Linux-Advocacy Digest #802, Volume #27 Thu, 20 Jul 00 02:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (ZnU)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Isaac)
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 (Tholen) ("Slava Pestov")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Christopher Browne)
Re: Some Windows weirdnesses... (Russell Wallace)
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? (Perry Pip)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Paul E. Larson)
Re: [OT] intuitive (was Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready! I'm
ready! I'm not ready.)) (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 05:07:33 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:
> >
> > > "Joe Ragosta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > Enough facts for Microsoft to be convicted of breaking numerous
> > > > laws.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It only takes one judge, btw.
> > >
> > > It takes more than one judge. That's the beauty of the legal
> > > system. MS was on the path to being railroaded by this judge from
> > > day one which was his first mistake. The findings of fact are the
> > > culmination of his railroading activity. No Microsoft evidence
> > > was looked at during his "finding of fact" where he merely
> > > re-wrote the DOJ's opening statements.
> >
> > Microsoft "evidence?" Like that fraudulent video tape? Or maybe you
> > mean all that hand waving and screaming about taking things out of
> > context? Strange Microsoft never bothered to release that context
> > to clear those issues up.
>
> Or how bout the CEO of Real Networks getting up as a witness to
> perjure himself with a tale of how Microsoft purposely broke his Real
> Player. Only to be found out as a liar who KNEW beforehand that it
> was a bug in his player which MS had recently informed him about.
That isn't Microsoft evidence. What's this amazing Microsoft evidence
the judge ignored? Please, do tell.
> > > It will all be thrown out.
> >
> > Not unless Bush gets elected and Microsoft buys him. Even that
> > might not work, because Microsoft's competitors are all big
> > companies with deep pockets as well.
>
> I thought they didn't have any competition, and surely not any
> competition with deep pockets.
Microsoft doesn't have any competitors in the x86 desktop OS market.
Some of its competitors in other areas have been trying to break
Microsoft's desktop monopoly, but Microsoft has been using market power
illegally to thwart their efforts.
That's what this entire trial is about. Haven't you been paying
attention?
--
This universe shipped by weight, not by volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 04:47:32 GMT
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 23:51:59 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>The importance of a term, word, or idiom, is its description, not its
>definition; the concept to be understood, not the code to be resolved.
>I imagine that makes it seem like I'm saying any word can mean anything
>I want, but in fact it constitutes an argument for the opposite. An
>accurate, consistent, and practical vocabulary is vitally necessary, as
>you've observed. But your insinuation that your argument rests purely
>on matters of definition of terms means you don't really have an
>argument. Merely a contention, and one which does not stand up very
>well to argument, at that.
>
When the original poster asked whether the RIPEM case would end up
being an issue of law or an issue of fact, do you suppose he was
using your definition or the one everyone else uses? Given your
somewhat unconventional thinking, I'd guess he wanted an answer
based on something more common.
In a legal case the who, what, where, when and why are the facts.
There is an issue of fact when party one says X happened and party
two says it did not. If all parties agree that X,Y and Z happened,
then the only remaining question is how the law should be interpreted
and applied to the facts.
The RIPEM case has been discussed endlessly over a number of years.
I've yet to hear any serious agreement from parties on either side
about exactly what happened in what order. All the discussion I've
ever heard has been about exactly how the law would be interpreted
and applied to those agreed upon facts.
Isaac
------------------------------
From: "Slava Pestov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 (Tholen)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 15:15:02 +1000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman) wrote:
>> Another unsubstantiated claim.
>
> Check the archive, Slava.
>
The burden of archive checking is yours, tinman. You made the unsubstantiated
claim.
>>
>> On what basis do you deny your own written words?
>
> What alleged "words"?
The ones you snipped, tinman.
>
> [snip]
Illogical.
>>
>> Check the archive, tinman.
>
> What alleged "archive"?
Don't you know?
> [snip]
Argument by repetition, eh tinman? Ineffective.
>>
>> What alleged "Tholen emissions"?
>
> The ones that result from digestion,
I see no evidence of "digestion" here.
> and which nuture the blooming
> daisies.
Evidence, please.
>> > ("
>>
>> What alleged '("'?
>
> What alleged "alleged"?
The one I wrote, tinman. Meanwhile, you still haven't answered my
question.
>
>> >
>> >> > now that Tholen's back on CSMA.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> I wonder how Dave Tholen would react to your claims that he's
>> >> "back on CSMA".
>> >
>> > Ask him, I'm sure he'll answer to your satisfaction.
>>
>> I'm not here for "satisfaction", tinman.
>
> Then why are you here?
>
Don't you know?
> [snip]
>
Irrelevant.
>
>>
>> Argument by repetition, eh tinman? Ineffective.
>
> Yet entertaining.
On what basis do you make this claim?
> ("
>
Argument by repetition, eh tinman? Ineffective.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 01:16:24 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Phillip Lord in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
> My own feeling is that the employee, employer relationship
>is fundamentally flawed, and is something that we should be rid
>off. In a democratic society I can see no justification for
>maintaining a feudal hierarchy in the work place.
Look, we may be smart, even emergent and potentially transcendent. But
we are, after all, just hairless monkeys. Railing against "feudal
hierarchies" is a time-honored tradition. But if you get rid of one,
you just end up with another.
>"Companies" should
>all be publicly accountable and controlled not by directors but by
>those parts of society which are most directly affected by their
>activities, namely the workforce, and the users of the industries
>produce. This is what I mean by extending democracy to all parts of
>life.
I call it idealistic socialism. Oddly enough, I've recently been saying
very similar things to the first part of your comment; that companies
(specifically, corporations) must be considered to exist in order to
provide goods. This in contrast to the common understanding that
"companies exist to make money". I don't like free-floating greed. But
then, I don't like free-floating idealism, either. Your description of
"democracy to all parts of life" seems much more similar to socialism
and even communism than democracy, to be perfectly honest.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
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?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 05:18:23 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Donovan Rebbechi would say:
>On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 23:20:07 -0400, Larry Smith wrote:
>>> to feel the need to hole themselves up with an arsenal. I even oppose
>>> gun control, and I still don't think that's a rational response to
>>> social or civil situations.
>>>
>>Neither is the use of elite Federal swat teams against citizens.
>
>Depends on what the citizens are doing now doesn't it. If the citizens
>are armed and dangerous, that's all the more reason to send in an elite
>who can stay *calm* when confronted by someone who's armed and dangerous.
>Better the swats than a bunch of young NYPD cops IMO.
Tough call...
--> Stressed out cops that are out of the area that they're used to
dealing with? Bad thing...
--> Professional, _actually_ elite, "SWAT team" that is as good at
staying calm under the pressure? Good thing...
--> "Elite" SWAT team, that has practiced well for gunfights, which
is very skilled at vaporizing their targets, and who successfully
eliminate the targets 95% of time? That leaves only a 5% chance
of survival, no?
We'd all prefer to see that second group come, and work to calm down
a stressful situation.
But what's the likelihood of seeing that, versus "trigger-happy
Rambo-wannabees"? If the risk of the latter is high, the likelihood of
survival with the "young NYPD cops" might well be better.
Of course, Madame Reno did get to pick from the best of the FBI
when they went into Miami, and had _strong_ political motivations
(as did the FBI agents themselves, I'm sure) to make sure that
they went with Group #2. (Mind you, they weren't going after a
_citizen_, strictly speaking...)
>>Trained professions negotiate with such people
>
>I think they tried.
For weeks and months, involving people at the highest levels of the
US government.
>>very least, public acknowledgement of what was done and by who and the loss
>>of their jobs.
>
>On what grounds ? If "excessive force" was used, who was injured ? Was any
>one even moderately harmed physically ? IMO they did the job right --
>they enforced the law without hurting anyone. Which is what law enforcement
>agencies are supposed to do.
Indeed. There were _no_ deaths, and I never heard any reports of
hospitalizations, and I would have expected to hear any such things
trumpeted to the skies. "Bruised and bloodied by the FBI thugs.
SEE THE SCARS."
But that is not the case.
The complaints were that "surely this brutalized the boy mentally,"
which is vastly more difficult to prove in a conclusive way.
>The Cuban lobby and their sympathisers are simply upset that the law was
>enforced at all. I think they would have grumbled at any attempt to enforce
>the law in this instance.
Indeed.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/>
Who needs fault-tolerant computers when there's obviously an ample
market of fault-tolerant users?
------------------------------
From: Russell Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Some Windows weirdnesses...
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 06:26:19 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Colin R. Day wrote:
> File permissions. Not too important on a stand-alone machine that
> only one person can access (but even here, better to run that
> suspicious email attachment in a dummy account), but very helpful
> on a machine that is accessed by multiple users.
True. I hadn't been thinking of that as a feature of the file system
per se, but either way I agree, for servers it's definitely something
you want.
--
"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem."
Russell Wallace
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.esatclear.ie/~rwallace
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: 20 Jul 2000 05:27:45 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 20 Jul 2000 14:33:31 +1000,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Alternatively, you could fix it to do endianness changes, by changing
>"& 1" to "& 0xff", ">>=1" to ">>=8" and "<<=1" to "<<=8".
Thanks. I was sleeping when I wrote that.
>Lastly, for performance reasons, it is probably a bad idea to do all
>this work on *word --- which the compiler cannot assume much about, and
>thius has to be overly careful with. Instead, you should have a second
>local temp variable. and only at the end of things assign its value to
>*word. That will allow the compiler to use a register for it (as it knows
>that the variable's address has never been used, and that thus it knows
>every possible access to it).
Wouldn't a good optimizing compiler reckognize it's in a loop and do
that anywhays?
Perry
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 15:41:17 +1000
"Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8l5uf3$3dr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi all,
>
> Paul Thurrott's WinInfo has this report on Microsoft sales:
> http://www.wininformant.com/display.asp?ID=2832
>
> And it contains this paragraph:
> "And the U.S. Navy announced that its next generation aircraft carriers,
the
> CVN-77, will use Windows 2000 for its mission-critical Integrated Warfare
> System."
>
> Frankly I'm dumbfounded.
>
> Now I don't believe Linux is ready be used in such situations either. But
to
> trust such an important function to a closed source and potentially not
100%
> reliable operating system seems remarkable (do BSOD ever occur on HCL
> hardware?). Also, I thought Windows 2000 only runs on Intel hardware (and
> aren't there potentially more reliable hardware solutions?)
>
> I would have thought that the US Navy would at least use an open
> source/viewable source operating system that they could analyse for
suspect
> code, stability and potential security vulnerabilities.
I don't agree with it, but the government would most certainly have a
source code license for such an important function, so the arguments of
"closed source" are moot.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 01:36:50 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Phillip Lord in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
> This is an interesting idea. What you are saying is that there
>should be public funds available for small start up businesses, if I
>am reading you right? But many of these schemes already exist, at
>least in my country.
I'm thinking a much larger scale. To me, the responsibility of
successful businesses include contributing (fiscally) to a democratic
(publicly accessible) pool of capital. All banks (in addition to being
strictly vertically and horizontally regulated) must make an appreciable
portion of their assets available, essentially as a forced investment.
> Max> Whatever might be workable, it is going to have to involve the
> Max> government (giving other's a chance to compete doesn't seem to
> Max> be high on the list of current business's priorities), but it
> Max> has to come from society, not caveat of law.
>
> The problem is that government and business are intimately
>interlinked.
That's not a problem, just a fact. Society and business are also
interlinked, as are government and society. This "rock-paper-scissors"
game is the same kind of thing which works so well within the government
itself, by providing checks and balances between legislature, judicial,
and executive powers.
> I am not saying that I don't like the idea, but feel that
>its a rather small sticking plaster, over the huge gash of the class
>divide.
There isn't a huge gash. We've been on-track for removing the vast
majority of social ills for centuries, now. We need to improve, that's
all. I think it just *seems* like a huge gash because:
A) Anti-trust was abandoned at precisely the wrong time in history,
allowing 80% of the financial gains experienced in the 1980s to be
enjoyed by less than 10% of the population. So the gash is getting
larger, particularly in the developed world, on average. But it is
still smaller than it has been throughout most of history.
B) The continuation of the "pro-business" (pro-exploitation) trend of
the 80s was continued into the later 1990s, when 90% of all media
outlets fell under the ownership of only 16 mega-corporations. This so
discombobulates public perception of issues so much that it is alarming
when you look at real data and see how bad the situation has
deteriorated. The penchant people have for automatically assuming that
these changes in the last twenty years are *responsible* for the great
advances in consumer services and technology is problematic. It is as
likely on the face of it that the same growth and technical advance was
merely used as a convenient justification for the exploitation of the
many by the few. Doubtless, the truth lies in-between, but its tough
not to consider these as dangerous indicators. The average man should
never even have to consider the concept of a global force which has
self-interests which may in any way conflict with his own.
C) It is easier to be an angry young man than it is to be a volunteer
worker in an undeveloped country. On the real scale of things, its
tough to make a living, even tougher to acquire capital. But its still
easier than a lot of other things, and we all have to deal with our
circumstances.
--
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: "Christopher Smith" <[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: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 15:45:26 +1000
"R. Tang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8l5ro7$1kt6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8l5jh2$8h2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> >You could replace MS with any other
> >> >company and I assure you, I'd be saying the same things.
> >>
> >> I find that hard to believe.
> >
> >*shrug*. Not much I can do to change that.
>
> I dunno...Better arguments would be a start....
Given it would appear we have a difference of opinion at the fundamental
level on which the whole thing is based, I doubt I could come up with any
arguments that would sway you.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 01:38:35 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Phillip Lord in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>>>> "Max" == T Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >>> [...]Within both the US and the UK the rate of TB is rising (TB
> >>> is simply caused by the conditions of poverty).
> >> I think resistance to drugs has something to do with it as well.
>
> Max> According to the World Health Organization, the rise is due to
> Max> both "issues of health service delivery" as well as "changing
> Max> social and economic situations" (read: poverty) in addition to
> Max> antibiotic resistance.
>
> And would those "issues of health service delivery" have
>anything to do with problems like the anti TB drugs being expensive?
>In fact too expensive for the poor to afford?
>
> I think this reduces to issues of poverty again.
Yes, both issues I considered to be appropriately read as poverty.
You're harping. But what are you gonna do? Change the world?
--
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: "Christopher Smith" <[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: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 15:46:06 +1000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 10:18:00 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >> OTOH, they were quite willing and capable to alter any other aspect of
> >> the product for you. Yet the system software remained oddly fixed.
> >
> >No, they weren't. They would alter "any other aspect" *within their
tested
> >configurations*. IOW, you couldn't get them to install and support some
>
> ...and just what's so untested about configuration that
> is merely missing one of the components?
So you think if I take a seatbelt out of a car its going to be anywhere near
as safe ?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul E. Larson)
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 05:43:37 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
wrote:
>On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 01:34:59 GMT, Paul E. Larson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>And now we have the qualifiers!
>
> ...someone you can expect most consumers to buy from.
>
> This rules out most mail order, fly-by-night cottage computer
> stores and flea markets.
>
Unbelievable!
Paul
--
"Mr. Rusk you not wearing your tie." -- Frenzy 1972
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Re: [OT] intuitive (was Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready!
I'm ready! I'm not ready.))
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 01:45:24 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 03:39:56 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Simply control the graphics cursor without the mouse.
>
> The Atari ST did this quite nicely. Either Windows or X
> should be able to do the same even with a small addon...
I would have to dispute every single word of your suggestion.
"Simply?" "Control?" "Graphics cursor?"... you get the idea.
You *emulate* a mouse with a keyboard, or you need a GUI with much less
control resolution than a few hundred pixels. It makes a good *actual*
emergency (system on fire) back-up, if you don't have a mouse. I'd
never consider it for routine use. Even the idea of a joystick to run a
GUI is just plain wrong. And I actually learned my first GUI with a
joystick. (Something on a C64... something Works? ~=GEM? desk...?)
I've never tried a track ball for any length of time; it might get as
familiar as a mouse. But I think there is something specific about
WIMP; without the mouse, it just doesn't work.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
