Linux-Advocacy Digest #27, Volume #28 Thu, 27 Jul 00 13:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept? (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Why use Linux? ("Spud")
Re: I had a reality check today :( ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("JS/PL")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("JS/PL")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("JS/PL")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Josiah Fizer)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (Tim Kelley)
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man! (Chris Wenham)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept?
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 10:57:15 -0500
"1$Worth" wrote:
> In summary it would just be refreshing when people would not attack
> others who are not comfortable with the way things work in Linux. There
> is already too much FUD in the world.
>
> Comments please?
I see the same thing and would like to add this to the argument:
I believe that the 'attacks' on those that do not understand Linux are
based on retaliation to those that have 'attacked' those of us that do
understand it. We are told we are idiots for what we know, we are
ridiculed for having knowledge that they do no posses, we are told we
are inferior because of our knowledge. Then we are told that we need to
make our system just like theirs in order for them to use it. Can you
understand why our reactions aren't always pleasant? For years we have
been swatted at like flies, and now those same people are begging us to
make a system just like theirs.
As a counterpoint, we are already seeing the backlash from this action.
For those of us that considered the requests reasonable, and actually
tried to make the system more familiar to the people coming from 'that
other system', we are being told we are copying. We are being told we
are not 'innovative' (has there ever been a more overused word in
computing?). We are being told that we are cloning their system and not
being creative. Yet, the request was that we made our system more like
theirs. So we did, and were accused of copying. So, yet again we have
a reason to give a negative reaction.
MS copied (and in some ways improved?) interfaces from those that came
before. Some of those that came before (including the X interfaces) are
now taking some of those ideas back and in some cases improving on the
improvements. And the accusations come flying: copycat geek losers,
dumbasses can't even think up their own stuff, etc., etc. But we were
asked, repeatedly, to make a system that would be 'familiar' to Windows
users so that they could be comfortable with it. What do they really
want?
I think what it boils down to is people are going to keep bitching about
it no matter what 'we' (the Linux community/developers) do, so 'we' are
going to do what we want. Some of us are dedicated to still fullfilling
the wishes of those that want a familiar "Windows like" inteface. Some
of us are going to keep using the intefaces we already like. Some of us
are going to concentrate on other aspects of the system. And some of us
are going to have a reaction when we are told that we need to make the
system 'easier to use' because what is really being asked for is a
Windows clone. This is also why Corel has gotten such a negative
reaction from some in the Linux crowd. Many Winvocates have claimed for
years that Linux is just a cheap knockoff of Windows, Corel is doing
everything in their power to prove those people right.
Some of us people constantly looked down upon by the general public as
the "geek culture" or counter-culture, liked having an OS that was our
own. Now, the OS that was our own is going in a direction some of us
feel isn't right. (I'm kind of borderline on this issue. I know we
need ease-of-use, but I don't feel that equates to clone-of-Windows.)
Some of us are moving elsewhere (the BSDs or BeOS or AtheOS). Some of
us are going to ride the current wave and see what shakes out. Some of
us are working on truly innovative answers to the ease-of-use ideal.
Check out Enlightenment as a more traditional approach, or ThreeDSIA as
a more bleeding edge approach. Enlightenment is a traditional window
manager that doesn't exactly follow tradition. Very eye-candy and
resource-intensive. Yet not anywhere near a copy of Windows.
Completely different from Windows interfaces. And with ThreeDSIA, we
are talking about an entire shift in philosophy. The idea is that
interfaces should be 3D, and no longer restricted to the
folders/files/2D screen. You actually "walk" through a 3D evironment,
see folders as hallways and rooms, and files are objects within these
hallways and rooms. You may run into other 'people' (called avatars I
believe) in these hallways and rooms and can 'speak' with them (through
chat) in passing. It is a completely new and idealistic attempt at the
GUI interface. I hope it takes off. It is a very exciting concept, and
I've played with the software a bit. Very nice. It's got a ways to go
though.
Anyway, you will not get people to stop complaining about the
ease-of-use problem for the forseeable future. Some will argue that it
is needed more, some less. Some will argue you need to work on
Windows-alikes, some say something different. Some want traditional
window managers, some want something completely new and different. In
short, the Linux community is not a single entity working on a common
goal. It is a lot of people, each working at their own goal. Sometimes
these goals coincide with something that someone else wants, but it
isn't through design. You won't end the ease-of-use issue. And you
won't end the backlash brought on by that issue. I don't believe anyone
argues against ease-of-use, but many argue against what is thought of as
easy-to-use. Windows isn't equal to easy-to-use, yet that seems to be
what most people are clamouring for. We all tried to get away from
Windows (well, most of us) and moved to Linux. Now all the problems we
moved to get away from are being re-invented on our chosen platform (see
Corel Linux and Corel Office with the WINE underbelly). There's going
to be a backlash to that. Only time will tell how it shakes out.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: "Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 09:16:48 -0700
[snips]
"Jim Bublitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> So tell me:
>
> 1. What specifically is this dross?
> 2. How do I locate it and identify it?
> 3. How do I remove it?
I've already explained that.
> It must be really easy, because this is
> an "ease of use" OS - should be something
> the average user could do, but maybe
> it requires superior knowledge like yours.
No, the average user has absolutely NO NEED to do it in the first
place, because the average user uses an MS-supplied Win98 setup, not
one HP fucked up.
Do try to understand this point, even though you seem proof against
it: Win98 as shipped by MS *does not have this problem*. Win98 as
shipped by HP *does*. Therefore something differs in what you get from
HP and what you get from MS; the differences is HP's idea of being
"helpful".
Talk to them; they're the ones who did it to you.
> lying all along. This still has the
> "factory fresh" setup,
Inclduing HP's abomination of a Win98 configuration. Right.
> I'm eager to learn from your superior
> knowledge, and I have no inclination to
> lie about this - I might actually learn
> something. If you're right, you get the
> $5.
Don't need your $5. You want to fix this? Step 1: go get a _real_
Win98 setup - not on of those HP-provided abominations. Then try
again.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 11:32:27 -0500
I said BSD, not FreeBSD.
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 21:29:08 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> >"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 11:35:41 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I suppose commands like PS and top don't need to know how BIG the
> >> >[process] table is.
> >>
> >> Not really. On Linux they read the info about running processes from
> >> the /proc filesystem.
> >
> >Let's use BSD instead, which doesn't have a /proc filesystem. Linux
isn't
> >Unix.
>
> Ok, how about FreeBSD 4.0?
>
> -----------------------------8<-----------------------------
>
> PROCFS(5) FreeBSD File Formats Manual
PROCFS(5)
>
> NAME
> procfs - process file system
>
> SYNOPSIS
> proc /proc procfs rw 0 0
>
> DESCRIPTION
> The process file system, or procfs, implements a view of the system
pro
> cess table inside the file system. It is normally mounted on /proc,
and
> is required for the complete operation of programs such as ps(1) and
> w(1).
>
> --
> -| Bob Hauck
> -| Codem Systems, Inc.
> -| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 03:56:31 -0400
Reply-To: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8loo9h$30l5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8lomgp$da$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> kfm isn't distributed as a product. IE was and is and so is Windows.
> >
> >IE and Windows are distributed together. IE for Windows is also
distributed
> >seperately, and when installs upgrades parts of the OS.
>
> Everyone who bought Win95 as it was distributed originally
> without IE and paid extra for the separate Plus pack containig
> IE knows this is a lie.
Why would you buy the Plus Pack? Just type in the fricking MS or Netscape
url and download either browser, or press one of the millions of idiotic
buttons that were (for some reason) at the bottom of every single Web Page
of that era.
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 04:06:27 -0400
Reply-To: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 03:14:23 -0400, JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 02:11:38 -0400, JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >
> >> >> ...they don't know well enough to be aware of the distinction
> >> >> between operating systems and buy the first thing they come
> >> >> across.
> >> >
> >> >Ignorance is no defense. Why is it anyones concern that "the average
joe"
> >> >isn't self-discovering all of his available options.?
> >>
> >> We've covered that already.
> >>
> >> Joe Normal doesn't want to spend the equivalent of a high
> >> end refridgerator on or in a marginal and untrusted merchant.
> >
> >Joe Normal is a sheep by nature, safety in numbers and all that. It's
still
>
> That shouldn't matter in a free market. Perfect replaceability
> should make it quite possible for even small vendors to thrive
> and for new vendors and new products to break into the market.
There's nothing holding them back, software has about the lowest barriers to
entry of any market on earth, at least it does now. Never fear though, the
government is devising ways to cut out the little guy as we speak. After the
legislature is through with the software industry you'll need a law degree
to navigate your products through all the red tape, to the marketplace.
> >no reasong for Judge Jackson to get his panties in a bunch and blame
> >Microsoft for it.
>
> Whether or not Microsoft is to 'blame' is quite irrelevant.
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Tivo & perfect replaceability: Alive and well at retail.
> >> BeOS & network effects: Gasse can't give it away.
> >
> >Sounds to me like BeOS and the DOJ better get together and figure out who
to
> >blame and sue for this non-acceptance.
>
> The Precedents are right there in the public record for all
> to see actually... a whole century of them, ending with AT&T.
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 04:07:52 -0400
Reply-To: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> Microsoft leads the trend. Microsoft is the trend. I don't see any
> >> other software vendors lying about their products
> >
> >Have you checked the screenshots of some of those games? And compared
with
> >the box picture?
>
> Yes. None of them are even misleading, AFAIK, and certainly not lies.
> That's a rather trivial attempt at an argument. I'm glad to see were
> getting somewhere. At least you seem to recognize how tenuous your
> position is, if this is where it leads.
Ahh....but you see....this is where your non-credibility begins to show.
Graphic rederings on game boxes according to you then are...accurate
non-misleading representations of what the user will see on the computer
screen? "As far as you know?"
------------------------------
From: Josiah Fizer <[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: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 09:26:05 -0700
JS/PL wrote:
> "Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8loo9h$30l5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <8lomgp$da$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> kfm isn't distributed as a product. IE was and is and so is Windows.
> > >
> > >IE and Windows are distributed together. IE for Windows is also
> distributed
> > >seperately, and when installs upgrades parts of the OS.
> >
> > Everyone who bought Win95 as it was distributed originally
> > without IE and paid extra for the separate Plus pack containig
> > IE knows this is a lie.
>
> Why would you buy the Plus Pack? Just type in the fricking MS or Netscape
> url and download either browser, or press one of the millions of idiotic
> buttons that were (for some reason) at the bottom of every single Web Page
> of that era.
You see, the first version of Windows 95 didn;t have a web browser. So you
couldn't "press one of the millions of idiotic buttons" as you had no way to
get to the web page.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Kelley)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 16:29:37 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 27 Jul 2000 14:35:31 GMT, Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 09:09:33 -0500,
>Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Perry Pip wrote:
>>Well no, you just currently lack the imagination to stand on a
>>chair and view the room from a different angle.
>
>No. My imagination is not stuck in utterly simplistic teenage idealisms.
That was thoughtful ... really it just shows your cynicism and nothing
more.
>>I do not think government is neccessary at all.
>Really?? Name one society in the history of world that did not have
>any form of government or leadership. Even ancient tribes and races
>had leadership.
Like I said you lack imagination. I'm not one of those anarchists who
babbles incessantly about the Spanish Civil War but you might do well
to at least read up on it.
>Hell, even packs of gorillas and wolves have an alpha.
We are not gorillas.
>Every society needs some sort of shared values with which to
>define its coextistance. For this, communication channels are needed
>to exchange those values. and the more loosely knit (i.e. the more
>democratically anarchous) those channels are the more fragile they
>are. Pure anarchy sounds nice in theory, but all human beings would
>have to be perfect and harmoneous to achieve the perfect anarchy you
>are looking for. And we are far from perfect, you included. And we
>have a long way to go...
This is not true. Anarchists have never said anarchy - a society with
no government - would be a perfect utopia - that is Marxism. Rather
all it depends on is how free people really want to be, whether they
are willing to sustain the intense political activity neccessary to
keep it going, and realize that their interests are bound up in the
interests of others. We don't need to make sweeping claims about the
state of human nature or whther people are essentially good or
essentially bad. This is irrelevant. We aren't saying it would be
perfect - far from it, just that it is the only thing that makes
sense.
At the core it is simply an acknowledgement that power inevitably
corrupts people, and the best society would therefore be one where
power is as dissoluted as possible. The mistake many people make is
that anarchism would be chaos due to no social organization, when just
the opposite is the case. It is what we have *now* that is
disorganized - we want society to be *more* organized and active.
Democracy is the best process to achieve this organization.
>>A healthy society is perfectly capable of self government;
>But society has to be healthy first. You just can't wish yourself
>healthy. There is always healing process involved when you are wounded
>or ill.
Well, I would say a society with rulers is not healthy: it promotes
and encourages apathy and inactivity. All people need do is stop
thinking that obedience is virtuous; all else eventually follows.
>Nonsense. The *idea* of democracy is alive and well. But no democracy
>is a perfect democracy. Nobody in todays world is going to get
>everything they want out of a democracy, as there are two many
>conflicting values, material wants, and miscommunications among
>members of society. You seem to want perfection, which is impossible
>among humans in their present state, including yourself.
Where is this democracy then?
>>I do not consider government to be "part of society". Society is
>>a natural phenomenon arising out of the fact that humans are by
>>nature social and political (do not confuse politics with
>>statecraft, there is a distinction). Society is based on shared
>>values and any societies ethics and customs arise naturally from
>>this.
>Shared values requires communication and understanding on a deep
>level. Alot more than most humans in their present state are capable
>of that. And the more people you have, the more difficult it is. Last I
>checked, world population is still going up.
>>Government is a perversion of of society.
>
>Not at all. The perversion is innate to human nature in it's current
>state, inlcuding yourself. Deal with it in yourself.
So you're the one who figured out what human nature is? I do not
believe there is anything "innate" about human nature.
>Think of government as a covering over a wound. It's undesirable but
>if you take it off you have a wound open to dirt and infection. Now
>the human race is very wounded, wounded from thousands of years of war
>and bloodshed, and deep seated hatred.
I am quite familiar with your argument, I just don't buy into it. A
state is not healthy or strong unless it is in a state of perpetual
war. If it is not at war with other states, it must be at war with
its own citizens. That is the price of the states existence. Not
only is government not neccessary, it is immoral.
http://www.spunk.org/library/intro/faq/sp001547/index.html
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.iww.org
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 16:33:20 GMT
"Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > How does this change the point that most Linux applications are
> > copies of something else?
>
> "Copies" in what sense? Did anyone say that they weren't similar?
This branch of the thread openend when I observed that many Linux
programs appear to copy something else, then I listed examples.
I'm conveying an /impression/, a subjective opinion that has been
inspired by and supported with examples.
> But at the source level, or just the appearance?
Just the appearance and the behavior. The source level doesn't
matter. If I want to try a different word processor and my options
were programs that all copied the same ideas from each other, I don't
have much of a choice after all if my reason for desiring something
else was that the current user interface model wasn't working for me.
> What if users are used to skins?
Then they have an option. But I've never changed the skin of my MP3
player. Innovation doesn't seem to be going in other directions.
> Compatibility.
User Interface compatability, yes.
I already understand the value of user interface consistency. But
it's a shame that there are few who are willing to risk improving
upon, or even testing radically different user interfaces.
The reason is because if your UI idea is a bomb, then your /whole
program/ is a bomb, even if the guts of it are better than the guts
of something else that sports a copied user interface.
User Interfaces are still bound inseperably to the programs they
control. I can't take the "canvas" of AbiWord and insert it into a
better user interface.
> How different could it be?
Software could be very different, both in appearance and behavior.
OpenDoc was an example of how software could be different in both
respects. But there isn't an analog of it that I know of, not on any
platform.
If I didn't like the user interface of my word processor, but I liked
the features of the "canvas" (like watermarks, placement of images,
wrapping and clipping prowess with the text etc.) the theory with
OpenDoc went that I could keep the canvas and change the user
interface (or vice versa).
I can think of a scenario where I'd want the features of GIMP but the
user interface of a spreadsheet. Instructions for drawing to the
canvas are held in the cells, their arguments in other cells. For
example, one cell contains the instruction "draw line" and the four
cells that follow contain the beginning and endpoints of the line.
I can see two benefits to this. The first is the ability to construct
pictures in a non-linear fashion (which is already /somewhat/
possible by using layers). I can insert a drawing command between two
others without needing to "undo, change and re-do". (This also
implies a change in the way GIMP draws the canvas - but programs such
as Photo>Graphics show us that it can already be done, Moore's law
shows us that the penalty for re-drawing will decrease.)
The second is that painting a picture becomes more like programming
("baby" programming, too. But I don't care :-) and therefore more
easily implemented as a program. By using functions in place of hard
values for the parameters of each drawing instruction, I could
automate the job of cranking out many similar images. These might be
fancy page titles for a web site with thousands of pages, it could be
for "tweening" cells in an animation.
It could also help me draw things I had too much difficulty drawing
before. A standard spreadsheet usually comes with mathematical
functions that I could "plot" with effects added by the superior
filters, transforms and tools of GIMP.
I can already do this with the scripting language in GIMP
(Scheme/Script-Fu), but that's a user interface that takes longer to
learn. And I'd like the ability to chose from /more than one/ user
interface to do the same task.
And also, this shouldn't mean that the makers of GIMP ought to try
writing a spreadsheet, nor should it mean the makers of a spreadsheet
(like Gnumeric) ought to try their hands at writing a paint
program. Couldn't there be a component architecture that lets the
user find fusions between programs on his own?
A component architecture with these (mythical?) features would then
present programmers with bright new UI ideas to try them out without
the burden of writing the guts of a program that give their new UI
something useful to do. And of course, vice-versa: Someone who's
brilliant at writing waveform manipulators that alter an audio signal
digitally to mimick the "warm sound" of analog amplifiers doesn't
need to be an expert at writing user interfaces.
Pretend that someday, someone writes a decoder for the all new "MP6"
format. Could I link that with the waveform manipulator and control
both of those with the user interface of: a skinnable "tape deck"; a
list processor; a "blocks and links" interface like the one in Sun's
Javabean Studio; a tetris game (that drops blocks representing echo
effects or vibratio or "concert hall" effects); a rolodex; a
spreadsheet; the "3D audio Stage" from BeOS and so-on and so-on?
I mixed trivial examples (a tetris game???) with serious ones, but
then who am I to judge what's serious or not when the point is to
give the user control to entertain his whims? Perhaps I'll come up
with a great new twist on an old video game that entertains nobody
but myself. And perhaps a million other people will come up with
wacky combinations that are useful and amusing to only
themselves. They would still have been able to, and the computers
would have done their job: service the needs of their users, no
matter how strange.
The above was to answer your question: "how different could
[software] be?" and I wandered into another topic (component
software) that didn't really have anything to do with the first (that
recent software for Linux appears to copy other programs quite
heavily). But I think it's relevant because it addresses one of the
other problems with experimentation you brought up: compatability.
Obviously the compatability isn't about loading files authored by
other programs. My word processor doesn't have to look like Word to
open a document made by Word (it doesn't even have to have all the
same features, since most of the features in a word processor are
"assistants" that help you put the same words and pictures down in
different ways - hopefully more efficiently, too). The compatability
problem was about the User Interface. Risk a different interface and
your program could be rejected by those who don't want to entertain
your experiment.
But the existing user interfaces we use now were all established by
people experimenting. Back in the days when WIMP first came around
there was less of a legacy and userbase than there is today. Risks
were easier to take. Almost every program had a different user
interface.
My speculation is that if we divorce the user interface from the
function of a program and make it a component you "plug in" (and not
as superficially as you "plug in" a window manager or widget set)
then we can see more experimentation with less risk with the
potential of huge usability rewards.
And we won't hear people say "Gosh, that program looks like its
copying Microsoft".
Even if it /is/ ;-)
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
