Linux-Advocacy Digest #405, Volume #28 Mon, 14 Aug 00 19:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 18:24:48 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 03:15:01 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 20:24:32 -0400, Colin R. Day wrote:
>>>>> You act the way you do because you were born in the late 20th century.
>>>>> Ethically speaking, in principle, you hold no higher ground from a
>>>>> cannibal,
>>>>> or a crusader, or a member of the inquisition.
>
>[ snip ]
>
>>You make an unacceptable and un-called-for assumption. It is not
>>necessary to infer that today's morality is absolute or universal in
>>order to recognize it as superior to the morality of hundreds of years
>>ago. That's silly.
>
>I wasn't discussing the relative merits of todays and yesterday's morality.
>I was arguing that a conformist in a moderately morally superior society
>isn't that much better than a conformist in a less moral society.
I know. And I'm trying to point out that your use of the term "better"
is relative. A conformist in modern society is more ethical (I am not
considered with morals) than a conformist in a historical society which
practiced what we now know to be unethical (and immoral) actions. It
seems self-evident. I'm not making any claim to overall "superiority"
in any way, shape or form. I never said "I'm better than someone who
didn't consider slavery repugnant in a society where slavery was
considered respectable". I'm pretty sure it is true that I would
question this, even if I was a slave-owner in such a society (I question
everything today, why should I be different in another culture?). I am
not able to say, of course, whether I would be able to derive the
correct answer, which is that slavery is repugnant (in all societies and
at all times).
[...]
>>"Every reason" is stretching it. Very very much, in fact, and requires
>>assuming, in fact, that there is no relative measure of values in terms
>>of ethics or morality. Sweatshops are the moral equivalent of the
>>crusades; not car-pooling is ethically identical to torturing animals
>>for sport; eating meat is the same as cannibalism.
>
>Straw man. I'm saying that we could be to the other society as so
>called "barbarians" are to us. I'm not saying that the morally
>superior society would say that we are the same as the barbarians.
>I'm saying that they would see us the same way that we see the
>barbarians.
Speak for yourself. You seem to have assumed that I am presuming that
"barbarians" were unethical, because I am willing to point out that some
of "their" actions were unethical. This is typically where such
discussions break down, because morality and ethics are not statistical
concepts, and divorced of context and circumstance, any judgement is
entirely academic. That doesn't mean all ethics are academic. I'm
quite well aware that *individuals* cannot be blamed for not being aware
of contexts outside their social environment. Societies, on the other
hand, gain no such justification in their defense. If you want to use
phrases which allow for an abstraction to be judged "moral" or "ethical"
or "not", then you have to accept that you are judging *abstractions*,
not people. If you refuse to judge abstractions, because you refuse to
judge people, I can understand that. I can't understand your refusing
to let others do so. There seems little point in it but to be
argumentative and post-modern.
>>>The issue here is this -- if there were a creature considerably
>>>more advanced than us, would it be ethical for them to use us as lab rats ?
>>
>>According to you, yes.
>
>Straw man.
How so? You stated that ethics (which I define as morals in this
context, as 'ethics' must take the lab rat's perspective into account)
were entirely self-referential. If the advanced creatures' social
environment allowed them to use us as lab rats, then they would be
"ethical" in doing so. Have I missed something?
>>>And how does one define an "unflawed" morality ?
>>
>>One doesn't. One has the brain-power to realize that being able to
>>define a flawed morality is sufficient.
>
>Only if this definition is exhaustive. Most societies lack the level
>of introspection required to provide an adequate definition.
All societies are little more than an on-going attempt to refine what we
hope is an adequate definition. Thus, we are more ethical than our
ancestors, and this can be said without condemnation of their choices or
prideful absolutism concerning our own choices.
[...]
>>>What's the difference between "brainwashing" and "teaching" ?
>>
>>The same as the (unfortunately equally abstract) difference between
>>"manipulating" and "informing".
>
>I disagree. Someone could be brainwashing with the intent to teach.
And someone can be manipulating with the intent to inform. Neither is
ethically defensible.
>The difference between brainwashing and teaching is entirely in the
>correctness of the material.
An almost comprehensive reduction of post-modernist delusion. There
isn't any value in it, but it can't easily be refuted. That's because
it is unfalsifiable, though, not because it is irrefutable.
>>>We already do. In fact we elect them on the basis that they share
>>>the same beliefs as us.
>>
>>Doesn't that give them a rational basis for their beliefs? That, and
>
>What, that other people share their beliefs ? Not really.
Why not? Are you under the impression that there is an absolute
morality inherent in the universe, or that there is no such thing as
ethics? If you exclude the middle, which requires application of
reason, which includes communication and may involve consensus, your
alternatives are reduced to those two extremes.
>>hundreds of years of empirical thought, of course.
>
>... empirical thought which everyone packages to fit into their own
>irrational beliefs.
Whatever. You seem to believe that since ideals have no physical
presence, they don't exist. Or that since there is no absolute
morality, we cannot derive ethics by reason. Face it: reality does
exist, and only reality does exist. The post-modernist sees the lack of
absolute morality as a refutation of all morality. The purpose of this
is unclear, but it certainly isn't honest inquiry, as the post-modernist
insists that there is nothing if there are not absolutes.
>> Little things like
>>"reality" which post-modern relativists are all too eager to insist can
>>be redefined simply because our perceptions of it can change.
>
>The problem is not reality being "redefined" so much as it is reinterpreted.
I do not interpret reality; I perceive it. Believing that you can
interpret it independently of perceiving it is self-referential
mumbo-jumbo. Yes, we are all stuck inside our heads. No, that doesn't
mean the entire universe might be inside my head. There is too much
evidence against it. This includes the sympathetic and empathetic
reactions which humans have which is essentially the "absolute" basis of
morals and ethics.
At the root of it, our perspectives can be described in terms of the
Turing Test. Our brains are the interface, our consciousness is the
operator, and the entire universe is the Turing machine. We get the
same results from our interactions with the subject, but while you say
they provide evidence that the subject is a computer, I say it provides
evidence that the operator isn't much more than that. Either way,
whether the Turing machine has passed the test remains academic, and
eternally indeterminate.
>>>But it's difficult to prove that my value system is "better" than his,
>>>though it's obvious that mine is incompatible. But I could probably
>>>offer a pretty good argument that policy consistent with my value system
>>>will result in a happier society in the long run.
>>
>>Nice and useless, though, isn't it, when you have to determine who to
>>actually *hold* as blameworthy?
>
>Him obviously. My value system demands it.
Your moral value system or your ethical value system?
>> Or do you suggest metaphysical delusion
>>and anarchy as a workable social system?
>
>Where do I mention anarchy ?
If you think it is only your own value system which must be referenced
for determining blame, then you should consider anarchy to be a workable
social system. Each person would be free to pass judgement on others
according to his own value system, rather than the laws or any consensus
of what constitutes ethical behavior.
--
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: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 18:24:44 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
[...]
>> I learned these as "sub-routines". Its putting code in a separate
>> *file* which is problematic;
>
>Actually, that practice actually makes things EASIER.
>From an engineering perspective, yes. From an intellectual property
perspective, its something of an abomination.
[...]
>> If I could get shell scripts to do more than shell things, I'd agree
>> with you.
>
>nearly everything that you can do on a Unix machine CAN be
>accomplished with shellscripts. (the exception being graphics
>like what is done in CAD programs).
There's theory, and then there's practice. There's "can" and there's
"does". There is "possible", and there's "operationally functional".
I underestimate the amount of power generally inherent in command
parameter passing or APIs. You underestimate, I think, the amount of
programs that actually allow you to automate them entirely (or usefully)
using external mechanisms.
[...]
>Basically, the problem is ... users want intelligence to magically
>flow from their fingertips, even though they themselves are clueless.
Yes, indeed.
>Strangely enough, I have NEVER heard of anyone demanding that flying
>an airplane be made "simple" for first-time occupants of the pilot's
>seat, even though flying a plane is a MUCH simpler task.
Simpler, but far more critical, by dint of simple physics.
>Basically, user's expectations in this respect are unreasonable.
Yes, indeed.
>They want to be able to do sophisticated customizations, while
>remaining ignorant dolts. Frankly, I have absolutely no sympathy
>for such people. THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR LEARNING.
Yes, indeed, there is none. But they have *learned* that they "don't
need to know", and therefore I do have sympathy for them; they are
mistaken, not simply 'wrong'. It is a recursive problem; how does one
learn which things to learn?
--
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.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 18:24:46 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
[...]
>The mere declaration of an action as universally wrong is the telltale
>sign of the moral absolutist, because otherwise, what is the meaning
>of "doing wrong"?
The meaning of "doing wrong" is ethical and local, even if the
terminology used might seem to transcend that scope. One tell-tale sign
of the post-modernist is when they gratuitously insist that somebody
(besides themselves) have made reference to something being "universally
wrong" merely because they aren't deferring to wholesale cultural
relativism.
>> There is no consideration of "who's perspective" in the ethical question
>> of whether the church persecution of free thinkers was wrong, IMHO. It
>> was, and that mirrors the consensus of the most authentic opinions, I
>> think, and is hardly debatable (and you are indeed debating it, by
>> suggesting the consideration of 'their perspective').
>
>Well, ask me: would you have preferred that they didn't do it? and
>I will answer "of course".
>
>Ask me "would you do it?" and I will answer: no.
>
>Ask me "was it wrong?" and I will say: "I BELIEVE it was wrong".
So you're willing to quibble, but not to recognize that we merely
inhabit reality, we do not literally create it? You seem to feel quite
insecure with the idea that we do create and are entirely limited by our
perception of reality, but we do not create the universe by merely
thinking that it exists. The sentence "It is wrong" is semantically
identical to "I believe it is wrong", but for the unstated delusion
(which nobody I've seen post here seems to hold) that the concept
'wrong' somehow transcends morality or ethics and has physical influence
on reality.
>> From "their"
>> view, the moral question has no meaning; the church gets to "redefine
>> the standard", as it were, of what is right or wrong.
>
>Yup. That makes it specially hard for them.
No, it shows that they have no moral or ethical grounding by nature.
What they do is right or wrong based on the action itself and its affect
on others. "Noble intent" is only a qualifier when one is being
consistent with ones ideals. If you are willing to change your ideals
to whatever is most convenient for justifying your most self-serving
actions, then you are merely paying lip service to morality and ethics,
and have little chance of being either moral or ethical in the end.
>> That you can
>> 'reverse engineer' it into some noble social responsibility is rather
>> unnerving.
>
>It would be, if I did.
You have. Your argument that the church evidenced some social justice
in preventing "heretics" from disseminating scientific ideas is just
that.
>> Although it is certainly not inappropriate as a line of
>> reasoning, it doesn't seem like much of an issue.
>
>This is an experiment in thought. Think. Don't be afraid.
Ha. That's positively ironic. I thought I was clear from the way I
phrased it that it is not fear, but boredom, which prevents me from
pursuing such a line of reasoning.
--
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.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 18:24:53 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> [...]
>> >You act the way you do because you were born in the late 20th century.
>> >Ethically speaking, in principle, you hold no higher ground from a
>> >cannibal, or a crusader, or a member of the inquisition.
>>
>> That's a rather dubious and post-modernist contention, if you ask me.
>> In other (more straightforward) words, that's bullshit. Yes, a typical
>> person born in the late 20th century holds a higher ethical ground, as
>> it were, than a cannibal, a crusader, or a member of the inquisition.
>
>Ok, let's restrict ourselves to one of the examples given.
>
>Why are you ethically superior to a cannibal?
Which cannibal? I'm not going to put my real ethical judgement up
against an abstraction. All else being equal, I would be less ethical
if I considered it was my right to kill and eat other people. You may
say this means I'm ethically superior to a cannibal, but only if you're
not going to do so merely in order to twist it around into a
misrepresentation of either my ethics or my position.
>> Because we have their examples to learn from. If we do not, then we
>> hold no higher ground, obviously. If we recognize that the inquisition
>> was *wrong*, and do whatever is in our power to avoid such unethical
>> occurrences, then it is not a denigration of our ancestors nor
>> over-glorification of our modern 'sensibilities', but a mere recognition
>> that we have more ability to learn how to act ethically than
>> pre-technical societies did.
>
>No "more ability to learn", but simply more to learn from.
Correct. Do I *blame* the cannibal for being less ethical? Of course
not. Does that mean they are not less ethical? Perhaps to a
relativist, perhaps not to an absolutist. Being a realist, I'd have to
say it isn't that simple.
[...]
>> And were we them, we would do as they did, you are saying.
>
>In all likelyhood.
In all likelihood, if I had your DNA, and precisely your experience, I
would be you. Does that worry you?
>> Which might
>> be true (though it requires an argument against free will, AFAIK)
>
>Not guaranteed that each individual would, but a good probability
>that a large percentage would, just like not all of them did.
So are you willing to argue that humans don't have free will, yet?
[...]
>If someone, knowing that was not the will of god, actually tricked
>people into joining the inquisition, then by all means that person
>is ethically responsible for all the misdeeds of the inquisition.
>
>Now, who would that person be?
Unfortunately, I'm afraid we'd have to say "everyone who accepted that
they were aware of the will of God". Seeing as how there isn't a God,
and at least some people who profess to believing in God know that, but
continue to say they believe otherwise for self-serving reasons, then
one can presume that there was at least one person who knew that no
divine communications had ever taken place, and they were making it up
to justify their actions. Are you saying that since we can't examine
the perpetrators of the Inquisition in a modern court, we cannot pass
judgement on the Inquisition as morally and ethically wrong?
>> Do I "blame" medieval people for not being skeptical as I am, given the
>> great amount of verifiable information supporting my skepticism
>> available to me in a technological society? Of course not. I merely
>> note it, and recognize that it gives me a higher ethical perspective
>> than they had available to them easily.
>
>Sure.
So why are you arguing against this, if you are so willing to agree to
it? Was it *merely* the possibility that whoever was 'passing
judgement' on historical injustices thought they were 'specially endowed
with reason', or was it perhaps an effort to dissuade someone from
engaging in reason in order to support a post-modern stance which denies
our ability to make ethical judgements at all?
The original statement was essentially identical, I believe; we are
'more ethical', or, as I put it here, have "a higher ethical
perspective", than our less knowledgable ancestors.
[...]
>> No, its the human beings *doing* the censoring that *were*, in fact,
>> *more evil* than we in a *very meaningful* way. Are we some sort of
>> cosmic court, censuring errors like a congress denouncing scientific
>> research for political soap-boxing? I don't think so. But your
>> insistence of 'cultural relativism' smacks a bit too much of
>> post-modernism to me.
>
>Blah. I'm quite a non pos-modernist and not deconstructivist.
There's nothing wrong with being deconstructivist. It is the most
appropriate approach to most philosophical issues, in fact. It is the
post-modernist method of using deconstructionist rhetoric to fuel
arguments from ignorance which is problematic.
BTW, how would you define post-modernist, and where did you learn of it?
[...]
>> I don't know. I think we've mixed up just who was being "censored".
>> "Censor" is when you suppress publication of someone's work. Nailing
>> them to a pole by their tongue in the public square for heresy doesn't
>> seem to fit that description.
>
>Erm, doesn't censure has another meaning in english?
Yes, but I'm not sure what was "censure versus censor", and what was a
typo.
>> >The difference between martirdom and justice is often one
>> >of perspective.
>>
>> At the very least, you are confusing in what you're trying to say.
>> Perhaps that's because it doesn't really make much sense?
>
>Perhaps you just don't get it?
Perhaps. Given the fact that your position and defense seems very
similar to several other's I've seen in the past, it isn't very likely.
But it is possible.
There's every possibility, in fact, that we agree almost entirely. If
you hadn't jumped in to prevent what you saw as social relativism, I
might have done so myself (but for the fact that this is all rather
grossly off-topic). I'm quite fond of pointing out that were we in
someone else's shoes, we might well make the same "wrong" choices they
make, and that may be all you meant to do. But I'm not going to claim
that no ethical judgements can be made, or that whether something is
wrong is entirely and solely a matter of whether it matches one person's
moral or ethical values.
>> I don't mean
>> to sound insulting; you just don't seem very clear in what you're trying
>> to say. Are you saying the same act is one or the other from two
>> different perspectives? That killing a martyr is justice?
>
>Depending on perspective, what seemed justice may become martirdom
>and viceversa.
Certainly, but I refuse to buckle under the weight of the necessity to
differentiate between reality and retroactive explanations of reality.
>For instance, suppose that in 100 years, death penalty becomes as
>morally repugnant as burning witches. Then, all those executed
>today would become martirs of the fight against executions.
I don't consider every victim a martyr. Perhaps I just don't have the
stomach for "moral" crusades.
>OTOH, Hitler's suicide must have looked as martirdom to Goebbels.
Goebbel's opinion on the matter is rather suspect, considering the lack
of ethics and morality which non-deranged humans observe in his
behavior.
>> That justice requires martyrs, and so the persecutors of martyrs
>> are acting "correctly"?
>
>Yuck, no.
So you aren't afraid to retroactively redefine morality (or whether
someone is a martyr, at least), but you find a utilitarian explanation
for oppression to be objectionable? You can stomach the idea of a
mass-murderer being a martyr for cruel and unusual punishment, but the
idea that the church was acting correctly when they persecuted Galileo
is repugnant? But, weren't you the one who said almost precisely that?
[...]
>> That a supposedly "morality-based" organization of any stripe which
>> preaches peace and "turning the other cheek" which seems all too quick
>> to default to "an eye for an eye" and ancestral retribution has got no
>> moral or ethical grounds to stand on, really.
>
>Well, the inner contradictions of doctrine are a real problem.
Only if you pay any attention at all to 'doctrine', which seems
self-defeating to me. When there are inner contradictions, then the
doctrine is flawed and unsupportable. No problem.
[...]
>> >> > That was a sin against GOD, who they believed would condemn them to
>> >> > hell. They believed NOT burning the heretics was immoral!
>> >>
>> >> And what basis did they have for such beliefs?
>> >
>> >Beliefs often lack adequate rational basis. They wouldn't
>> >be beliefs otherwise.
>>
>> Which is to say none. Granted, they had little other information
>> besides the beliefs of others to go on. Well, that, and things like
>> empirical knowledge.
>
>What was the empirical knowledge about the fate of immortal souls?
What was the empirical knowledge that there was an immortal soul?
>> Are we to ignore the lesson of evil simply because
>> we recognize that everyone generally *believes* they are right? This
>> seems to make the lesson all the more important to learn, don't you
>> think? Denying it with cultural relativism is to miss the point
>> entirely.
>
>Yawn. Noone (except a few) believes to be evil. That should teach us
>that blindly following our beliefs of what is good is dangerous.
>If everyone knew that, then we would have much less dangerous
>do-gooders. Like inquisitors.
Quite so. And so, in stating that we are "on ethically higher ground"
than barbarians is not prideful relativism, but enlightened observation,
and encourages ethical behavior, rather than encourages believing that
we can blindly follow what we believe is good.
[...]
>> I would say (with no formal backing, I'll admit, and would appreciate
>> additional information along these lines) that a *moral* theory might
>> only make reference to the value system of the person committing the
>> action, but the *ethics* requires an examination of the value system of
>> the society, at least, if not all societies (depending on your context,
>> and this last is, I think, the root of your issue.)
>
>Yup.
[...]
>> >Ok, how about this: we may be destroying the world for the future
>> >generations.
>> >In a way, that's a genocide much larger than anything in the crusades or
>> >whatever, since it may destroy ALL humanity, and no human moral system
>> >that I know of considers that evn remotely ethical.
>>
>> We may not. That's the conundrum of ethics. Let us not ignore the
>> lessons of history on the matter.
>
>I can shoot you because I may or may not hurt you?
Again, you wish to ignore knowledge; you know very well you may hurt me,
and so it is unethical for you to shoot me. Now if you can show such a
straightforward causal link between social actions and future harm, you
will have the "ethical high ground" in arguing against or for social
actions which you wish to support.
>We know that some things we are doing may cause that kind of damage,
>yet we do them anyway.
Again, the difficulty is how easily we switch from individuals to
abstractions. I once made an argument that recycling of aluminum cans
is *bad* for the environment, because it encourages a much greater use
of aluminum rather than alternatives (such as reusable or biodegradable
containers). A recent Scientific American had an article on creating
plastics from plant material, which pointed out that biodegradeable
plastics might be more harmful in the end than regular plastics, because
in decomposing, the biodegradeable plastic releases carbon dioxide into
the atmosphere, which encourages global warming. The plastics which
drive environmentalists crazy because they remain in landfills for
thousands of years sequester this greenhouse gas and prevent it from
causing massive floods and famine across the planet. (This wasn't the
main point of the article, of course, but merely one of a great many
issues which were examined.)
The real problem is that it isn't as easy or as important as we might
presume to "know" whether we are doing something that may cause more
damage than an alternative, which we may not even have available.
[...]
>> Let's not. Its a completely inappropriate label. I see your point, but
>> question just what you think "judge" means in this regard. Are you back
>> to trying to say the inquisition and such were ethically, or even
>> morally, "right" or "good" except through the most tortuous "if they
>> hadn't happened"-type scenario?
>
>I never said "good".
Why is that?
--
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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
