Linux-Advocacy Digest #257, Volume #28 Sun, 6 Aug 00 03:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: From a Grove of Birch Trees It Came... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (void)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (void)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 02:29:25 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Fri, 28 Jul 2000 23:13:47 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>>So where's the "teaching language" for structured programming? Isn't
>>there anything more accessible without a CS degree that perl, python, C,
>>C++, or Java?
>
>I completely object to you lumping python in with C and C++. C and C++
>require preprocessor directives and compilation. They both require the user
>to allocate memory.
>
>Python doesn't. Can you explain to us why python is "hard" ? I don't see
>anything about it that is more "hard" than basic.
No doubt because you know both Python and BASIC. Since I know only
BASIC, Python is hard. ;-)
>> However important it may be to "learn the right way", the
>>nature of the problem for 'beginner's languages' is to provide enough
>>potential for even bad code to provide something practically useful all
>>the way from the beginning. I honestly don't think FORTRAN or Pascal
>>are quite right.
>
>If you want something that's going to be useful straight away, try shell
>script. Python also makes it easy to write useful programs in very little
>time though.
What can I say; I want something 'intuitive'. For me, that means BASIC.
You want structured programming? Fine; give me a BASIC without a GOTO.
The real issue isn't how *easy* it is, in my opinion, to write "useful"
programs. The real issue for me is whether it is trivial to write
"useful" programs to begin with. I'm afraid I've already lost my
interest in simple shell automation. I've been literally waiting for
years for a *PC* automation system, similar to Windows/Win32, in fact,
but not broken, fundamentally flawed, and grossly inadequate for
anything but maintaining a monopoly.
Hell, I don't want shell scripts. I want application macros.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== 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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 02:29:35 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Fri, 28 Jul 2000 23:08:00 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
>>BASIC was created as a teaching language, yes. But I think you might
>>consider it a horrendous language for teaching because you might not
>>realize how "basic" the level of teaching is supposed to be. It wasn't
>>built to teach how to program in terms of *design* of a good program.
>>It was designed, itself, to teach the rudimentary concepts of
>>conditional processing. "If...then", and little more.
>
>What about when the user wants to put code in a seperate function ?
>Basic would teach about "goto", while structured programming languages
>would encourage the use of "functions" and "proceedures".
I learned these as "sub-routines". Its putting code in a separate
*file* which is problematic; putting often used sub-routines in a
separate section of your code is what "GOSUB" is all about.
>If you don't want to go further than if/then, while, and
>friends, you might as well just teach shell script.
If I could get shell scripts to do more than shell things, I'd agree
with you.
>>The problem is there's no middle ground for the common user. You either
>>have something entirely broken, or you have a "real" language, where you
>>have to start worrying about *design*.
>
> The way you're saying this makes it seem as though new programmers have
> to be OO design wizards to learn a real language, and you say
>"real language" as if it means the same thing as "hard language". It
>doesn't. There are well designed interpreted languages that encourage
>good programming habits and are not hard to learn. For example, python.
I would have to say that your assessment of "hard language" is most
prominently that of someone who has already learned "real" programming.
Yes, new *users* which want to be able to *automate* computer
functionality have to learn a "real language", which is to say a
structured, 'OO', language. There is a need, I think, in order to
empower end users to benefit more from professional programming, rather
than less, for a "high end procedural language". But that might just be
my twisted thinking based on my own experience. It may very well be
that a low end structured "real" language is more appropriate, or perl
or python or what have you.
>> Programming *isn't* always going
>>to be a purely professional endeavor.
>
>That's no excuse for making poor developer tools. In fact it's even MORE
>important that the development tools be well polished if a beginner is
>going to use them.
I'm not talking about developer tools. It isn't a question of being
"well polished" so much as "efficient and accessible for relatively
trivial and often ad hoc tasks". I am, indeed, looking for a "beginner
development tool", but not a simplistic and limited 'kindergarten'
environment.
>>they might program professionally. But we need to go back to BASIC, and
>>bring it forward into "real time", not just abandon the idea of anything
>>simpler than perl or C or Java and leave the end user at the mercy of
>>their ignorance.
>
>This doesn't make much sense. You act as though basic is "easy" and it
>is good for end users. I'm not dissing basic because I'm some kind of
>elitist who thinks everyone should program in C and assembly. My point
>is that there are better and easier languages out there.
My lack of experience prevents me from providing such judgements. BASIC
is pretty much all I know. It is, therefore, easy for me, in comparison
to any other. I've been repeatedly pointed towards shell scripts, and
have indeed managed to cobble several simple examples together over the
years. But I usually get one of the Unix gurus to script anything that
I can manage to.
It is certainly more an issue of environments, rather than languages,
which drive my concerns. I want Visual Basic and Win32 without
Microsoft, you know what I mean?
>How about you identify what features a language
>should have to be "suitable for ordinary users' and I'll tell you why
>basic doesn't score terribly well ?
Just start anywhere; you under-estimate how clueless I am concerning
what would make one language score better than another in these regards.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== 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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: From a Grove of Birch Trees It Came...
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 02:29:52 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> [...]
>> >And which party controlled both houses of Congress at that time?
>> [...]
>>
>> You actually think it matters?
>
>Just making the point that all of the "corporate welfare" that
>the Democrats are whining about and blaming on the Republicans
>was actually pushed through congress by the Democrats themselves.
>
>The Republicans' greatest fear is that the American public
>won't understand what the Republicans' goals are.
>
>The Democrats' greatest fear is that the American public
>will figure out EXACTLY what the Democrats' goals are.
Wow; coming from a Republican, that sure sounds like a pretty convincing
argument. Not.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== 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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 02:30:18 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Nathaniel Jay Lee in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Mike Byrns wrote:
>>
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:8lo7t3$jm4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > > It was not directed at you, or anyone specific in this forum so you
>> > > will see no apology from me.
>> >
>> > What you called geek code would by definition be created and used by
>> geeks.
>> > You already knew that I work with the configuration files, scripts, and
>> > program code; any or all of which could be what you meant by geek code.
>> So,
>> > that was an indirect means to libel me.
>> >
>> > If you are at all an honorable man or woman, you would appologize for your
>> > offensive and libellous comment. And don't hide behind the indirect
>> method
>> > that you used to deliver it.
>>
>> 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.) 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.
>
>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. 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". 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.
>
>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. 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?
>
>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. 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.
>
>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.
>
>Yeah, I'm an idiot. I already know that. But I'm an idiot with
>principles.
Hoo-rah. Outstanding sentiment; geeks everywhere thank you, Nathan, for
a job well done.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== 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] (void)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 6 Aug 2000 06:19:59 GMT
On Fri, 4 Aug 2000 22:57:36 +0200, Lars Träger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
[crashing]
>> OTOH, genuine PMT should prevent it happening on WinDOS.
>
>Ahh, so it's that Win9x doesn't have "genuine PMT", just some wiered
>imitation. Well that shows us something - there's not only real and
>false multitasking, there's also true real MT and fake real MT.
Not necessarily -- there are other ways to crash a machine besides
hogging the CPU.
--
Ben
220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (void)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 6 Aug 2000 06:22:38 GMT
On Sat, 05 Aug 2000 18:46:31 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>In the six years that I have been working with Unix workstations
>regularly (if not routinely), I have on occasion heard people refer to
>what I assumed was supposed to be the suid as "the sticky bit". How do
>they differ?
What, you're too good to read the copious manual references I provided?
--
Ben
220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 02:33:08 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said David Brown in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>
>T. Max Devlin wrote in message
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
>< Snip an informative discussion of US laws >
>
>>countless private suits which are advanced by the conviction will end up
>>punishing Microsoft pretty well (adding insult to the injury of losing
>>their monopoly), if you are anxious to see someone 'pay'.
>>
>
>It is not so much that I want someone to "pay", but I don't think anyone
>should be allowed to benifit from crimes. If the breakup destroys MS, then
>even with the share value going through the floor, the MS top brass will
>walk out of the mess with inhumanely large bank accounts - profits from the
>crimes. By any ethical standards, that is wrong. And what is perhaps
>worse, all those guys on the floor who worked 16 hours a day to make MS what
>it is, get paid peanuts plus stock options. When the options are worthless,
>what are they left with?
I understand your point. But in all honesty I think it is a bit
misplaced to extend compassion to such large organizations which are
market-based, if not market-driven. I agree that it is not "just" that
MS top brass (or any other software empire top brass, not entirely
excluding Sun and Oracle and certainly IBM and possibly Cisco, though
all but Oracle are actually hardware vendors) profiteer on
interoperability, as it were. But breaking up MS is only a single
issue, not appropriate for trying to overthrow the entirety of the
injustice inherent in corporate exploitation of intellectual property
and communications.
>>The truth is, everyone who went along with the monopoly, even out of
>>complete ignorance, might well share in some of the blame, if you're
>>looking for something that looks more like retribution than a consent
>>decree.
>
>True enough - but I think we've suffered enough already.
Perhaps there's some abstract mathematics which might be derived from
this issue. If the suffering of any individual customer does not
outweigh the benefit to that customer, they wouldn't have gone along
with the monopoly. Yet the net benefit (no pun intended) to all
customers is a negative value, quite pointedly, in comparison to the
total suffering, I would surmise.
So perhaps this indicates that the benefits accrue arithmetically (add
all benefits to all consumers = total) while the suffering actually
follows an exponential pattern. This may be an extension of the concept
of "network effect". I've noticed recently that "network effect" is
used as an almost malignant phenomenon in some modern usage, due to the
putative use of "network effect" by Microsoft in securing and extending
their monopoly. This concept, first published by Dr. Robert Metcalfe, I
believe, postulates that the benefit of a networked computer system is
multiplied by the number of computer systems which it is interconnected
to, and is quite an optimistic principle, in fact. Perhaps this is the
textual equivalent of the potential sociological relationship I
mentioned. The benefit of interoperability has an inverse relationship
to the "benefit" of non-interoparability. Anybody feel like thinking
harder on this issue? (All it would actually take is a comment that I'm
full of shit and clueless, but I'd prefer some actual consideration and
analysis, if possible.)
>>I'd certainly love to see BG charged with fraud, but I can't see it
>>happening, sorry.
>>
>
>In the words of Billy Connolly (I think I've quoted this before):
> "Hingin's too good for yous people - it's a good kick up the arse you
>need"
>(Directed and BG and gang, not you T. Max. At least, not this time :-)
In the words of Horatio Hornblower (I know I've quoted this before):
"I lick's ya 'cuz I can, and 'cuz I likes, and 'cuz ya's the kind
that licken's good fer."
(Directed likewise.)
>> [...]
>>
>>
>>>They suddenly not
>>>only own the data, but have a free reign to restrict your use of that data
>>>in any way they want.
>>
>>I'm apparently not tracking you right. You can't really have "more
>>rights" than copyright.
>
>You can. If I by a book, I can read it anywhere I like. I can lend it to
>you, and I can quote passages from it when writing a review (the fair use
>act). I cannot photocopy large sections of it, or hire it out. This is all
>perfectly reasonable, and relatively few people would argue with its merits
>for both the copyright owner and the end-user.
I see what you mean, and what I missed. You refer to the use of
copyrighted material as "trade secret". By demanding licensing
agreements with *consumers*, rather than producers, of copyrighted
material, the modern media/software world does, indeed, restrict use of
data.
>If I buy an electronic book which is encrypted, the DCMA gives the owner far
>more control. They can say that I can only read the book from the one
>computer - the licence restricts me from transferring it. They can even say
>that I can only read it in the afternoons if they want. In particular, they
>can say that I can only read it three times, or only for two weeks - if I
>want to read it more, I must buy a new copy.
Precisely why I've argued in the past that modern application of
intellectual property laws to technology is analogous to the kind of
situation which would arise if Gutenberg had somehow used his invention
to justify patenting (if it had been available) not just the printing
press, but the use of the written word itself. "Language" is a
duplicitous term, in many regards.
>I am not a lawer (in case you hadn't guessed), so you will have to look
>elsewhere for the nitty gritty, but that is certainly how I understand the
>DCMA, judging by various news stories.
I'm not a lawyer, either, but seldom hesitate to disagree with one if I
think they're wrong, and have been proven at least more correct than
other non-lawyers, in the past. I concur with your assessment of the
situation, but I'm also quite sure that a lawyer would not be interested
in the abstractions necessary to understand it, as they are not legal
abstractions. I fear some slight revolution is going to be necessary to
fix the problem of intellectual property. I'm quite certain that when
the present is little more than historical speculation, the VCR issue
will be considered the earliest uprising, and Napster will be thought of
as the first great engagement.
>The DCMA also makes it easier to prosecute or sue people who break the
>encryption - I don't know the legal details, but I understand that that is
>one of the aims of the act.
The idea of using a distribution medium/technology as a way of
protecting ownership doesn't, in the abstract, seem like a bad idea, I
guess. In practical terms, though, it does seem to be aimed at allowing
those who want to benefit from copyrighted works to be restricted with
exorbitant requirements to agree to trade secret licensing in order to
gain such benefit.
[...]
>>>The claim is that it is to hinder pirating, but
>>>pirates simply copy the whole disk, encryption and all.
>>
>>It is a boondoggle. I'm not going to argue that it is only some
>>peculiar construct of U.S. Copyright law which allows this kind of crap.
>
>The DCMA is fortunately restricted to the USA at the moment - other
>countries and the EU are still considering how they should modernise
>copyright law.
Hopefully, they will not follow the U.S. model in how to make that
decision. I've recently learned (http://www.msen.com/~litman/no.htm)
that the practice of our government is to gather together all of those
who seek to profit (nee profiteer) from intellectual property and
essentially to ratify their desires in law. The DCMA is the inevitable
outcome of such an arrangement, but I'm at a loss concerning how to
combat such insidious precedent.
>>Yes, it is an attempt to profiteer, and nothing more. I fully expect
>>the heroes who cracked DVD encoding will be exonerated in the end.
>
>The Norwegian authorities originally confiscated the kid's PC, mobil
>telephone, and various other bits and pieces, and took him in for
>questioning (he was never actually arrested, despite the news reports).
>However, the Norwegian authorities have since publically appologised to him
>for his treatment, and given him a commendation for his services to the
>public in publishing the program.
:-D
>> [...]
>< Snip some interesting stuff about the American way of life. Since I
>cannot really comment on it, and certainly can't argue with it, I'm snipping
>it to save on binary trees. >
>> [...]
I'm glad you found it interesting; I happen to be a real "tree-hugger"
when it comes to the binary variety. Feel free to edit obsessively;
judicious and conservative quoting enhances a discussion. It is only a
distraction or a detraction from discussion when used dishonestly.
[...]
>I did not (or didn't mean to) judge your opinions of either the US or EU
>legal systems - I just wanted to make sure you, and other readers, could see
>an example of how falable the US legal system can be.
I need little teachings on that subject. ;-)
My point, in fact, was that I did want to judge my opinions of either
the US or EU legal systems. I do not shrink from subjective
declarations; this is a Usenet discussion, not a congressional policy
debate.
>It is also worth noting in all this that EU law can be significantly
>different from the laws of the member countries, and of non-member countries
>like Norway (we are not in the EU, but co-operate on many issues). For
>example, Scots law is unlike any other law system in the world (as far as I
>know).
How so?
[...]
>I don't know how effective it will be - I really have no way of judging at
>the moment. As things progress, we'll find out more. But I have given you
>all the information I know on the topic - anything more would be pure
>conjecture.
Well, yesterday (no less than five days after your post; I'm getting
caught up after another travel week) the EU announced they're charging
MS with anti-trust crimes in the server market. I don't mind
conjecture, if reasonably motivated, performed, and presented. In fact,
I want to encourage more conjecture; it is the result of thinking, and
it isn't important whether it is right or wrong, as long as you don't
confuse it with either opinion or facts.
>>[...]But if you're a
>>typical code jockey, your home projects most definitely are *NOT*
>>automatically available to your employer, for profit *or* profiteering.
>
>The rules are complicated, and may be totally different in the USA and
>Norway (USA will be biased towards the personal rights of the individual,
>whereas in Norway working at home can be seen as moonlighting. Technically,
>although not in practice, a professional hairdresser can be taxed for
>cutting his/her children's hair.
Yow.
[...]
>>This being Usenet, I simply can't resist asking the question, "You mean
>>in Europe you tolerate unethical behavior in your public officials, just
>>because the government represent's the people's interest?"
>
>No, we don't tolerate it, and we enjoy moaning about the government as much
>as anyone. But I think we have more of an "innocent until proven guilty"
>attitude towards the public offices, whereas the USA seems to be more the
>opposite.
You got that right. I don't know if this is entirely unique to the US,
but it occurs to me that we are more than willing to suspect *anyone*
who states that they are acting from social conscience, even as we
bemoan the fact that not enough people do. Wonderfully empirical, in
some ways, but problematic when it comes to social concerns and civil
duties.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
