Linux-Advocacy Digest #221, Volume #28 Fri, 4 Aug 00 04:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux or Windows 2000 ???? (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Linux, easy to use? (Ciaran)
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark (abraxas)
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark (abraxas)
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark (abraxas)
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark (abraxas)
Re: Win xx (Johnny Lee)
Re: Learn Unix on which Unix Flavour ? (Michal Kaspar)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux or Windows 2000 ????
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 06:44:47 GMT
In article <8mcnt6$ego$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have heard a lot of things about Linux.
>
> I'm running happily W2K and now I'd like to know a valid
> reason for switching from Windows 2000 to Linux? Why?
> What advantage does the person gain running Linux?
> Can some of you geniuses tell me ???
>
> Because Linux is a stable ?? Yes, I believe that, but so is W2K.
Microsoft went to a great deal of trouble to make sure that W2K
was as stable as possible. The MTBF is lower, but numerous users
have been reporting that they have to reinstall the software more
often than they'd like.
With Linux, I auto-upgrade every few months, but with MS-Windows
(including 2000) it's a real pain to restore a system back to it's
original state after a crash, hardware upgrade, or reconfiguration.
This is only partially Microsoft's fault. But it is inherant in
the design of their systems (directory tree structures, hierarchy
organization (or lack of it), and lack of links for back-ups.
With Linux, I can tar, cpio, or bru the entire file system, and
recover it to a new machine and Linux reconfigures 90% of it's
parameters automatically.
Windows 95 and Windows NT have "smart" INSTALLS, (a function of
the OEM configured response files).
> It costs less, yes it's true.
Less to buy.
Less to support.
Less for Hardware.
Less for applications.
Less for upgrades.
Less for hardware reconfigurations.
Less for custom software.
Less for more applications.
Linux had to compete with Windows 3.1 and Windows 95
which were supported by hundreds of commercial applications.
Linux had to provide thousands of equivalent applications
just to be considered a practical alternative to Windows.
> But I'm only buying W2K once, and am all
> set for at least 5 years if not more.
Do you really believe that? Most corporations and individuals
cater to Microsoft's plans of annual upgrades on a rotating basis
every year. This year you got Windows 2000, next year you'll be
getting Office 2001, then Explorer 6.0, and then Melennium for
your wife and kids, and then maybe Windows NG.
You don't think Microsoft generates revenues of $20 billion a year
by just letting you buy one piece of software every 5 years do you?
Remember, 5 years ago (as of August 1) you had Windows 3.1,
Office 2.0, and you might have installed your own Trumpet Winsock
and Mosaic or Netscape.
Since then, Microsoft has upgraded workstation products 3 times,
servers twice, office 3 times, and Internet Explorer 4 times.
> Besided, time is money. I will lose
> more money by screwing around
> with a new system that I don't even
> know and that may not even support
> the hardware that Windwows does.
Were you born holding a Microsoft mouse
and working with Windows 3.1? No, you had
to take some time and effort to learn Windows.
Before that, you probably used MS-DOS. Talk about
hard to learn/use systems - you had to exit one
application to start another one.
> What software am I going to run on it ???
Well, there are about 1300 packages, over 1 thousand,
that come with the system distribution. Some vendors
like SuSE and Mandrake also throw in several hundred
additional applications on a test-drive or try-buy basis.
> All the world class software
> is written for Windows. Hardly anything is ported to Linux.
If by "world class" you mean a CD-Rom packed in a huge cardboard
box reinforced with cardboard so that it looks as big a a VHS video
tape, and costs 10 times more? You're correct. Most Linux software
is either included on the distribution CD-ROMS (with permanent
enablement keys available via the Internet - via e-commerce), or
available on the internet itself.
This isn't to say that none of those 2000 applications won't ever
be found on the CompUSA or ElectronicsBotique shelves, but most of
them are finding that the $1 million entry prices for getting
shelved in some of these franchises can be better leveraged elsewhere.
Corel and Red Hat both get a substantial portion of their revenue
through sales of support agreements, which are similar to licences,
but you actually expect something to be provided for you. If they
can generate sales of 1 million units/month at $40 and still make
a profit of $10-14/copy, and they also sell 1 million copies via
retail franchises for $80 at a profit of $5/copy (warehousing,
stocking, shelving, displays, inventory management, and returns),
where do you think the smaller companies will focus their efforts?
> I'm a Windows developer,
> why should I spend 2 years of my life learning
> how to program a new ssytem, that may eventually die anyway ???
Good question. If you want to stay in the Windows world, there's
certainly nothing wrong with that.
You will probably find yourself competing with people who provide
products for BOTH Windows and Linux. It's pretty easy to get the
same code running on both systems if you plan it out.
Linux has grown from 1 million users in January 1996 at an average
rate of just under 300%/year (240%/250% based on actual unit volumes),
with only one "slow period" shortly after the release of
Windows NT 4.0. Even if you conservatively only use 200% growth,
you're still tripling every year. That means 3 million in 96,
6 million in 97 (slow year), 18 million in 1997, 30 million in 98
(release of Win98), and 60 million in 1999, you could see a possible
market of 100 million people or more by the end of 2000.
And here's the good part. These are brand new users of a brand new
product. It's a virgin market. AND it's still growing at exponential
rates. Even if you just look at revenues of Red Hat, VA Linux, Corel,
and others, the Linux market share is still growing at rates of 120% to
250%, and some companies are reporting growth of as much as 270% in a
single QUARTER. I wouldn't base a business plan on 1000% growth every
year, but many companies are getting a quick start in a rapidly growing
market.
Furthermore, there are no NDAs to sign, no royalties to pay up front,
no gag orders forbidding you from announcing your affinity for Linux.
You don't even have to pay for the right to use the trademarks and
standard Tux logo.
The last time a deal like this came along was in 1994. I was working
on this thing called the "World Wide Web". I was actually involved
in making the Internet available to the general public in a commercial
form since 1991, so I knew what I was looking for. But there were
many publishers who ignored the web, even ridiculed web developers
for engaging in this foolishness. Many didn't even try to claim
intellectual property ownership over new, emerging technologies.
Many companies actually let their brightest people leave their
companies and form Yahoo, Infoseek, C-NET, ZDNet, Netscape, and
Netcom.
You see, all the "Smart Money" was on single service dial-up systems
like Prodigy, Compuserve, AOL, and Dow Jones News Retrieval service.
You dialed up a service, gave them a password, and they force-fed
you ads and offers - at rates between $6/hour and $1/minute.
Everybody "Knew" that the smart money was on Novell for LANS.
This was January of 1994. By March, Dow Jones was providing free
content (a subset of their news wire service on 1 hour delay), and
Dow Jones was helping 500 publishers including the New York Times,
Washington Post, and several other large local newspapers establish
a web presence.
By July, Mosaic had been downloaded at a rate of 200,000 copies A DAY.
(several Linux products approached that last year). A month later,
Marc Andreeson released Netscape, to an equally receptive audience.
Jim Barkesdale joined Netscape as CEO and took it public to a huge
IPO.
Suddenly Novell stock was tanking (as people switched to TCP/IP on
their LANs). Prodigy and Compuserve were struggling, and the Internet
was swamping the X.25 network initially set up to support dial-up
point-to-point services.
By early 1995, the question wasn't "Why should I be on the Internet",
but "How soon can you get me on the internet". Many hucksters and
hustlers were charging $1 million for initial set-up of systems based
on Netscape Enterprise, Oracle, and Sun servers. Others were able
to start their companies off with Linux servers, Linux firewalls,
and a basic T1 for as little as $50,000 and $1,000/month (t1 and
part-time staffing).
Does this mean that creating a Linux app and putting it in a
CompUSA will give you the "Get Rich Quick" software cornicopia
that requires no further effort or investment on your part?
Absolutely NOT!
You may have a BETTER chance at channels similar to those Microsoft
uses (direct to OEMs and Fortune 1000 companies). You may have a
BETTER chance at being "Adopted" since Linux applications don't
have as many of those "interesting interactions".
CGI/PERL goes a long way on Linux. But you also have KDE (this WILL
cost you some $$) and GNOME (free but pretty darned good).
Using the CORBA implementations built into both tool-kits you can
create extensible products that allow you to offer a "Basic" package
for free, a "Professional" package for $20-40 (with very little
overhead in terms of Inventory, flooring, ...) a "Deluxe" package
for $80-100, and an Enterprise package that STARTS at $2000 per site,
and is scaled to support $1 million/year support contracts for
companies of 10,000 employees or more.
> I can create a great application using Visual Basic or Visual C++ in a
> matter of few days. I'm not sure if that's posible in Linux. I haven't
> heard about any Visual development envir. for Linux ...
Ever heard of web sites?
Actually, there are a number of great tools and languages. Because
Linux never had the same limitations as some of the earlier versions
of Microsoft Windows, there was no need for an IDE. Debuggers,
displays, test tools, and other utilities can all be put on one of
the many desktops, with another desktop reserved for Office automation,
and onother for web cruising (It isn't "browsing" on Linux).
The hardest thing to get used to as a Linux user coming from a
Windows environment is that you see nothing from the time you
first click an icon to launch it, to the time the application
is ready to run. This is because neither application is ready
to do anything useful, but Linux programmers figure you'd rather
read e-mail or cruise web pages than have your mouse and keyboard
constantly pulled to intrusive windows telling you "I'll be ready
real soon now".
One of the reasons people switch from Windows to UNIX (Solaris, HP,
Irix, or Linux) is because they don't like having to "hurry up and
wait" when they need to provide time-critical responses. This is why
you see most systems admins running Open View or Tivoli or Solstace
on a UNIX workstation instead of on Windows (even though Windows
versions of the display are available). The problem is that in
situations such as Air Traffic control, rail traffic management,
stock trading for Mutual funds, or network administration, the time
between the first visible alert and an appropriate action can be
only a few seconds.
Linux/UNIX lets you start an application, then move to start other
applications, further investigate the problem, or just turn off the
klaxon.
> The only way they (companies) can defeat
> Microsoft is with the help of
> mom - Government.
Microsoft has engaged in some agressive business practices that
it's customers (OEMs and Fortune 1000 companies) don't particularly
like. The DOJ trial did two things, even if the entire ruling
was overturned.
First, it exposed these tactics as both commonplace
and as disliked. It's a bit like when the town fool
pointed out that the king was naket as a Jay-bird. In
the fable, everyone was afraid that they would be considered
unfit for their high offices if they admitted that they
couldn't see the clothes. Top executives at hundreds
of companies were terrified to death to let it be known
that they had been so horribly exploited, because they
were afraid to be considered terrible negotiators. But then,
here comes IBM, the biggest kid on the block, being held
at bay by a company that earns one 10th the revenue and
nearly locked them out of the market. It's a bit like
when a rape victim tells her tale publicly. Suddenly she
descovers that not only isn't she the only one, but that
her "date rape" perpetrator has attacked numerous women,
including close friends. Even if the perpetrator isn't
prosecuted, that circle of friends is doing everything
to inform and protect their friends. In the corporate
world, giving Microsoft 1/2 of your 10% earnings (would have
been) so that Microsoft can enjoy 50% earnings over revenue,
is very much like being raped. You don't want your stockholders
to know, you don't want your employeess to know, and you don't
want your board of directors to know.
Second, it created a dialogue for alternatives and competition.
Linux and Mac are the strongest candidates right now. Mac because
it already has between 5 and 25% depending on who's counting and
what's being counted. And Linux because it can't become "another
Microsoft". This makes Linux very popular with both OEMS and with
customers. The customers like the idea of Linux that still allows
them choice of hardware and applications as well as support providers.
The ability to "Mix and Match" various types of Linux and UNIX systems
on various platforms makes the whole open source concept very desirable.
Corporations have already enjoyed the advantages of open standards that
enabled them to mix-and-match Linux, UNIX, NT, and even Mainframes,
while still enjoying unique advantages offered by each vendor.
> That's the only way they can do it, they can't
> succeed on the merit alone.
They can, and they might have to. It will just take a bit
longer and the growth will be a bit slower. A final court
judgement against Microsoft would open the market and remove
legal and contractural (but illegal) barriers to entry into
not only the Personal Operating System market, but also the
applications market. It would also prevent Microsoft from
taking control of the media and media distribution channels.
> Sun Microsystems goes even so far as to
> get involved European Union.
Microsoft tried to influence the E.U. in a number of ways.
The problem was that Europe has long been a strong market
for UNIX and Linux, largely because of the multi-lingual
requirements (which UNIX supported in the mid 1980s) and
incompatibile standards (UNIX systems were often used to
bridge information from one to the other).
Sun also has more influence because they have contributed
a great deal to the infrastructure standards and specifications
of the european information and communications infrastructure.
Meanwhile, Microsoft has attempted to impose the same contracts
in Europe that it uses in the U.S. The big difference is that
in most European countries, most of the "pet weasel clauses" are
direct violations of numerous European laws. In many cases,
Microsoft has to struggle to keep the entire contract from being
nullified.
> Now that's real abuse of government power.
No, real abuse of power is using your television network(s)
(MSNBC, CNBC, NBC) to divert attention from your criminal
activities by attempting to overthrow the government by
leaking illegally obtained evidence intended to cause
the impeachment of the President of the United States.
> Here is the clear indication who is THE LOSER.
> I can't wait to see your replies
Hard up for entertainment?
You could play with an old Windows 3.1 machine and watch it
crash a few hundred times.
Today, it would be absurd to compare Windows 3.1 with Linux and
UNIX. But this is exactly what Microsoft tried to do. They
tried to convince everybody that not only was Windows 3.1 as
good as SunOS, AIX, and HP_UX (alluding to UNIX as that "text-only,
vt-100 interface attached to a complicated operating system).
The fact is that even ComputerPhobic executives loved their Suns,
Apollos, HPs, and RS/6000s.
Microsoft promised that NT would be a "Better UNIX than UNIX".
NT 3.11 didn't even come close, NT 3.5 was unfit for consumption,
NT 3.51 was barely stable as a file and print server, and NT 4.0
was famous for it's crashes. NT 4.3 (NT 4 with SP 3) was pretty
stable as a workstation and as a trivial server (one or two services),
but wasn't even close to a real UNIX system.
I actually thought that Windows 2000 would be as good as SunOS 4.0,
but I was wrong. It's pretty reliable when running one or two
services, but it still does scary things when running really
sophisticated 3rd party services.
In fact, if anything has become a "Better UNIX than UNIX" it was
Linux. Today, UNIX vendors are striving to make their UNIX systems
"Linux compatible". This allows them to provide even better
performance and/or availability in the kernel while still supporting
all the applications and tools found in a standard Linux distribution.
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Another fine Linux powered service.^^^
--
Rex Ballard - I/T Architect, MIS Director
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 42 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 8/2/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
From: Ciaran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 00:07:53 -0700
Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ciaran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
>>>On 2 Aug 2000 16:15:45 -0500, Tim Palmer wrote:
>>>>Slava Pestov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>I don't have to ty[e anything on Linux, either. In fact, I
>>can't
>>>>>remember the last time I ty[ed anything, on any OS.
>>>>
>>>>Lier. You tipe every time you log in.
>>>
>>>No, he doesn't "tipe". He doesn't "ty[e" either. BTW, what is
a
>>>"lier" ?
>>
>>lier \Li"er\ (l[imac]"[~e]r), n. [From Lie. ] One who lies
down;
>>one who rests or remains, as in concealment.
>>
>>There were liers in ambush against him. --Josh. viii. 14.
>
>lier \ly-er\ m. a iddiot that tells lies all the time.
>
>There were a bunch of Lienux lier on The Internet.
Begone, twit.
Cheers,
Ciaran
===========================================================
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: 4 Aug 2000 07:32:32 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8marcq$2g98$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jun Nolasco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >> Compaq doesnt even know what hot-swappable logic boards and gigabit
> backplanes
>> >> are yet.
>> >
>> > So, what does the absence of hot-swappable logic boards and gigabit
>> > backplanes have to do with the published TPC-C results?
>> >
>>
>> Hot swappable logic boards: next to nothing except ridiculously high
> uptimes.
>> Gigabit backplanes: everything.
>
> so,... tell us - where did those gigabit backplanes go when sun was running
> TPC-C benchmarks?
> Tell us - how did those gigabit backplanes assist Sun in producing 1/3rd the
> results of Compaq PC hardware?
>
They were of course operating inside hardware that was not (most fairly)
compared with compaq hardware.
Apples and oranges.
> Wow, impressive EXPENSIVE hardware you got there... but, does it actually DO
> anything worthy?
Once again, you prove your own worthlessness in the field, dresden.
Wheres my fucking coffee?
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: 4 Aug 2000 07:33:51 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8mahjv$2g98$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > oh give me a break - this is from the gay poster child of
> self-mutilation?
>> >
>>
>> Another confirmable lie from dresden black; I am not gay.
>>
>
> prove it.
>
The burden seems to be on YOU dresden, the accusation being YOURS.
Go ahead. Submit any sort of evidence at all that I am gay.
Not that theres anything wrong with being gay of course. I do not
find the accusation offensive as much as ludicrous.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: 4 Aug 2000 07:35:40 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Months ago he also claimed to know all about UNIX and then was found to
>> not even know what 'su' does.
>
> from the very very first post, I gave the right answer -
No, you didnt.
> you just never
> heard of su = superuser before
Yes, I had. For quite a long time. It doesnt make you correct though.
> - you're experience is too limited. I knew
> then what su could do
No, you didnt.
> (and should have, it's in Windows NT as well). My
> mistake was to assume that since others didn't know su=superuser until a
> week later when others started to post that I was wrong and had forgotten
> something... but... in the end, i was right.
No, you werent.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: 4 Aug 2000 07:36:20 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You wouldn't know the truth if you had the blueprints in your hands.
>
> You continue to dodge the question. Prove it. Prove your claim. Prove it or
> continue to be known as the poorest liar on usenet. We're all waiting...
...for you to prove any one of your claims as well, dresden.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: Johnny Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win xx
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 07:45:32 GMT
Stuart Krivis wrote:
>
> Why is it that, when talking about consumer OSes, I kept hearing that NT/Win2K was
> not a consumer OS, so I shouldn't try to compare it to x? Now we hear that the future
> is an NT-based consumer OS, so we shouldn't try to compare Win 9X to x.
Well, that's how MS markets it. 9x (including Me) is the consumer OS
and 2K is for the corporate users.
>
> The tune changes at a whim.
It's actually rather consistent from MS, regardless of what you might
have read on this NG.
>
> 9x is for consumers, so don't expect the robustness of Solaris. NT/Win2K isn't for
> consumers, so don't expect it to...
>
> The latest little mantra is that the future consumer OS will be NT-based. It seems to
> be the answer to all the ills of the world. :-)
Query - W2K isn't what? Not a good office/corporate OS?
>
> Pardon me, but I've heard this before. MS was flapping their gums about a real 32-bit
> OS back in '93 or '94. Cairo or Win 4 or whatever was supposed to be a consumer OS
> with robust underpinnings. Just like Whistler or whatever they're calling it.
> Instead, we got Win 95. And they didn't even include any lubricant with it. Ouch!
Just like MacOS or any other bussiness. Models change. Consumer
markets change. Whilst in '93 perhaps the goals was for a uniform 32
bit OS, but it didn't happen or wasn't needed. Question is, what are
you comparing this trend to.
>
> They then took NT 3.x and grafted on features from their consumer-grade OS. I
> remember people complaining that MS had ruined NT. :-)
Which are? Examples, please.
>
> Now we've got the all-singing, all-dancing Win 2K. It's closer in some ways to what
> they promised so long ago, but at the cost of being a huge complex beast.
I'll admit it's quite different than 9x or NT and probably, at the
onset, a bit more complex. Give it a bit of time and you'll see that's
it's not really more complex (compare to NT, it much more user friendly)
but just different.
>
> Windows also tends to be very fragile. You need to run MS software to get all the
> features, and it's all interwoven into the OS. Things break for no explainable reason
> and nobody seems to have a clue why they break or how to fix it. Just reinstall and
> maybe it will be all better.
That's not a valid argument. If a third party software is poorly
written, is it the fault of the OS? On a Mac anyone can write a bad
address pointer and crash the OS. There will be poor software for W2k.
There are poor software for Linux. And the list goes on. I fail to see
where your real arguments are.
>
> Don't get me wrong, Win 2K _is_ an improvement in some ways. If you have the
> horsepower to run it, it is a better desktop machine than NT 4 or Win 9X. I use it
> for some things and am, overall, pleased with it. But I still have my doubts about
> its being ready to run a business on. Unix is better in many ways for that type of
> use.
Examples, please. How are Unix better than Windows. I ask for clarity
and not as a flame.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,alt.solaris.x86,comp.os.linux.misc
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 09:46:22 +0200
From: Michal Kaspar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Learn Unix on which Unix Flavour ?
On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, Grant Edwards wrote:
> So, is OS/390 (or MVS?) a flavor of Unix(tm), or just Posix-<something>
> compliant?
>
OS/390 is compliant with Unix 95. I'm not sure but I thing i read somwhere
that even Windows NT was compliant with POSIX.
--
Michal Kaspar
VSE Praha
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
