Linux-Advocacy Digest #983, Volume #27 Wed, 26 Jul 00 09:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Another one of Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality (Clell A. Harmon)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. ("David Brown")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Clell A. Harmon)
Subject: Re: Another one of Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 12:09:26 GMT
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 01:43:56 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Clell A. Harmon" wrote:
>> >Denial ain't just a river in Egypt....
>>
>> I suppose you wrote this joke too Aaron?
>
>Are you an idiot
>
>a) no
>b) yes
Oh no, now he thinks he's invented the dumb-fuck poll joke.
Put your shrink on danger money Aaron...
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 14:37:29 +0200
T. Max Devlin wrote in message ...
>>> 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.)
>
>It occurs to me that I'm less familiar with the commercial aspects of
>BeOS. I had written it off, literally, soon after I first heard about
>it, but it still comes up. Is this merely due to an "any port in a
>storm" effect?
>
>And what does a "multimedia apps" OS do well in deference to a general
>purpose desktop? (Needless to say, I'm hoping someone who knows
>something more of Be will jump in here.)
>
I don't know so much about BeOS, but I have tried the free version. There
are certainly some things that BeOS does very well - it has a good, fast
file system well suited to large files, and very smooth multi-tasking. This
makes it particularly good for demanding multimedia applications like video
editing.
It is also a fairly simple OS. This makes it suitable for small systems and
embedded or portable devices (BeOS is pushing for this market, and porting
to other CPUs). It is also very stable, and simple to learn and work with.
I think in many ways it is an equivilent to the MacOS on the PC. It does
not have the piles of junk inherent in Windoze, nor does it have the
flexibility of a UNIX system. But it does the job you need, it works they
way you expect, and does not fall over. I have always believed that a very
sizeable proportion of PC users would be better of (i.e., more productive
with less problems) using Macs than PCs - in a fair market for OSes, and
assuming enough apps are developed for BeOS, then BeOS should be filling a
lot of this market.
>
>>* I heard somewhere that Win2000 is selling about quite as expected,
>>if not better.
Only after the "expected" figures were re-adjusted to suit the facts.
>
>You heard the same for 98, too, didn't you? "Press report journalism"
>is an insidious and evil thing, I'll tell you. Win98's rollout was
>*abominable*. Microsoft was hoping for something less surprising but
>more "hyped" than 95. They were *very* sadly disappointed. For anyone
>but a monopoly, the product would have been a complete bomb. W2K is
>only on radar screens because ZDNet and MSNBC insist it is. If it
>creeps onto a mainstream desktop, its definitely by stealth, not market
>acceptance.
>
>>* 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.
>
>Yes, upgrading every version of Windows has always been a "need more
>hardware" issue. Some endlessly criticize Microsoft for it, but I
>don't. If for no other reason than it has outfitted everybody's desktop
>with a $2000 supercomputer, capable of trashing the entire MIPS of the
>planet in the first three quarters of this century.
Why exactly is this a benifit? Perhaps you are a PC salesman, but for the
majority of end users, a W2K, PIII-800, 128 MB machine is no more productive
than a WfW 3.11, P-90, 16 MB machine, or even a DR-DOS 6.0, 386-33, 4 MB
machine. As long as the software fulfills the requirements (and Word
Perfect 7 for DOS does most of what people need of a word processor), why
should faster hardware and slower software be a benifit?
>People see the
>"1.5" in Moore's law, and don't even closely comprehend what it means.
>A measure of density is an *exponential* derivative of computing power.
>And we've got *GIGABYTES* of local persistent storage, for pennies.
We only need it because of software taking up hundreds of MB of disk space.
>
>If it weren't for Microsoft, it is indeed quite possible that nobody
>could have run a mini-computer operating system with a full
>entertainment-grade graphic user interface on a PC for many years to
>come.
Rubbish. You are actually saying that bloat-ware is good because it leads
to more powerful PCs? How about we start making highly inefficient car
engines - it must be a great innovation, because it will lead to bigger
petrol tanks.
There is one thing above all that demands power from a computer, and that is
games. Much of the advance in PC power has been driven by games. And that
would happen whatever MS had done.
>A pity they had to hold up software innovation so long to do it,
>but we're ready to ROCK, now.
Yea, they said that last time.
The point about the costs of upgrading to W2K, however, are not restricted
to the hardware costs of upgrading a particular machine. To get many of the
benifits of W2K, you have to upgrade *everything* on the network. That
means hardware upgrades to all the machines, and software upgrades - more
licence fees to MS for stuff you did not really want except perhaps on a few
computers. And then the huge problems involved with trying to keep some PCs
on older OSes because W2K does not yet support anywhere near the range of
hardware of NT4.0. And then there is the cost of the time to do the
installations and upgrades. And then all the software on each machine needs
to be re-installed. If it works under W2K. And then staff need to be
trained on the differences.
If you are building a new network from scratch, or have only a couple of
machines, then upgrading to W2K is probably no worse than any other Windows
upgrade - i.e., a nightmare, but doable. But if all you want to do is
change over a single server, or a couple of workstations, the MS upgrade
philosophy requires you to turn your whole system on its head. It is no
wonder the takeup of W2K is so very small.
>
>There's *nothing* I love more than free software, except cheap hardware.
>
> [...]
>>> 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 you are confusing Win95 with NT. Win95 does not protect the system
from bad applications - it is better than Win3.1, but bad applications (or
bad system components) can quickly and easily trash the whole system. Win95
does not have proper pre-emptive multi-tasking - it is easy for an
application to take so much of the time that the system is effectively hung.
Even the explorer interface is not properly multi-threaded. The interface
was a bit nicer, however.
>
>Win95's success was due to a consent decree which allowed it to force
>OEMs to sell it. It was the replacement for both DOS and Windows, and
>all MS had to do to establish it as a monopoly was to not sell DOS or
>Windows anymore. Due to their market power, this was an undeniable
>demand, an offer which couldn't be refused. And so the DOS monopoly
>became the Windows monopoly. The former criminal monopoly, of Windows
>3.1, which was used to kill OS/2 and DR-DOS and Deskview, was
>"integrated" into the pre-existing DOS monopoly, consolidating enough
>leverage on Win95 that MS had a realistic chance of "taking over the
>Internet", as outrageous as that may sound.
>
>Bill Gates was all too close to his dream of demanding payment for every
>transfer of information that occurred on *the Internet*. Think about
>that. Hard.
>
>>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.)
Only MS could release a product prematurely 3 years late. But even MS
marketing had a limit (of around a year, IIRC) of how long they can continue
to sell vapourware and compete with existing, far superior products. But
then again, only IBM marketing could take such a brilliant product as OS/2,
with no real competition except this vapourware, and still totally fail to
sell it.
>
>You were right before, BTW. I had miscombobulated earlier versions OS/2
>with Warp, OS/2 4.x. Warp was, instead, a response to Win95.
Warp 3.0 was released about a year before Win95 (about 2 years after Win95,
"Chicago", was anounced).
>Its
>amazing how a quickly a novel component of an operating system becomes
>standard when a monopoly implements it, and internetworking was no
>acception. Warp was to be the LAN version of OS/2, just as Windows for
>Workgroup was.
You are mixing your facts again. Warp Connect was to Warp what WfW 3.11 was
to Win3.11. But your point stands none-the-less.
>But when Win95 tried to bundle MSN, and AOL and
>CompuServe and Prodigy and others complained, Microsoft settled for
>TCP/IP and MSN. Not that MSN ever used TCP/IP; that was an initial
>attempt at what would be called "de-comodotizing" the protocol. But
>with a SLIP dialer, IP was the only standard method, and the
>still-forming "Internet" WWW thing was being viewed as a potential
>alternative to CompuServe, AOL, or Prodigy, and, of course, MSN. So it
>made sense to include it, as the various CIX ISPs were already making
>profit, and Billy Boy just can't stand that. So his MSN idea
>transmuted, eventually, to "the Internet". But Win95 was really
>designed to kill other service providers like AOL and CompuServe and
>Prodigy and others.
>
>You'll notice it worked for all the others, and Prodigy and CompuServe.
>AOL hung on, God knows how (lowest common denominator?), but MSN never
>got anywhere anyway. And so we move on to Win98, and IE.
>
>That one, they finally broke the law so obviously that it could easily
>be proved in court.
>
< Snip the petty name-calling - when are you going to grow up, T. Max? Call
BG evil by all means, but calling someone who is presenting a reasoned
(albeit often wrong, IMHO) arguement "stupid" does not lend itself to
serious discussion. >
>>> Now they're at the mercy of the court.
>>
>>Of an US court, which is not really competent for such an affair.
>
>They are the only competent authority. Have you some alternate reality
>to escape to in order to avoid prosecution under U.S. law for
>restraining trade and monopolizing? US courts are hardly the only ones
>that enforce anti-trust statutes. Microsoft currently faces action in
>Europe and Asia, as well. Several in each, I believe. The argument for
>intentional ignorance goes stronger.
>
I think the point is that US laws and US courts have a rather poor
reputation when it comes to punishing rich people or corporations. I won't
go quite as far as to say they are corrupt, nor will I claim that European
courts are anywhere near perfect, but remember what happened last time MS
got convicted? Their "punishement" was to promise not to do it again, but
with let-out clauses that let them carry on almost exactly as before. Look
at the other sorts of wonderful laws and regulations the US has managed to
produce to ensure that the rich, powerful companies can beat down small
companies and get the consumers to pay for it all - the DCMA is an excellent
example, as is the joke called the US patent office.
Yannick (and I, and many, many others outside the US, and even some inside
the US) do not believe the US courts are competent to handle affairs such as
this because their past record shows they are incompetent. Even when they
come to a fair result, things have taken so long that the results are
meaningless.
The European authorities had originally decided not to pursue MS for
anti-trust behaviour, since it would duplicate the US effort. They got
bored waiting for the US courts to actually do something, and took action
themselves. But there is a very significant difference - the US courts are
concentrating on punishing MS for what they did - the European courts are
concentrating on trying to stop similar actions in the future.
>>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.
>
>Hate and love are emotions. Good and evil are abstractions. I do not
>hate Microsoft because they are evil; I hate them because they are
>ripping millions of people off, and all but getting away with it. They
>are evil because they intentionally encourage cluelessness and represent
>almost all of human's worse potential and basest capabilities. That,
>however, is a philosophical, not a legal, debate. Microsoft is not a
>person, and has no motivation, intent, or desire. I do not hate any
>people, save the intentionally ignorant, and I have no emotions, only
>rational consideration, of abstractions such as corporate entities. I
>do not hate Bill Gates. I loathe him, and abhor him. But I don't know
>him personally, and if I did, I wouldn't hate him.
>
>>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.
>
>I agree, whole-heartedly.
>
>>You are insulting them.
>
>Bill Gates insults them. You insult them. I defend them.
>
>The real problem with a monopoly is that you can't get rid of it easily,
>as it will cost *everyone else*, some of them possibly even more than
>the monopolist.
>
>>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...
>
>If you have any conception of what they are and what they do, you will
>see that they have forced the entire industry to be almost stagnant for
>practically ten years.
>
>>> They stole every good idea they ever had,
>>
>>1. You cannot steal a public domain idea.
>
>Ideas are not copyrightable. They are not "public domain". They are
>simply ideas. I didn't invent the idiom. Deal with it.
>
>>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)
:
>
>This would be known as "innovation". Microsoft has none. They just
>steal ideas.
>
>>I don't know much about CORBA. What I know is that it is similar to COM in
the
>>intent ;
>
>And that's all MS wants you to know. In fact, COM is a way of keeping
>you from learning, using, and benefiting freely from CORBA, a publicly
>developed technology of extensive use to developers, customers, and
>users of software. Unfortunately, Microsoft doesn't own it, so they
>can't profiteer, so YOU DON'T GET to benefit from even the theoretically
>existence of CORBA, and CORBA, as if it were any more a person than
>Microsoft, does not get to benefit from your need for its services.
>
> [...]
>>I don't care who they stole the idea from. They made it real and
efficient.
>
>They restricted your access to it and then charged you for it. You
>dummy.
>
>
>>> 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" ?
>
>They added keyboard support to Apple's GUI, more or less. Because until
>you got a GUI on the PC (and you couldn't get one, though they were
>around, because MS controlled the DOS 'franchise') you couldn't insist
>that everyone had a mouse.
>
>Minimal effort to cut off competition. It makes a mockery of the whole
>idea of "benefit to the consumer".
>
>>> 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.
>
>Which means it has to accept the fact that it *can't* make money on
>*everything*. Competition is good for business. Monopolization is
>illegal. It doesn't seem like a hard choice.
>
>>Whatever it bases its choice on, it's aimed at gaining the user's
preference.
>
>Which means it isn't going to gain every user's preference, right? Is
>any one product good enough for any market? EVER?
>
>>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...
>
>No, they don't choose who they're going to compete against. The market
>does. It isn't part of the puzzle; it is an aggregate force. If what
>your product doesn't make money in the market, your options are limited
>to changing your product, or not making money. Changing the market
>isn't an option. A company decides what their product is, not what
>their market is. They are supposed to be able to *discover* what their
>market is, and that used to be called "marketing". Now, that word is
>used to mean "advertising and anti-competitive practices designed to
>manipulate the market". Business are supposed to *serve* the market,
>not define it. Business are abstractions. Consumers are real people.
>
>>> I applaud your suggestion that at least some MS code be
>>> made public,
>>
>>Again, I spoke of releasing the architecture, not the source code.
>
>What on earth do you mean? The APIs are already available. Some block
>diagrams of internal processing would be quite useless by themselves.
>
>>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.
>
>Yes, it is. IE is already as "open" as you seem to think is required.
>I think you have a misconception concerning that particularly
>troublesome concept. Was it you who described (correctly, in context)
>Windows Explorer (File Manager) as "open"? That kind of 'open', IE
>already is, effectively. It doesn't do any good, because its still
>either IE, or the OS, or MS middleware. IE isn't a shell like Explorer,
>as much as anyone wants to insist it can pretend to be. It is an
>application; a web browser. So says the marketplace, and so it is.
>
Some of the APIs are available, but by no means all. With a single MS,
there is no real alternative, however, to making the source code available
if you want to make all the APIs available. If the APIs and architecture
were documented, MS could easily keep the documentation and implementation
out of step. To my mind, the greatest benifit of the split is that this
sort of information will have to be published, and it will have to be
accurate and up-to-date, since the internal information channels will be cut
off.
>>> 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...
>
>I wasn't aware they'd offered to open any source. Do you have details?
>
Some high-ranking MS person suggested it in a TV interview, and it was
immediately denied by other MS top brass, and was then followed by official
statements saying the MS was willing to cooperate with the DoJ as long as
their "ability to innovate" was not compromised. It was all a public image
stunt, to suggest that MS was really being kind and helpful and the DoJ was
just being vindictive.
>>> we might as well have them cease to exist.
>>
>>Now you're turning into an extremist.
>
>Bill Gates is the extremist. I'm just a guy on Usenet.
>
BG is an extremist, but, T. Max, so are you.
>>> >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.
It only benifits MS, not the consumer. It benifits the monopoly, and forces
people to buy both the OS and Apps from the same company. If the OS and
apps development were split, every company could benifit from this
interaction, and every company could contribute to this interaction -
improving Windows, and other OSes, and improving MS apps, and other apps.
>From the consumer's viewpoint, all their choices of software, from whichever
company they like, has benifited.
>
>NOTHING ELSE was addressed by my point. It is apparently not possible
>in MS's case for a single company to share "good practice"; merely
>"anti-competitive tricks". Compare Apple's handling of their Mac
>platform, and the MacBundle which was originally an "integrated" part of
>the "Mac experience".
>
> [...]
>>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.
>
>This is a fabrication and an illusion and an assumption. It is, in
>fact, an allusion. The computer industry has shown no necessity for any
>limiting factor, exploding rather exponentially despite, not because of,
>Microsoft's monopolization of the pre-load OS market. What you are
>vaguely referring to is the concept, in truth, of "middleware", as it
>has been known in the industry for more than a decade. Some thought it
>to mean some sort of specific database fandango doo-hickie. I was quite
>encouraged to see that the market was never entirely killed, however, as
>the recognition by the court that Microsoft's handling of Netscape and
>Java were both motivated by a desire to continue to prevent middleware,
>a common public API for OSes and applications to write to, similar to
>the Win32 API, but not disfunctional, from emerging. POSIX was
>originally motivated by such a concept, and that ultimately leads to
>Linux. But the characteristics of such a concept have mutated wildly,
>illustrating the true innovation which Microsoft has stopped up and
>charged tax on.
>
>>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...
>
>Which is what separates standards from technologies. ISA was a
>standard, as was its successor PCI. MCA was a technology; proprietary
>from IBM, it was doomed before the start. Nobody had their choice
>limited by whether the card they needed was ISA or MCA. They had their
>choice limited if they had MCA, that's all. Same as people who stick
>with Windows will eventually have their choice limited in applications,
>once most of the development occurs on Linux. Look for that in two or
>three years; its going to happen.
>
>>> >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.
>
>It is entirely impossible to be forced to choose between two different
>products which suit your needs. You can always buy both. Unless one is
>monopolizing and restraining trade.
>
>>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.
>
I don't quite get this idea of forcing people to choose something else. You
can offer people the choice of something else, you can force people to make
the choice between two products, but forcing and choosing are mutually
exclusive. What we want is that people can freely choice MS Word, or Word
Perfect, or whatever, rather than being forced to buy MS Word whether they
like it or not.
>The end for *me* is to get what I want. The choice for *other people*
>is to get what *they* want. Unless I'm going to start insisting that
>other people have to want what I want, the end for the *market* is that
>everybody has a choice. Always. And as many choices as possible.
>
>>> >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.
>
>I won't "see" anything. You haven't even the slightest ability to
>dictate to me what is interoperability or integration. You don't have
>to accept it, but I'm telling you its true: integration is contrary to
>interoperability.
>
>>> If you aren't against competition, you shouldn't be against breaking up
>>> Microsoft.
>>
>>What a subtle solution really. Surely there is no other.
>
>Unfortunately, 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).
>
>No, it means that Microsoft isn't competent, quite obviously. The
>courts' job is to prevent monopolization. Whether Microsoft survives
>the breakup is purely their own problem, and the court isn't to blame if
>it doesn't happen.
>
>>> >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.
>
>No, but it is hard to believe, isn't it? You watch; I'm serious. The
>Outlook/Exchange barrier is hard to overturn, but its not like people's
>experience with deploying new apps has atrophied under Microsoft's
>dominance. It'll happen swifter than Office appeared on most people's
>desktops back in 97, and that didn't take more than eight months.
>
>--
>T. Max Devlin
> -- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
> of events, as I recall. Consider it.
> Research assistance gladly accepted. --
>
>
>-----= 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
******************************
