Linux-Advocacy Digest #958, Volume #27 Tue, 25 Jul 00 16:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. ("Yannick")
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. ("Yannick")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 15:10:07 -0400
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > Drestin Black wrote:
> > >
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:8le8v7$60q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > >> Yikes! If I give you 0x00012345, you'd give me back 0x00452301,
> which
> > > is
> > > > >> completely wrong. There is a huge difference between something
> begin
> > > zero
> > > > >> and something being empty, or not existant.
> > > >
> > > > >Yes, you are right. That was a mistake and easily fixed.
> > > >
> > > > Well, it kinda shows that your whole idea of figuring out the size of
> > > > the integer you are passed is doomed. I mean, you go "Convert it to
> > > > hex, and then count digits" --- however, doing that, you cannot decide
> > > > whether you were passed a 16 bit integer, or a 32 bit integer with the
> top
> > > > 16 bits happening to be zero.
> > >
> > > I made a stupid assumption that worked within the limited knowledge I
> have
> >
> > No... you just made a stupid assumption.
>
> whatever...
Spoken like a true loser who realizes he's been complete beat
by his own failure to perform a simple task.
>
> >
> > the "limited knowledge" was derived from what you, yourself built
> > into your pathetic attempt at writting code to solve the problem.
> >
> >
> >
> > > of endian math. Again, I do not perform these functions. Ever. So I have
> no
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > translation: Drestin never strays off the Microsoft ranch.
>
> not often, nope... it's the biggest and most profitable ranch...
You're joking, right?
The salary ceiling for unix Admins is around $150,000/year.
Triple that if you also have hotshot Oracle or Informix DBA skills.
In fact, the best combo DBA/SysAdmin types routinely charge
$200 PER HOUR (Including travel time such as going to the airport,
sitting on the plane, travel from the airport to the hotel, travel
from the hotel to the site) plus expenses (travel costs, lodging,
meals, phone calls, etc.)
Why? Because well-tuned Unix systems will more than cover the costs
of that man's expertise as his work can be leveraged against large
numbers of machines.
Conversely, NT farms need a very large number of admins just to
keep on limping along.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > knowledge of the problem other than a single reference I found on the
> web in
> > > a perl newsgroup plus mention of a function called "Swap" in delphi 5.
> >
> > Did you, or did you not claim that you have been programming for
> > several decades???
>
> 18+ years...
And you've NEVER heard of the big-endian / little-endian problem.
Drestin Black...full-time computer novice, impersonating a programmer.
No wonder you use an alias. If anybody found out your true identity,
you'd never work in the computer business again.
>
> >
> > If that is the case, then you could not have avoided the 'big endian'
> > vs. 'little endian' problem.
>
> oh yea? well guess what - you are wrong. Flat out wrong. I have never ever
> had need to perform an endian flip. The only applications I've written that
Neither of I, but I'm aware of the damned *ISSUES* involved with
data transfers over a heterogenous network.
> I care to speak about (with the very very small sampling of some very
> limited C code under BSD and a spattering of Fortran and RPG ages ago under
> some *nix variatant I can't even remember) were for either MS-DOS or
> Windows - all on Intel hardware.
I.e. Drestin knows basic. He fiddled with a couple of real languages,
and couldn't hack it, so he retreated back to the safe cacoon of
BEGINNER'S all-purpose symbolic instruction code.
>
> All the networking applications I've worked on ran on MS-DOS or Windows
> between Intel machines on MS networks.
I.e. Drestin doesn't get out much. Drestin isn't allowed anywhere
close to the real applications which run Delphi.
> I laugh in your face at the
> suggestion that all programmers have performed endian flips. You are stupid.
Yeah, that's why I'm making double what you make.
>
> >
> >
> > In other words, I am calling you the LIAR that you are.
>
> And I say you are a wanker - carry on.
You've already lost credibility....a long time ago.
>
> >
> > What is the effective range of an M-16A1: 450 meters.
>
> as if you'd have a clue ... or would remotely have the chance of hitting a
> target at.
The US Army says otherwise.
I'll tell ya what... I know a big old gravel pit. I'll take a
1960's era AR-15 using stock ammo, and I'll arrange for you to
have my cousin's match-grade AR-15A2 with match-load ammo,
and we'll see who survives the longest.
Are you game for that?
> >
> >
> > What is the effective range of an excuse? ZERO meters.
>
> you are very familiar with these things I'm sure.
You're not the first person I've seen who attempts to use excuses as
if they are weapons. You're such a masochist.
Do you go out and practice blocking punches with your face?
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 13:27:50 -0600
Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> <sarcasm>
>
> Yes, I'm sure most people you ask will identify ntoskrnl.exe instead of
> Windows 2000 as the Operating System.
>
> </sarcasm>
And this is relevant . . . how?
Ignorance does not make something irrelevant to the ignorant. It simply
makes it easier for those who *DO* know (who aren't ignorant) to
manipulate those who are.
> Proper CS definitions have very little to do with how those definitions are
> used in the real world.
Proving, once again, that the Government *HAD* to step into the whole MS
thing. Democracy and the free market depends on educated citizens and
consumers. When ignorance is the rule, when, in fact, ignorance is
praised, Democracy and the free market fails.
> Glad we agree that every OS being sold is being "tied".
You two may agree . . . but you'd both be wrong. "Tying", requires some
legal and financial aspects that are not present in any Linux
distribution that I am aware of.
> A text editor is in no way necessary to use a kernel.
True . . . but so backwards, that your point is irrelevant. A kernel is
a foundation system. Any attempt to define a dependency relationship
between a kernel and an application can only be successful if drawn in a
single direction: from the application to the kernel.
Any statements re: the need to have an application in order to use a
kernel must be interpreted to mean that the kernel is neccessary to run
the application, never vice versa.
> Neither are 90% of
> the things that ship with every commercial OS on earth.
Irelevant to the issue of "tying".
> I also recall the inclusion of a TCP/IP stack in Windows 95 "wiped out" the
> aftermarket TCP/IP stack for Windows industry. Not many people were
> complaining.
Of course not many people were complaining . . . TCP/IP is not an
application, TCP/IP is properly a part of the kernel.
> Ditto for disk maintenance utilities and multimedia tools.
There *WERE* complaints about this, and rightly so.
> > Of course it is.
>
> I see. So Microsoft should be developing OSes for their competitors.
Nope. MS, however, should be required to create and maintain systems
that have open, public standard interfaces.
> > They own the interfaces.
>
> Really ? Microsoft own x86, the BIOS, PnP etc ? Fascinating, I never knew
> that.
That response was a red herring. Did you know that, or are you
confused?
First you dimiss, then embrace, the same basic concept. A little bit of
consistency on your part would be appreciated.
> So anyone is free to wander off and make an exact copy of AIX ?
Straw man.
The point wasn't "AIX", it was "interface".
And yes, to a great extent, anybody who wants to can create an OS that
is *INTERFACE* *COMPATIBLE* to AIX.
> How, pray
> tell ?
By using something that you claim is moot to the consumer . . . Computer
Science.
> You can't have alternate distributions of Windows anymore than you cna have
> alternate distributions of MacOS. Both are the intellectual property of
> their respective developers and hence, totally under their control.
Precisely the point. This simple fact is what would make Apple a
monopoly, had it won 90% of the market.
> > This is the 'pseudo-capitalists' cop out.
>
> No, it's the blatant truth.
No, it's not. It fails the most basic test: consistency with reality.
Several attempts to create an interface compatible version of Windows
have been sabotaged by MS.
> If you can make a compelling alternative to
> Windows then nothing stops you from selling it.
Nothing but Federal Law, that is.
> > >That it is so easy to make a compelling alternative in the Linux market
> and
> > >not in the Windows market is not Microsoft's fault.
> >
> > Sure it is.
>
> No, it isn't.
Yes, it is. Secret and proprietary interfaces, combined with a great
deal of pressure on Congress to get them to enact certain pieces of
legislation designed to protect their monopoly, is indeed the fault of
MS.
> > They actively seek to put barriers in place to
> > prevent this sort of thing.
>
> No more than any other company with a product and market to protect.
Not true. There are other companies who either don't put up as many
barriers, or don't put up such high barriers, as MS does.
The Unix market is the perfect example.
> > A great historic example of this
> > was DR-DOS.
>
> Pfft. DR-DOS was never especially popular because of compatibility issues.
Bzzt! Wrong. DR-DOS was never especially popular because MS used a
techno-lie to manipulate the market.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Yannick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 19:31:02 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft;
> >WindowsNT 1 FAILURE/Didn't work as advertised
> >WindowsNT 2 FAILURE/Didn't work as advertised
> >WindowsNT 3 Written by a team from DEC
As far as I remember, Windows NT 1 and 2 never existed,
rather 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5
But I may be wrong...
Yannick.
------------------------------
From: "Yannick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 19:31:06 GMT
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Said Yannick in alt.destroy.microsoft;
> >David Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
> >8l6en9$ia0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(snip)
> >You'll notice that all PC OSes in the last twelve or five years have needed about
> >five-seven years to get some technical completion and/or commercial success.
>
> While each putatively successful one was "established" after three to
> six months. Their "market acceptance" rarely grew much after that, in
> the face of Microsoft's illegal tactics.
>
Well, Linux and OS/2 at least contradict this. Linux had practically no success until
perhaps 1998. OS/2's sales exploded between OS/2 2.1 and OS/2 Warp 3. Or so I
remember.
> >This was more or less the case for Windows (Windows 3.1 was the real start of the
> >thing).
>
> No, Windows 3.0 was. It just took until 3.1 was released for the market
> to catch up.
Perhaps. My personal experience is that I started seeing windows in lots of places
since version 3.1
> >This was the case for OS/2 (which had a great success once it was
> >able to run on reasonable machines, and with full support of DOS and Windows 16 bit
> >applications).
>
> Yes, and the "Warp" version (actually 4.0, IIRC) was the one that MS
> intentionally broke after they implemented hooks into 3.1 in order to
> support Win32 apps. Apparently, MS had not documented the API
> sufficiently for any other OS to support Windows applications
> (identically to the current case with Wine, but the Linux developers
> haven't even the support that IBM did). IBM had a source code license
> to 3.1, however, so they just hard-coded the hooks. Microsoft
> immediately, and without their characteristic pre-announcements,
> released 3.11. This was a couple dlls from Windows for Workgroups, a
> forthcoming product. Microsoft's anti-competitive development/marketing
> machine was, I think, trying to clear out the Novell space with talk of
> NT, and Windows for Workgroups to scare off a very popular peer-to-peer
> PC solution, Lantastic. WFW wasn't ready yet, but they made up some
> reason to release new binaries. The entire purpose, of course, was to
> break Warp's Windows support.
As far as I remember ...
OS/2 supported Windows from version 2.0, or maybe 2.1. Then you could use
your own Windows with OS/2 (instead of paying the license twice).
As for OS/2's support of 3.11, IIRC, MS issued a patch quickly to restore
the possibility to use it under OS/2. But I may be wrong.
OS/2 Warp 4 was more recent.
> >It's being the case for linux.
> >It was about the same problem for BeOS. There are surely other examples.
>
> I have no idea what kind of Windows support there might be in BeOS.
None, as far as I remember. They encourage dual-boot. (They think to act as
a niche market OS. Use Windows or whatever for general purpose apps.
Use BeOS for multimedia apps.)
> >So you may say that Windows NT reached some kind of technical completion
> >with Windows 2000. It's true that the step seems quite big since NT4.
>
> It is already a worse nightmare than both Win98 and NT when they were
> first introduced. Even a monopolized market is rejecting it, just as
> its generally rejected Win98, as much as it can.
As to what I hear :
* I heard absolutely NO complaints about Windows 2000. Not that many
people are using it yet, but all those I know who use it are pleased...
* I heard somewhere that Win2000 is selling about quite as expected,
if not better.
* Upgrading to Win2000 is no small affair. Many benefits of Win2000
require to upgrade your entire network, and moreover may require
careful planning to get the best out of it. (according to a sysadmin I
worked with). So, people are not in a hurry because they are waiting
until sufficient people have installed the thing to know the DOs and DONTs
of the operation.
> >As for Win9x... Well, this is a particular case. It has the commercial success
>because
> >it is a replacement of Windows (16 bit, I mean). But the goal is to have some middle
> >point between a consumer OS and a professional OS. Technically speaking, the goal
> >is not completely achieved : Whistler would be best. To sum it up : there is still a
> >lot of things to do to Win9x, which is only five years old and is burdened by legacy
> >and hardware multiplicity. It desperately needs a cash cow or we will have to pay
> >it at retail price. Ouch.
>
> Win95 has commercial success because Microsoft promised to be nice and
> signed a consent decree, which the gov't and the market naively allowed.
> Everything after that was just marketing bullshit, with no technical
> merit, just enough bundled toys to keep the jerks who knew enough to
> worry, but not enough to catch the scam.
I think Win95 had commercial success because hanging an application did not
hang the system, because the multitasking was preemptive at long last, and
the interface a bit nicer... helped a lot by forcing OEM to install it, of course.
I think that the reason why the first version of Win95 was such a crap is because
they released it prematurely, fearing to lose the market to OS/2 Warp (the choice
was even at the time since OS/2 could run almost any Win3.1 app.)
> The goal is, according to Bill
> Gates himself, that everyone has to pay him to use any PC, or the
> Internet. He's evil, and you're stupid, and a troll.
Since you have decided -again- to insult me, I will answer that at least I'm
not Pavlov's dog, spitting "evil", "monopoly", "criminal", "illegal",
"anti-competitive", "crap", "lame design", and so on each time I use the word
"Microsoft".
> > I think windows suffers a lot from its
> >wide audience.
>
> I think Windows, and Windows users, suffer a lot from anti-competitive
> business practices. It ain't that hard to run a PC, regardless of your
> audience. Its still a PC.
You are dreaming. It's like saying that a car is a car. Most cars
share the same general architecture, with most parts following
some general rules. Yet they are very different from each other,
and a car repair will have a hard time knowing how to repair all of them.
>
> >Lots of different hardware, lots of different software.
>
> The hardware vendors support a PC spec,
They should, now do they ? Here the problems begin...
> the software vendors support an API; all MS has to do is
> provide the *commodity code* in the middle.
It's true that older parts of the Windows API are strange and
difficult to understand (= bad). But there are also people who
do not respect the little information we have, and make suppositions
on who it should work. Which doesn't help compatibility.
That's also why they cannot publish all the undocumented APIs they
experiment : people will take them for granted and immuable, when
they are not.
> >Lots of
> >strange combinations of both. You'll tell me that a well designed system does
> >not suffer from this. This is partially true. There are hardware and software
> >that do not respect the rules, and there is a minimum set of rules to follow lest
> >you have a system that spends all its time rising barriers and preventing apps from
> >doing things, from fear it becomes dangerous for the system. Besides, there is
>legacy.
> >It's not easy to deal with legacy.
>
> Its not easy to maintain a monopoly. Too bad the monopolist doesn't pay
> for it; their customer's do.
This has no relation to what I said in that paragraph.
> >So you have MS, who needs to support lots of strange hard & soft, who needs to
>support
> >its legacy to keep its market share, who needs to develop new things for the system
>to
> >stay up to date. And on the other side understands that Win9x will never do the
>trick
> >and will need to be replaced by Win2K... All of this with moderate prices because
>free
> >linux is trying to force the door open.
>
> Moderate prices?
Remember that not so long ago, Windows was sold about the same price and was considered
an illegal competitor because they were selling it too cheap, especially to OEMs. But
now
that linux is on the market, the rules have changed, of course.
> >Do you really think they could avoid using Office money ? Of course, not THAT much
money.
> >By far, probably. Office was the cash cow for the whole company. But yet, without
>any
> >Office money? I'm not sure of this.
>
> If you're going to keep harping about a cash cow, maybe you should
> demonstrate that Windows (any and/or all flavors) is a loss leader.
> Seems to me it has a much greater margin than the "cash cow", and still
> brings in hundreds of millions (possibly billions, if you follow honest
> accounting practices). Poor poor struggling Microsoft; as if they
> actually find it tough to write code when they don't have to compete
> with anyone, because they can always leverage the monopoly.
>
I believe that if MS made such money on Windows it would have improved
much more, which would have avoided using illegal practices to maintain the
monopoly.
> Now they're at the mercy of the court.
Of an US court, which is not really competent for such an affair.
> They're a criminal organization (...)
> There is nothing good in MS (...)
How sensible and full of nuances..
You are so blinded by your hate of MS that you do not (or pretend not to) see the good
in
MS ; there _is_ some good in MS. Whatever the people at the top of the
company are, do and decide, there are hundreds of people working for
them, and certainly most of them hoping to be able to make
well-designed products. You are insulting them. If you look closer at what
they do, and especially what they have done in the last few years, you will
find that there are some things that are well-designed or interesting, or
useful, or efficient, etc...
> They stole every good idea they ever had,
1. You cannot steal a public domain idea.
2. Having an idea and not using it is worse than using someone else's idea
and turn it into a reality it would never had if you didn't have implemented it.
(I'm speaking of copied ideas, here. Stolen ideas are another matter) :
I don't know much about CORBA. What I know is that it is similar to COM in the
intent ; and that I've hardly ever seen CORBA used anywhere. Of course, it may
have quite a lot of applications in the professional market, but what of the end-user ?
as far as I know, CORBA is used in GNOME but I heard a rumor saying they wanted to
give it up... MS made COM, and now it is used A LOT on nearly EVERYBODY's computer.
Besides, it is designed to be cross platform and cross language, is easily portable on
unix
(IIRC, Solaris supports COM, and allows for close-source open software.
I don't care who they stole the idea from. They made it real and efficient.
> they bought every good product they ever ruined, and they've done
> absolutely nothing to advance PCs or networking except to try to
> profiteer on everyone else's developments.
and what have YOU done ? They built a wonderful GUI, you call this
"doing absolutely nothing to advance PCs" ?
> You forget; it
> isn't the producers which decide who competes with whom. It is the
> market.
A company cannot do everything it wants. It has to choose.
Whatever it bases its choice on, it's aimed at gaining the user's preference.
What solution they choose necessarily means they choose what category
of competitors they are going to compete against. Of course the market
adds its own part to the puzzle...
> I applaud your suggestion that at least some MS code be
> made public,
Again, I spoke of releasing the architecture, not the source code.
While I am not against the releasing of their source code, (I would like
it, in fact) this is not necessary to make technology open.
> but I fear it is little more than a ruse, because MS
> doesn't think it is an idea worth even considering.
You'll notice that they offered to open part of the source. Of course it
was to avoid a harsher verdict, but still...
> we might as well have them cease to exist.
Now you're turning into an extremist.
> >2. The work on database systems can help where the OS needs to
> >manage internal databases. The work on UI can help enhance the UI
> >provisions of the system. The way the wordprocessor organizes
> >document can benefit to the system's help system, etc...
> >Sharing good practices is about integration of the company, not the
> >software itself.
>
> No, it is about interoperability of the software, or it is about
> monopolization and profiteering.
Which, again, is Pavlov's dog reaction. Strange though, the word Microsoft
doesn't appear here ...
Here I was speaking of a completely different point : how having a single company
for OS and APPS enhances the OS by sharing of good practices. NOTHING ELSE.
> >(snip)
> >> Other companies will certainly be immediate beneficiares of the breakup, but
> >> I believe this will lead to more choice for the end users. Not everything
> >> will improve, but overall it will be to our best.
> >
> >Choice is not an end in itself.[...]
>
> It is for market behavior and thus businesses. It isn't for the
> consumer, but if it isn't there for the market or businesses, it isn't
> their for the consumer, either.
I fear you miss my point. What I say is that computer industry has showed it
has needed some sort of common denominator to progress faster... Reducing
(not removing) the choice on some points widens the choice on others.
For instance, nearly all (all ?) PCs nowadays use a PCI bus for general-purpose
extension cards. When you want to choose an extension card, you have a wide
choice because they are nearly all for PCI buses. Now take the same problem
when some computers used the ISA bus and others the MCA. Whatever the bus
you had, you had a limited choice because the manufacturers had chosen one
bus or the other...
> >Having the tools we want to do what we want is the
> >end. Choice is an excellent means most of the time. Not always. [...]
>
> Yes, always. I cannot see how having a choice between two or more tools
> that do what I want could possibly ever be a bad thing.
Having the choice does not mean preventing most people to choose the same
thing. I do not speak of removing choice, I say that it is not always better for people
to be _forced_ to choose different things.
Mind, I do not say that I want Windows or Word or Visual C++ or Internet Explorer
to be the only or dominant choice, quite the contrary. What I say is that you do not
always have to force people to choose something else, because the choice is not
the end. The end is to get the result you want.
> >On the general point, remember this : I am not against reducing the monopolistic
> >dominance of MS and forcing competition. I'm against destroying MS, especially
> >if it does not efficiently solve the problem of monopoly.
>
> Why? Nothing which integration can provide cannot be provided by
> interoperability.
interoperability is not the contrary of integration. These are two different
concepts. See my recent post about IE.
> If you aren't against competition, you shouldn't be against breaking up
> Microsoft.
What a subtle solution really. Surely there is no other.
> That isn't a risk; its a likely result, since MS has shown little
> ability to compete on technical merits since their inception.
It's all the worse if you think it as a "likely result". It means the
US courts are really not competent (in the legal meaning of the
term of course, I do not say those people do not know their job).
>
> >Whose products are used worldwide and daily for lots of important tasks.
>
> All the more reason to get rid of them. Linux could fill in within
> three to six months, no problem.
(Rolling on the ground). This is ridiculous.
Yannick.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
