Linux-Advocacy Digest #355, Volume #28 Fri, 11 Aug 00 17:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Honest question about NT vs. Unix as Internet platform ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Learn Unix on which Unix Flavour ? (Ed Reppert)
Re: Honest question about NT vs. Unix as Internet platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Honest question about NT vs. Unix as Internet platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Are Linux people illiterate? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Shocktrooper")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Shocktrooper")
Re: Honest question about NT vs. Unix as Internet platform (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Are Linux people illiterate? (Roberto Alsina)
Re: ATTN: REX BALLARD: Microsoft's contracts not volountary (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: ATTN: REX BALLARD: Microsoft's contracts not volountary (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating
Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Honest question about NT vs. Unix as Internet platform
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 14:41:28 -0500
"Mr Jama" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Anyways, I'm being told by our IT outsourcer that I don't know what I'm
talking
> about, that Unix is far more secure than NT as an Internet platform, and
that
> Unix is far more scalable. He's very adamant about this.
>
> Hey, I'm happy to be wrong. But I want some facts to prove it. He claims
that
> Unix has about 2 security problems identified per month, whereas NT
averages
> about 12. He also claims that NT takes 2+ weeks to post patches whereas
Unix
> vendors typically take 2 days after a problem is identified.
>
> What do you guys think? Is NT really less secure than Unix for the
Internet?
> What about browsers? Is this guy just a Unix weenie, or does he have a
point?
What do you mean by "IT outsourcer"? Is he the guy that handles everything?
Administrates it? Fixes it? Etc?
NT is definately going to be a cheaper solution than Solaris (unless you're
buying 5 year old Sun boxes at auction). Solaris is definately more
scaleable on a single machine than NT (Solaris scales up to 64 processors,
Win2k can do 32 max right now). If you're going to do a clustered solution,
then Win2k seems to be winning all the tests here. If you're using a single
box solution, then Solaris will probably be more reliable in the long run.
Security holes exist in just about any OS. Solaris has been around longer
than NT, so many of it's big bugs have been worked out. But some are still
found. Also, most "crackers" are more interested in cracking NT systems
these days, so they seem to get a lot more attempts. More attemps, more
vulnerabilities will be found.
Sun is not a speed demon at producing patches. Sometimes they can take
months, and in a few cases known security vulnerabilities have stuck around
for years. They're pretty equivelant to MS at providing patches. Of course
the more urgent and widespread a vulnerability is, the faster the patch will
probably appear.
Most security vulnerabilities for NT are on the desktop though, not server
related vulnerabilities. If you're not using your server to run office
applications or email, the number of exploits will be much smaller (since
these seem to be the highest number of exploits).
------------------------------
From: Ed Reppert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,alt.solaris.x86,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Learn Unix on which Unix Flavour ?
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 19:42:05 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Kevin Shelly
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All the OS/360 ... It's pretty neat.
I'll bet it is. :-) When I was in England, the RN was considering moving
from Model 204 DBMS (which ran/runs under OS/360) to some Unix based
DBMS. Lots of changes since then, including, so I hear, consolidation of
RN data with that of other services. Dunno what DBMS or OS they're using
now, but your post makes me wonder if the Model 204 folks went to Unix
somewhere along the way.
Anyway, thanks for the info.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Honest question about NT vs. Unix as Internet platform
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 19:35:37 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> There's two ways of looking at this particular problem. NT is a 'safe
> bet' from a business perspective (that old, "No one ever got fired for
> installing Windows" phenom).
Actually, the phenom is "No one ever got fired for choosing Solaris for
Internet platforms". IMHO, one may get fired for using NT because NT
is simply not stable enough to run an Internet service. A friend of
mine runs his web site on NT and has to reboot the machine every two
weeks or so because the bloody MTS knocks IIS down.
> However, if you really feel you have to have NT, there aren't any
solid
> arguments to made against it that can't be made against nearly any
other
> commercial vendor.
if you don't mind rebooting the server from time to time...
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Honest question about NT vs. Unix as Internet platform
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 19:45:45 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> For me, I would never put NT in a data center. Too many weird things
> happen. My biggest complaint about Windows and NT is the attitude
that
> "rebooting" fixes a problem.
The fact is NT is nothing but a PC program (though a big and sluggish
one). It's natural that rebooting is the only way out.
> You can see it the the reaction of people. When confronted which a
hang,
> crash, or odd behavior, a Windows or NT admin will instinctively
reboot
> and not think about it again (until it happens again).
Probably because they had tried too many times finding the root cause
of the crashes, hangs, blue screens but in vain. What else can they
do? Try to fix the DLL hell problem?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Are Linux people illiterate?
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 19:56:48 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
> All this shows is that you [that's me] understand the phonetics of the
other languages
> better than you do Russian. ( presumeably because it's closer to the
> default pronunciations in the English language )
No. All this showed that Russian pronunciation is unpredictable because
stress is not written. If stress were written, and, in texts meant for
beginners it is, Russian pronunciation would be predictable (allowing
for a very few exceptions like g pronounced v in the genitive ending
-go, and in a very few words).
As for Chinese, Andres Soolo wrote:
> I've heard
> the Chinese writing system does that by using special
> strokes above the hieroglyphs
Only very occasionally, to distinguish between two pronunciations. For
instance the same sign can be pronounced zhang3 (jang, j as in judge,
3rd tone) and mean "to grow", or chang2 (ch as in church, 2nd tone) and
mean "long". The two are only distinguished when the context is
insufficient, by adding a little circle at one of the corners. This
device is almost only used in texts in Classical Chinese, which is an
awfully terse language.
But shouldn't we return to the usual topics of comp.os.linux.advocacy
and the original subject line? I say: Yes, Linux people are illiterate.
Proof, living proof: Tim Palmer! (Hey, Tim, old cock, are listening in?
Give us a post, will you? I've been missing you).
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Shocktrooper" <[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: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 20:26:14 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > wrote:
> >> [...quoting from the Finding of Fact...]
> >
> >These are hearsay claims which won't stand up to appeal. But since we're
> >pasting documents to Usenet here's my contribution, it's showing Microsoft's
> >court position and indicates the many reasons the whole case will be thrown
> >out.
>
> You don't seem to understand. These aren't "hearsay claims". They are
> the _findings_ of _fact_ in the case.
That is why it is called "findings of fact".. as opposed to simply "facts" or "facts
about reality". In reality, it is only the
opinion of the judge as to what is, and what is not actual reality.
Our current judicial system is not charged with determining reality first and
foremost. And unfortunately, truth is not the ultimate
appeal.
------------------------------
From: "Shocktrooper" <[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: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 20:26:21 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8mmqh9$aaq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 00:16:58 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> -- snip --
>
> > >No we're not. We're talking about a box with the OS and apps
> > >pre-installed and preconfigured, regardless of which OS and apps are
> > >chosen. The point is that the only real reason Windows is "easy to
> > >use" (and I use the phrase *very* loosely) is precisely because it
> > >*is* preinstalled. The minor differences between running GNUCash on
> > >Linux/GNOME and Quicken on Windows could be dealt with by any
> > >intelligent user. End users have had to change paradigms numerous
> > >times during the past couple of decades, from electric typewriters to
> > >dedicated word processors to character-based PC word processors to
> > >GUI ones. Compared to that, moving from Quicken to GNUCash is a walk
> > >in the park.
> >
> > One day that will happen. It isn't ready yet.
>
> Says who? You? Or MS, who has the retail channel "sewed up pretty
> tight?"
>
> The point is that *IF* a preconfigured box was offered at Retail Outlet
> USA, and *IF* Joe and Jane could play with it the same way they can play
> with a Windows box, there is ***ABSOLUTELY NO WAY* that you can
> guarantee that they will still buy the Windows box.
No, but the first time they wish to install some software their friend has.. they'll
probably be mightly pissed.
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Honest question about NT vs. Unix as Internet platform
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 15:26:34 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > There's two ways of looking at this particular problem. NT is a 'safe
> > bet' from a business perspective (that old, "No one ever got fired for
> > installing Windows" phenom).
>
> Actually, the phenom is "No one ever got fired for choosing Solaris for
> Internet platforms". IMHO, one may get fired for using NT because NT
> is simply not stable enough to run an Internet service. A friend of
> mine runs his web site on NT and has to reboot the machine every two
> weeks or so because the bloody MTS knocks IIS down.
While your paragraph is true to some extent, at the moment NT and
Microsoft are the 'hot words' that all the moronic, non-computer
literate managers know. If you aren't running Windows, then they don't
understand it. If they don't understand it, they fear it (why would a
computer person want to run something that their manager/company owner
doesn't already know about. If I don't know it, it must really suck!).
What a manager fears is not allowed, especially if they have no
knowledge of it (whatever knowledge they pretend to have).
I've actually seen this in a couple of companies I worked with/for.
Someone installed a Unix host for the web server and the first time the
link provider dropped it's connection for a few minutes the lecture was,
"If we had just put on NT this wouldn't be happening right now!" from a
clueless manager. In the end, they put NT on it, and as you said in
your post, they now have routine weekly reboots so that it won't lock up
or just die at random. Beautiful policy, but they reboot at 2:00am (and
don't go after foriegn markets) so it doesn't matter much to them.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Are Linux people illiterate?
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 17:43:31 -0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
>
> > All this shows is that you [that's me] understand the phonetics of the
> other languages
> > better than you do Russian. ( presumeably because it's closer to the
> > default pronunciations in the English language )
>
> No. All this showed that Russian pronunciation is unpredictable because
> stress is not written. If stress were written, and, in texts meant for
> beginners it is, Russian pronunciation would be predictable (allowing
> for a very few exceptions like g pronounced v in the genitive ending
> -go, and in a very few words).
Right. In some languages it is always written. In spanish it is, even if
the rules for writing it are kinda stupid.
That, and having more letters than sounds (instead of the reverse) make
spanish awfully easy to pronounce from written form, thus more directly
phonetical.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,soc.singles,alt.society.anarchy,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: ATTN: REX BALLARD: Microsoft's contracts not volountary
Date: 11 Aug 2000 20:59:13 GMT
On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 14:03:19 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>Loren Petrich wrote:
>> >> Dream on. Think of your beloved law of supply and demand.
>> >Higher availability of Unix Admins makes more Unix-based projects
>> >possible, bootstrapping more demand for Unix admins...
>>
>> Pure hand-waving.
>
>Wrong. It's a description of technological dynamics.
"Description" is a qualitative thing. Unfortunately, you need a quantitative
statement for your theory to hold water, in particular, a necessary
condition is that the number of new jobs created exceeds the number of
extra UNIX sys admins. It seems that either number could be greater
depending on the circumstances. In other words, it could go either way.
To suggest otherwise is simple minded.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,soc.singles,alt.society.anarchy,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: ATTN: REX BALLARD: Microsoft's contracts not volountary
Date: 11 Aug 2000 20:59:13 GMT
On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 14:03:19 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>Loren Petrich wrote:
>> >> Dream on. Think of your beloved law of supply and demand.
>> >Higher availability of Unix Admins makes more Unix-based projects
>> >possible, bootstrapping more demand for Unix admins...
>>
>> Pure hand-waving.
>
>Wrong. It's a description of technological dynamics.
"Description" is a qualitative thing. Unfortunately, you need a quantitative
statement for your theory to hold water, in particular, a necessary
condition is that the number of new jobs created exceeds the number of
extra UNIX sys admins. It seems that either number could be greater
depending on the circumstances. In other words, it could go either way.
To suggest otherwise is simple minded.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 11:49:12 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Not to sound alarmist, but we should at least pay attention to the
> *possibility* that it could be a problem. Always keep your eyes open
> for what *may* happen. Cause if you ain't watchin', they'll 'slip'
> something thru on you.
As has been said, The price of freedom is constant vigllance.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 12:56:12 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ah, let the people be heard!
>
> This is the stuff I find scary. I don't mind the idea of 'modularizing'
> the graphical interface into the kernel (as I believe some of the early
> efforts are underway to do so), just don't make it something that is
> *forced* on me.
Now implementing the frame buffer in the kernel was a good idea since it can
present a more or less uniform method of handling the graphical screen
across most Linux platforms. However, very much more graphics support in
the kernel is not good. The more of the GUI that is in the kernel, the more
the systems stability could be compromised.
> Some others are saying the volunteers won't do anything they don't
> *want* to do, but there are some very open minded volunteers 'listening'
> to these sort of rantings from the sidelines.
When they look for new things to do and they may take suggestions from those
elements, thinking that is what the userbase wants.
The computer rag that I was talking about was sitting with the newspaper and
magazines at the barber shop. I didn't pay any attention to it at first,
but the barber did. He didn't read the article but just took the headline
on the cover as his issue of the day. The headline was as well as I can
remember, "Linux says 'Get lost Geeks and hello *real* people' --Linux take
learns lessons from Microsoft and accepts Windows style full GUI
intergration".
So I read the two page article and found it to be nothing more than an
amplification of the USENET thread that had participated in. The author
accepted everything that was suggested by the otherside of the thread. The
opinions and observations of myself and others that had the same opinions
and views were dismissed as the "foolish crack dreams of the Geeks who
ruined Linux since the 1960's". The article never did admit the source of
the information within it, but I knew it was not a coincidence. It
contained a few unattributed but exact quotations from my postings and
others in that thread.
The barber knowing that I work with computers, started harping on the
subject and was in favor of the "Kicking the geeks out of Linux so the real
people can recover their investments in Linux." In the end the rest of the
customers were in full agreement with him. Now the kicker, the barber has
never used a computer in his life and the only customer who claimed to ever
use one was talking about an Atari 2600. All the same if someone were to
take a survey in that shop that day it would have been 9:1 in favor of the
suggestions in the article.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.alpha
Subject: Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 13:13:55 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
John Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > TRS-80 Model II
>
> The good old days.
When all things were still possible! Every computer model had its own
nature and style and users were willing to learn to use whatever computer
they had to work on. AND nobody groused about needing to have OS X work and
look just like OS Y or OS Z.
> I worked on this machine in Tandy Towers in Ft.
> Worth, Tx. I was hoping like hell that Moto would hurry up an release
> the 68000 before Intel took another step to the 8088. But it didn't
> happen. I left Tandy about this time. The plans were to add the 68000,
> but the Model II was released with only the Z80. I think when the 68000
> was finally designed in, it was boosted to the Model 16.
That is about how I remember it as well. The TRS-80 Model II had two Z-80's
as I recall, one was the CPU and the other was the I/O coprocessor. The
Model 16 replaced the CPU Z-80 with the 68000. Some how I don't recall the
Model 16 being promoted as much as the Model II was.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 12:12:53 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Oh yeah, how about that kernel based http server? That's another one I
> wouldn't mind seeing disappear, but as long as it's a module <shrug>.
The kernel NFS server I was willing to accept because of the history of NFS
server prior to Linux. Although It has never worked for me like it should
have, so I use the user NFS server on my production boxes.
When I first encountered the kernel httpd I through WHAT THE HECK are they
doing that for? I have not yet found a valid answer to that question. I
have not used it because running such a server in the kernel is too
dangerious and Apache is more flexible. Imagine the reputation that Linux
would have once all the unix servers are implemented as a part of the
kernel. Imagine what damage could be caused if an security hole is
exploited in a network server that is running in kernel space.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 13:48:34 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Well, it's their opinion. Recognizing hardware at boot is a good idea,
> if it works. Kudzu does work, AFAICS. No idea if Corel is using
> kudzu or not.
I don't know what Corel is using but it does not work well. Recognizing
hardware at boot may is ok; but, rewriting configuration files and modifing
drivers is wrong. At the most the autodetection of harware should be used
as tool to teh sysadmin who should have the final word as to the system's
configuration.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 13:40:12 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> That is advocating reverting to "spaghetti code". I had never
> realized
> until now that MS-Windows was like that. I thought -- it seemed the
> only sensible way of going about it -- that the graphics interface was
> functionally separate from the underlying operating system, i.e. I
> thought
> it was on built on DOS, and the rest, the GUI, was "tinsel on the
> Christmas
> tree", to borrow a German expression. I still find it difficult to
> believe that the Windows GUI is not completely independent. It does
> not
> make sense. No wonder the thing is full of bugs, then. No, it really
> does
> not make sense. It is like going back to global variables only, GOSUBs
> and
> GOTOs -- and I don't think I am overstating the analogy at all.
Windows 1.x and 2.x the OS (Dos) and the GUI (Windows) were 100% sepperate.
But starting with 3.x thing started to change. Windows would use
undocumented API of Dos and the Dos of that time started to detect when
Windows was runnning and change its functioning to accomodate Windows.
Windows would also directly modify Dos's internel data structures. Starting
with 3.x Windows also started to provide some OS functions instead of
calling Dos and even intercept some Dos interupts to service them itself.
Windows 9x also tampers with the Dos that ships with it by patches the in
ram copy to make calls to the code of Windows. I have not looked into
Windows ME, but from what I have read about it, it still depends on Dos, but
it hides it away much better.
The same is true of Windows NT. At first NT was an operating system and NT
version of Windows was just the GUI for it. Now they have been merged
together as well.
This is something that should never happen to Linux.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
