> > is already able to deliver. 64,000 bugs? even 19,000 bugs? ha! not even
4
> > digits... and this from a 40 million line OS version .0 -- can you even
find
> > a single comprehensive list of all the bugs and "issues" in the linux
> > kernel?
>
> This is the same thing. W2K is real stable, as stable as any *nix, and
> the next paragraph is about the next service pack which will make it
> better.
Oh so you suggest that a *Real* stable OS needs no service packs. No
upgrades, no fixes no revisions. So, why have there been several hundred
revisions of the linux kernal? Wow, must be a VERY buggy kernel indeed. I
mean, if it's stable as you'd liek to suggest, it wouldn't need new kernel
versions weekly now would it?
Don't even try to play that tune, it's broken no matter how you wanna spin
it.
>
> Seriously, I know the mantra of the Linux people is "It'll be in the
> next kernel...." that is still better than "This release is really
> stable, unlike that last release." (until the next release or sp)
yea... right...
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 16:09:34 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said John W. Stevens in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >>
> >> Said ZnU in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >wrote:
> >>
> >> Efficient according to whose definition? If you're going to say 'there
> >> is only one', then I'm going to be forced to accuse you of "thinking
> >> like an engineer".
> >
> >I'll accept that accolade with grace and humility. . .
> >
> >Efficiency is getting more for the same cost, or better yet, less cost.
> >
> >If the Mac ran exactly the same in all other respects after switching to
> >PMT, then PMT would be more efficient than CMT.
>
> Hoisted by my own petard? Are you referring to the end-user price of a
> Mac system versus a PC?
No, sir, I am not. I was refering to the difficulty of drawing
conclusions about a specific change within a system that has,
unfortunately, not made that and only that specific change.
Or, in short, without some kind of control over the variables, how do
you determine the effect and weight of any individual change?
> I've been working on a theory that the
> efficiency of a complex system is not affected in a deterministic
> fashion by the efficiency of a single component.
Chaos theory? I'd agree to a limited extent (pretty much the extent
that chaos theory is limited to!) ;->
> I usually have the
> "benefit to the user" angle on my side by this means, but I suppose I
> can't fault your logic. Assuming I've read it correctly. If not, what
> cost were you thinking of?
The "cost" issue is, unfortunately, a complex one. And not neccesarily
an individual one: the theoretical productivity gains of having a single
individual work in the MacOS on a Mac can, and probably are (the market
provides both fitness and population thinning functions), offset by the
advantages to the group of standardizing on Windows.
> Because my statement would still stand:
> efficient for the specific needs of the engineer designing the best
> scheduling system is not necessarily efficiency for the end-product on
> the desktop for the user sitting in front of it doing notoriously
> ill-advised things.
Correct. However, your scenario (that of an engineer designing a
scheduling system independently of the way the customer/end user will
use the system) is not particulary valid.
Engineering is where science meets the phone call to Grandma. Any
engineer who works on a system without realizing or acknowledging that
human beings are part of the system, is either very inexperienced, or
badly in need of training.
Most commercial OS'en are developed with the end user in mind (the
customer justifies the existence of the business, right?). There are,
in fact, seven different "scheduling policy tweaks" that I am aware of
in the HPUX scheduler that were put into place precisely to make the
system responsive to the needs and desires of the customer. Engineers
most decidedly do *NOT* write schedulers to please only themselves,
though of course you are partially correct in that they do indeed write
schedulers that please them (they, too, are users, yes?).
> >As a generalist, you should know that to prove your point statistically,
> >you'd have to provide two versions of the MacOS that are entirely
> >identical with the single exception that one implements PMT, while the
> >other implements CMT, then show that the market perfered CMT to PMT.
> >
> >No such experiment was ever conducted, so at best, your statement is
> >purely a matter of conjecture.
>
> Not even so much; a mere supposition.
And your basic assertion re: the need to consider the *ENTIRE* system is
valid, though I would go even further than you do, and state that the
user is not the end of the relationship network . . . work groups,
administration, help desk support, total life cycle cost, and many other
factors need to be considered.
This is one of the reasons that "MacOS productivity studies" are so
meaningless . . . businesses are almost always *GROUPS* of people. A
valid productivity study would have to take into account, as you've
attempted to do, a great many factors.
> Yes. Nobody likes CMT. For reasons I now understand, by the way, and
> essentially agree with. Still, the issue fascinates me for some
> reason....
I suspect the word that fascinates you is "cooperative". Unfortunately,
that word doesn't actually work well, as CMT would be better described
as "Blind Anarchy" . . . blind: 'cause no other task knows about the
existence, or requirements of any other task, and anarchy: 'cause each
task does what it wants to without reference to a central authority.
Or, in short, by the time you get done modifying CMT to have those
features that you have already described as desirable, you have . . .
PMT.
> >From a purely mathematical standpoint, it is painfully clear that your
> >assertions re: CMT are *EXTREMELY* improbable.
>
> Well, so was the Internet, I figure.
What, improbable?
Actually, that could be argued, as the Internet is the predictable
outcome of the most common large scale engineering pattern. The pattern
further suggests such things as information appliances, and eventually,
a common standard for a global information space that supports a
complete meta-information structure.
The pattern isn't even particularly new, as the pattern was expressed on
at least two previous occasions. Still, my sense of wonder agrees with
you: the Internet is pretty darn improbable.
> But just as limited bandwidth
> overcame router protocols as the issue of general concern, so does I/O
> and RAM outweigh CPU bottlenecks as the limiting factor on the desktop.
CPU power is not currently the meaningful bottleneck due to the phase
relationships involved. The amount of CPU power neccessary to make the
next quantum leap in computer technology will very quickly change that,
though.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Mark Kelley <[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 17:18:43 -0500
BZZZT! Wrong. If you read my messages, you will see that I never said what you
ascribe to me. In fact, I have stated that I agree with government oversight of
business and believe that there are things which government does best. Your last
statement, with the exception of calling me a "jerk," is something I might have said
(although I would have worked on the spelling a bit).
If you want to argue, find out if you really disagree before you go attacking
people. You come off looking like a jerk, yourself.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Mark Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >> >Even a cursory reading of history should convince you otherwise.
> >>
> >> No. A cursory reading results in knee-jerk answers, as you have shown. A
> >> thoughtful, reflective reading leads one to analysis and different answers.
> >> -- Is government perfect? No. People aren't either and certainly not people
> >> driven only by the profit motive -- which you are suggesting would do a better
> >> job on everything if left alone.
>
> >Try the cursory reading, at the least, and come back prepared to discuss the
> >issue.
>
> You're being a jerk. You know there are problems best solved by government,
> and some best solved by business -- and some, that businees won't even work on
> with government handouts -- Yet you want to paint the issues in black and
> white. Are you on the far-right?
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -----------------------------------------------------------
--
Mark Kelley
Agriculture Information Systems
Purdue University
------------------------------
From: "James Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: MacOS X: under the hood... (was Re: There is only one innovation that
matters...)
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 14:38:59 -0700
There are many different 'versions' of the DHCP protocol - and the BeOS
doesn't support all of them, unfortunately. Perhaps support will show up
later as patches get put out.
The way I ducked around this is to set it statically (manually type in the
needed information) into the Network Preferences dialog. You'll have to get
them from a DHCP compatible OS such as windows or linux though...
james
"Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:_Di05.12101$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Shice Beoney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:gdf05.505$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Alan Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >In article <HuZ%4.10315$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Quantum
> > >Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If I might interject, I'd like to ask:
> > Why the hell is this being X-Posted to comp.sys.be.advocacy?
> >
> I have no idea, but who ever created the message, though it would nice
to
> include you also. ;)
>
> I never did get Be to work with my Cable modem. (so it Be related)
>
>
------------------------------
From: Jim Broughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I just don't buy it
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 18:23:52 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Craig Kelley wrote:
>
> "Davorin Mestric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > "Davorin Mestric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > "Ian Pulsford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > There has been some discussion about M$ .NET. I just don't see the
> > > > > advantages of it from a home user perspective or a business
> > perspective.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Is a home user really going to want to store private documents on
> > > > > some remote server?
> > > >
> > > > yes, if those 'private documents' are actually book orders or
> > something.
> > > > where would you store your amazon.com order?
> > > >
> > > > as for running word over the internet, this will bomb, but this is
> > not
> > > > what .NET is about. .NET is about developing web sites in a better way,
> > the
> > > > only C# demo i've seen so far was for a web store.
> > >
> > > Read the interview with Ballmer in this week's eWeek.
> > >
> > > .NET is going to be their deployment system for everything, including
> > > Office, in the future. You won't "buy" software in the store anymore,
> > > you'll just lease it from Microsoft's .NET servers.
> >
> > so, where does it says that you have to store your documents on the
> > server? you can rent the software (which will be very unpopular, i think)
> > from a central server, and still have all your documents saved localy.
>
> I think both will be unpopular, and the death of Microsoft if they
> attempt to force it on anyone.
>
> I can't imagine renting Word 2002 over a 56k modem, much less storing
> it's minimum-30kb-sized documents as well.
>
> > right now, the net is mostly new APIs for developers, CLR, common
> > language runtime, which basically becomes a new API you program to, and,
> > thankfully, it will be based on WFC. then you have stuff like GDI+, which
> > is more new APIs.
> >
> > then you have ASP+, which allows a HTML client to actually do more work
> > than now (not less, as the original poster was complaining about). ASP+
> > allows you to run your controls on the server, so the data exchange between
> > a server and a client can happen on the control level, rather than on the
> > page level. (but it is still supported for old clients). this actually puts
> > more control on the client, not less.
>
> Hmmm, exactly like jsp/java has been doing for years now?
>
>
> (But from everything I've heard so far, it sounds more like a scheme
> to obviate HTML, Java and open standards while at the same time
> getting people to rent their software.)
>
> --
> The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
> Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
Can you say EMBRACE AND EXTEND? there I knew you could.
Jim Broughton
--
(The Amiga OS! Now there was an OS)
If Sense were common everyone would have it!
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
