Linux-Advocacy Digest #49, Volume #28 Fri, 28 Jul 00 01:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why use Linux? ("Spud")
Re: Why use Linux? ("Spud")
Re: Why use Linux? ("Spud")
Re: Why use Linux? ("Spud")
Re: windows annoyances (again) ("Spud")
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? ("Spud")
Re: Why use Linux? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Slipping away into time. ("Spud")
Re: Gnome or KDE (Hans)
Re: Slipping away into time. ("Spud")
Re: Will Linux Dominate the Desktop Future? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux ("Mike Byrns")
Re: Will Linux Dominate the Desktop Future? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why use Linux?
Re: Aaron Kulkis -- USELESS Idiot -- And His "Enemies" -was- Another one of
Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality (Loren Petrich)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 20:56:13 -0700
[snips]
"John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Spud wrote:
> > Balls; I can crash Mandrake, consistently, every damned time, just
> > trying to set up the sound card on this box. You were saying?
>
> . . . that "setup" is an administrative task, and that Linux crashes
> *AFTER* warning you that the operation you are about to perform may
> cause a crash.
No, it's not. The message I get is "Do you want to detect ISA
hardware? Note that this may cause a crash." (Or words to that
effect). I select "No". ZOT, the box freezes. You were saying?
------------------------------
From: "Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 20:59:18 -0700
[snips]
"John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Spud wrote:
> > > >We also have a Win2K box. Guess which box we run the heavy
server
> > As to "thousands of times less reliably", I have no idea where you
get
> > that figure. I'm sure you have the actual research data from a
> > reputable firm to back that up, but I don't see it included.
>
> MS'es own admission re: Windows 98's
Look at the first line. Look at the last line. Wonder why I think
you're a complete and total twit. I also note you can't handle
sarcasm.
------------------------------
From: "Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 21:06:04 -0700
[snips]
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8lq3pc$1gql$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Balls; I can crash Mandrake, consistently, every damned time, just
> >trying to set up the sound card on this box. You were saying?
>
> So you have a box where probing the ISA port space causes the
> hardware to lock up. How is that a Linux problem.
It's a Linux-provided configuration tool. Ah, I see... by
Linux-logic, it must be Microsoft's fault, right? :)
> >Big deal; I run Win2K here 24 hours a day; I've had two crashes;
one
> >due to a drive failure, one due to a corrupted driver. I suspect
> >Linux wouldn't fare much better in those regards, so what of it?
>
> But how long did it take Microsoft to deliver a product where
> you might really expect that?
Took a while. Linux hasn't managed it yet. Same machine, same
hardware, Windows installs, configures and runs just fine. Linux
installs, fails to configure, and when you use the provided tools to
make up for its failings, it responds with a hard lock.
Of course, I'm being somewhat facetious here, and you at least seem to
grasp such things. I know full well that *Linux* isn't technically
responsible for this, Mandrake is. It's just so pathetic watching the
"Windows doesn't...." noise, only to realize that the speaker is
actually discussing Win98, failing to realize that Win2K in fact
_does_ do what he says "Windows doesn't do."
Yes, it took Microsoft a while to roll out NT, which was a hell of a
lot more resilient than their prior offerings. However, NT has been
around a long time now; not as long as Unix, but a long time
nonetheless. 2K just improves upon it. Dwelling on "We had it
first!" is pointless; I don't care who did it first, I care what's
available now.
------------------------------
From: "Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 21:09:44 -0700
[snips]
"John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> MH wrote:
> What are you guys so afraid of, that you misrepresent so much?
Misrepresent what? Consistently repeatable Linux crashes? Come on
over, I've still got the CD, I'll *show* you.
> Hey, if you have that many problems, RUN SOME TESTS!
Done that. Machine checks out fine.
> Get memtest86 and run it over a weekend on your box. If that shows
zero
> errors (and I'm betting that it will show lots of errors, if what
you
> post is true), then run a full and complete (read AND WRITE) test on
> your disk drive (back up, first, of course).
Been there, done that. Not with memtest86 specifically, but with
several diagnostic tools. Same for the drive. The hardware is just
fine, thanks.
> Use bad hardware, get bad results.
Which is why I use good hardware - and avoid OS versions where even
the configuration tools *shipped* with it cause it to die.
------------------------------
From: "Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: windows annoyances (again)
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 21:12:36 -0700
[snips]
"CC Ghost" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:fa2e5.26138$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Tim Kelley wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >Pete Goodwin wrote:
> >The whole thing is indeed a "fuck up". This experience is
> >typical for installing windows. I've installed windows thousands
> >of times and I can't count how many times I've had to do
> >ridiculous things like swap hardware, remove hardware, add
> >hardware ad infinitum just to get the install to run.
>
> That's the part of this that strikes me as peculiar.
>
> I've never had to add, remove, or swap hardware
> for an install of anything, unless the hardware was
> either unsupported or defective.
Likewise. I buy, build configure and mainain boxes for various
friends, clients and family members. No such issues other than with a
FUBARd HP-provided mangling of Win98 - and an incident with an old
Sportser modem.
------------------------------
From: "Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 21:25:57 -0700
[snips]
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
> > and remove the trailing ")" after the "S" and ";" does work as a
remark code
> ^
>
> Ooooooooooh, a fucking typo at 3:00 in the morning.
> Spare me, loser.
Computers don't forgive typos. Why should *he* forgive you, then?
BTW... aren't you the one who programs in 15 languages? This puts me
in mind of a musician I knew, who, when someone else said "I can play
10 instruments" responded "Fine, but which one can you play?"
Do you consider C among those? Try documenting the errors,
portability issues and poor coding practices in this... without
resorting to a compiler, lint tool or similar. For sake of
discussion, C89/90 applies, rather than C99, if only because C99
conformant compilers are hard to come by.
#include <stdio.h>
void main()
{
double *ptr;
int i;
ptr = (double *)malloc(100 * sizeof(double) );
if ( ptr = NULL )
{
printf( "Can't allocate memory!" );
return 1;
}
for ( i = 0; i <= 500; i++ )
*ptr++ = 100.0;
printf( "Press any key to continue." );
getchar();
free( ptr );
printf( "Done!" );
}
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: 27 Jul 2000 23:38:27 -0500
In article <pE7g5.9938$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Spud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Balls; I can crash Mandrake, consistently, every damned time, just
>> >trying to set up the sound card on this box. You were saying?
>>
>> So you have a box where probing the ISA port space causes the
>> hardware to lock up. How is that a Linux problem.
>
>It's a Linux-provided configuration tool. Ah, I see... by
>Linux-logic, it must be Microsoft's fault, right? :)
No, it is your particular hardware and probably a matter of
luck that the Windows install probes the ports in a different
order and doesn't kill it.
>
>> >Big deal; I run Win2K here 24 hours a day; I've had two crashes;
>one
>> >due to a drive failure, one due to a corrupted driver. I suspect
>> >Linux wouldn't fare much better in those regards, so what of it?
>>
>> But how long did it take Microsoft to deliver a product where
>> you might really expect that?
>
>Took a while. Linux hasn't managed it yet. Same machine, same
>hardware, Windows installs, configures and runs just fine. Linux
>installs, fails to configure, and when you use the provided tools to
>make up for its failings, it responds with a hard lock.
My poster child for VALinux:
$ uptime
11:21pm up 253 days, 3:37, 3 users, load average: 0.30, 0.79, 0.86
One install, no updates, no driver problems, and it has been running
as a busy production web server since the day it was turned on. I
have several other machines that are equally reliable but I moved
them about 4 months ago so the uptime is not quite as impressive.
>Of course, I'm being somewhat facetious here, and you at least seem to
>grasp such things. I know full well that *Linux* isn't technically
>responsible for this, Mandrake is.
No, your hardware (and the whole concept of trying to guess what
is in an ISA slot) is the problem.
>It's just so pathetic watching the
>"Windows doesn't...." noise, only to realize that the speaker is
>actually discussing Win98, failing to realize that Win2K in fact
>_does_ do what he says "Windows doesn't do."
>
>Yes, it took Microsoft a while to roll out NT, which was a hell of a
>lot more resilient than their prior offerings. However, NT has been
>around a long time now; not as long as Unix, but a long time
>nonetheless. 2K just improves upon it. Dwelling on "We had it
>first!" is pointless; I don't care who did it first, I care what's
>available now.
I don't think you understand the point I was trying to make:
NT was *not* that reliable. Pre-service pack 3 systems would
routinely crash every few weeks. Yet MS claimed they were
usable as servers. Win2K seems much better (and sp6a appears
to have finally squashed some NT bugs), but neither of these
have enough history to know if they really are going to
keep working one more day and experience shows that the MS
claims are meaningless. You might have a system you can trust
with Win2k and you might not yet.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Slipping away into time.
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 21:40:05 -0700
[snips]
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Leonardo wrote:
> This is typically the most powerful argument the Windows community
can
> produce in favor of their OS.
>
> But let me assure you that even a person such as yourself can
install Debian.
>
> The Debian install script was tested in a zoo in Europe by 100
chimpanzee's.
>
> 97 of the 100 chimpanzee's succeeded in installing Debian
successfully.
>
> Of those who failed. One forgot you need to plug your P.C. into a
power
> source before using it. Another died shortly after relieving
himself upon
> a brand new 17 inch monitor. The last chimpanzee was disqualified
when
> it was discovered he was using his feet instead of his hands to run
the
> keyboard
> whilst passing gas.
Somehow, I can't see an ad campaign reading "Use Linux! Tested by a
farting chimpanzee!" as being overly good from a marketing
perspective. :)
------------------------------
From: Hans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Gnome or KDE
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 04:33:01 GMT
These are just the clone of M$ Windows 98. Nothing more than this.
They requires good hardware spec like M$ Windows 98. :-(
In article <8lpd8b$i66$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Pig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi All:
>
> I am a newbie of Linux and using the SUSE linux 6.3.
> I've tried different GUIs.
> I think the Gnome and KDE are the best.
> So, which one is better? Pls. suggest.
>
>
--
My homepage is 'http://www.geocities.com/flyingdoggle/main.html'
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Slipping away into time.
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 21:49:06 -0700
[snips]
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> mlw wrote:
> Let me also add the slavery cost to our society.
> Think of all the software developers who must pay $$$$ to keep their
> Microsoft certifications current. Probably 50% of the companies
hiring
> programmers require a current certification.
Which is about on a par with saving Novell enslaves us by offering
certification, which hiring managers might want to actually see when
hiring someone to maintain their Novell setup. Potentially, it's a
good idea, but it can be abused; most companies I've worked for or
with are more than happy to accept other relevant experience in place
of a certificate.
> The most pitaful part about this method of selective employment
> is it descriminates against those who don't have the money to keep
> current and loose employment opportunities due to this kind of
> descrimination.
However, most of them either lack the certification _and_ the
experience, in which case, well, sorry, or they have relevant
experience which will walk them in the door. I've ended up in more
than one job where the posted requirements included a degree or
certification I didn't have... because I'm good at what I do, and I
can demonstrate it.
> So, rather than have YOUR company certify it's workers thru either
> an in-house test or a trial period, they have Microsoft do it for
them.
Makes sense. If I'm an employer and I need a software person, do I
hire Joe Schmoe off the street just because he says he can program,
wait three months to see if he's any good, and if not, toss him out
and try again? No; I _find out_ if he's any good; one indicator of
this is if he's got a degree or a certification.
> It's descrimination as no other equivalent evidence of employability
> is weighed into the equation for hiring in these companies.
I've _never_ encountered such a company.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Will Linux Dominate the Desktop Future?
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 00:51:03 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Keith T. Williams in alt.destroy.microsoft;
[...]
>Not where I come from. Either form would be correct in normal usage
>to set the condition. After all, was is the singular past indicative (1st &[...]
Well, yes, of *course*, but that certainly depends on the local idiom,
doesn't it? It is pure vernacular, certainly not a part of the
classical English language.
>plural past indicative of be.
>ie, I was reading this, he was reading this, we were reading this. but then
>we got bored and gave up.
My language counselor (who is my "sister in-common-law", who is an
English teacher, and just bought a house with my brother, a Science
teacher, and I'm so proud of both of them...) points out that the word
"got" should be eviscerated from the language, and I agree. I got to.
She's got more educations then me.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, 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! ======
------------------------------
From: "Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 04:52:51 GMT
"Nathaniel Jay Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<SNIP>
> > The common defense of name-calling libel or slander litigation is
> > linguistics. If you libelled or slandered someone in Latin then you
might
> > have a case. English is dialectic and regional, they would have only to
> > prove that the word "geek" could be considered a compliment in some
circles
> > to have the case dismissed. That's would be fairly easy to quote
numerous
> > print sources to show.
>
> Do African Americans consider nigger a compliment? Some of them do when
> it is uttered by other African Americans, but when someone outside of
> them calls them the same thing they are offended. (Note, I do not think
> this is right, it is just an example.)
The DIFFERENCE here is that using that word CAN and frequently DOES result
in sucessful litigation but under completely different laws. Slander and
libel are FALSE statements intended to bring harm to the target. Racist
remarks are by definition TRUE remarks intended to bring harm.
> I agree with mjcr on this
> point. Geek can sometimes be used as a sign of respect, but it was
> obvious by the way it was worded that it was meant entirely as a
> negative remark on computer literate people.
That would be your interpretation of the wording. It can be taken both
ways.
> Geek as used in this context, and as used by countless other Windows
> advocates is used as a completely derogatory remark towards those of us
> that are computer literate. They have no respect for us that are, and
> insist that being computer literate is somehow a "failure" on our part,
> something wrong with us.
You appear to think that you are more computer literate just because you
have knowledge of a comparitively unimportant operating system. You also
seem to think that everyone who runs nix is an expert. I thnk you are wrong
on both points. Consider basic computer knowledge irrespective of OS and I
think that there are numerically more Windows users who are "computer
literate" than nix users.
> While I would not be offended enough normally
> to speak up about this, seeing it argued that it 'can' be used as a
> compliment is not enough proof that it 'was' used as a compliment. See
> the remark itself and the context. It was meant as a negative comment
> on those of us that understand the "geek code"
>From the context of this remark I gather that you yourself consider
knowledge of the so-called "geek code" something to be proud of and by
derivation that being a "geek" is a good thing.
> If we understand it, we
> are somehow inferior to "normal" people in Steve/Simon/whatevers
> opinion. While it doesn't bother me that terribly much, I feel that if
> someone is offended, they deserve an apology.
This newsgroup is not exactly about apologies. If you want that then there
are other venues for your desire for congeniality.
> We treat women this way, we are taken to court. We treat African
> American's this way, we are taken to court. We treat other ethnic
> groups this way, we are taken to court. We treat computer professionals
> this way, and we (the computer professionals) are further ridiculed for
> being "too sensitive" and told to deal with it.
I am a Windows 2000 engineer. Being called "geek" makes me think feel warm
and fuzzy. A career choice is not exactly handled the same in the courts as
a God-given attribute.
> If society is going to
> cater to the other groups, and force everyone else to, why not apply the
> same philosophy to us? After all, most of us went through an awful lot
> of training (self taught or not) to be proficient with computers, why is
> that something to be ridiculed?
Because you chose your path knowing full well that some people might make
fun of you. Consider that these other groups don't have that choice.
That's why they are handled differently. Consider "exotic" dancers. They
are not afforded any special protections under the law yet they deal with
the social stigmata because of their choices and values.
> Someday us 'geeks' will get tired of being ridiculed for our knowledge
> and 'revolt'. Of course, no matter what form that revolt takes, we will
> once again be told we are over-reacting. We respect doctors. We
> respect sports figures. We respect any other profession that requires
> great amounts of training.
Attorneys come to mind as an exception you your rule.
> But somehow computer professionals are not
> deserving of respect. We understand these things because we took the
> time to learn about them. This means we are inferior to some. I'm one
> that feels it doesn't matter that much. I'll just keep doing what I
> do. But if it does bother one of my fellow 'geeks' then by god I will
> stand up with them and help them gain the respect they deserve.
You seem to have an inferiority complex, Mr. Lee.
> What's so wrong with asking for an apology when you are offended? Legal
> or not, I see no problem with being polite, and asking for apologies
> when you are offended. Especially when you explain your position. And
> I believe mjcr did just that. He gave the definition of geek and why it
> offends him, and asked for an apology.
Read the thread's history you will see that may people including the
"offended" party made statements worthy of an apology at a tea party. I
don't see any tea here. I don't expect apologies. With some of the
profanity I've seen used and the ad hominem attacks here I think there are
many others who are due apologies before someone termed "geek".
> Yeah, I'm an idiot. I already know that. But I'm an idiot with
> principles.
I think you really need to have that self-esteem problem worked out. I
never said you were an idiot.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Will Linux Dominate the Desktop Future?
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 00:55:22 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Bob Lyday in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>"Keith T. Williams" wrote:
[...]
>> > Secondly, the subjunctive in a conditional proposition does serve
>> > to express a contrary-to-fact condition. "If this was to happen"
>> > leaves open the possibility that it may happen. "If this were" rules
>> > it out.
>
>Not at all. It is more like you are imagining things. It can also be
>used as a future reference in another imaginary sense. The great thing
>about imagining the future is that sometimes it comes true.
>"Somewhere...........over the rainbow.......etc." Otherwise imagining
>things might not be as much fun.
You've crossed the line, I think, Bob, of projecting the rules of
language onto the mechanism of communication called speech. Yes, people
often go three or four levels deep in terms of "I imagined that it might
have happened that in the future it could be that as far as we knew it
was..." in terms of their grammar and syntax. It is a testament to the
structure of language that such "rule breaking" actually communicates
knowledge, rather than simply transferring information.
You were right all along, I'll point out, that the "were" clause in the
pro-MS FUD package was designed to evince precisely the "it is imagined
but will not occur" nature of the intent of the words. Such is the
capability, and danger, of marketing.
If you treat it subtly, its going to screw you. Thanks for exploring it
further, both of you.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, 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! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 04:56:00 GMT
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 21:09:44 -0700, Spud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[snips]
>
>"John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> MH wrote:
>
>> What are you guys so afraid of, that you misrepresent so much?
>
>Misrepresent what? Consistently repeatable Linux crashes? Come on
Misrepresenting the fact that the example you are harking
upon is low level root device as opposed to an application.
[deletia]
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Aaron Kulkis -- USELESS Idiot -- And His "Enemies" -was- Another one
of Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality
Date: 28 Jul 2000 04:59:39 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Loren Petrich wrote:
>> >> You're one of those people who thinks that the U.S. Government is
>> >> perfect
>> >Absolutely not. it's FAR too socialistic.
>> In what way?
>AFDC
>Social Security
>WIC
>HUD
>Dairy price supports
>Food Stamps
I'm sure that the real reason Mr. Kulkis objects is a lack of
virility in this stuff.
>> >Note if we returned to a Constitutional Senate (where the
>> >state legislators elect the Senators, not the common people,
>> >which merely turns the Senate into a 2nd House of Representatives
>> >full of political careerits.)
>> So you don't think that the present Constitution is completely
>> legitimate?
>The CONSTITUTION is legitimate.
And the Constitution now specifies the election of Senators that
you complain about.
>The problem is that Congres is blatantly operating outside of it.
Which is a matter of interpretation.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
