Linux-Advocacy Digest #471, Volume #28 Fri, 18 Aug 00 07:13:12 EDT
Contents:
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (T. Max Devlin)
Gnome, KDE: Swing ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Gnome or KDE (Rasputin)
Re: It's official, NT beats Linux (?) (Milton)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: It's official, Microsoft® porting applications to Linux (Milton)
Re: Om (Sphere)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("JS/PL")
Re: Om (Sphere)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 03:45:29 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Donal K. Fellows in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Said Donal K. Fellows in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>> This is all very well, until the end-user rumbles on up in a year's
>>> time, tells you that they're very happy with what you've done, but
>>> could you just add a few more features? Like more users, windows and
>>> performance on their new hardware (possibly implying threads.) That's
>>> when gotos tend to bite.
>>>
>>> One of the biggest challenges in professional computer system design
>> [...]
>>
>> I will re-iterate. I am not talking about professional computer system
>> design, or even amateur application programming. I am talking about
>> operator automation of professionally developed applications and
>> systems.
>
>Beware of creeping featureitis, it is ever the enemy of keeping such
>(understandable) goals within sight...
I cannot see supporting a macro feature (over and above simple
automation), hopefully a middleware-based macro feature, as creeping
featureitis in consumer application software. I am, I hope, properly
wary of the problem. Most would consider my view on the subject quite
extreme, in fact. Do you realize that depending on the Supreme Court's
decision (if any) on the Microsoft tying conviction, it may soon be
considered *illegal* to bolt new features onto an existing program? Its
an unlikely result, possibly, but it is one that I actually prefer.
>> There is a large gulf between simple procedural automation and
>> actual structured programming which the end-user simply doesn't need to
>> cross in order to deal locally with their relatively trivial
>> requirements.
>
>Bah! There are definitely better languages for this area out there.
>(<shamelessplug> Tcl for one. </shamelessplug>) They offer the
>simplicity that makes writing a quick macro lash-up easy, *and* the
>power for when you need to do something more. You don't want OO?
>Don't use it. The language copes just fine without. But its there
>whenever you've got a task that needs it.
I'm looking for anti-terse syntax, as well. How does Tcl read to
someone who is only rudimentarily literate?
[...]
>VB takes the good features of Basic and pitches them straight in the
>trash. It manages to be both non-simple and incapable of dealing with
>substantial complexity. It doesn't scale well, and yet its solutions
>for small problems are too large. In short, it's a bad choice for
>everything. Only the MS juggernaut keeps it alive, and that's at
>least in part because it isn't (seriously) supported on any other
>platform (which is a consequence of how nasty it is!)
And it is my belief, in fact, that it is purposefully designed to be
every bit as useless as you claim it is, and succeeds admirably at that
task. The purpose of ripping out the useful macro capabilities of Word
and Excel was to replace them with something that prevented end users
from looking for a system-wide automation capability (which might become
a de facto middleware threat) outside of the iron-clad Microsoft
compound. The market clamored for system-level automation, and MS used
that to justify preventing anyone besides themselves from being able to
offer it.
>Were the operator-driven macros created in some other language like
>Perl, Tcl or Python (and this is certainly possible in all those
>languages) then you would not be in such dire straits.
Precisely. A system-level macro facility which wasn't entirely
controlled by Microsoft might easily provide cross-platform
functionality, and that would threaten the monopoly. So to maintain the
pre-load market, MS dumped a foot of crap on top of one of the best
features of Word.
The fact that the workflow system I spent weeks building in Word 2.0 was
made unusable (and unmaintainable due to the "non-simple [yet]
incapable" aspect you described) by this strategy might make me somewhat
bitter, but doesn't, IMHO, cloud my objectivity in this matter. It
merely gives me the perspective of unfortunate experience.
>Donal (the thought of non-sysadmins using Perl is a little scary
> though - the language isn't all that well tuned to non-expert
> use IMHO. Better to stick to Tcl and Python...)
I was under the impression that Perl's primary asset was essentially
that it wasn't tuned at all to begin with. ;-)
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 03:47:10 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said KLH in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>Have you ever tried M4? That has much less functionality than BASIC...it
>isn't even a programming language.
No, I'm not sure I've ever heard about it. Can you tell me more?
>Perhaps it would be informative to see an example of the macros you are
>speaking of. I really don't know what it means for macro processing and I
>would be interested to know what one looks like in BASIC.
Well, here's how an old Word 2.0 macro I used in my coursebook
preparation template. I'd originally hoped to eventually integrate this
template into the office automation system I'd built, but that more
complicated stuff, which included moving files to different network
directories in order to 'route' them, converting database records into
pre-printed forms, and verifying completion of activities in tracking
course registrations, never survived the transition. I still use some
of the coursebook creation macros I devised to automate small
procedures, simply to reduce them to simple expedient keystrokes.
Forgive the length, but you did ask, and I thought this a slightly
non-trivial example. Some of the density is due to the conversion.
(This software, while potentially pathetic and even laughable in
application of the term, is nonetheless owned under copyright by
Computer Educational Services, and is by this declaration published
under the General Public License as designated by the FSF.)
================================================================
Public Sub MAIN()
Dim layout
Dim Out
Dim Sel
Dim progsize
Dim winsize
Dim Chap$
Dim Ch_Name$
Dim Header$
layout = WordBasic.ViewPage(): ' 0 for normal, -1 for page view
Out = WordBasic.ViewOutline(): ' 0 for Outline, -1 for normal
Sel = WordBasic.SelType(): ' 1 for insertion point, 2 for selection
progsize = WordBasic.AppMaximize(): ' 0 for restored, -1 for maximized
winsize = WordBasic.DocMaximize(): ' 0 for restored, nonzero for
maximized
On Error GoTo -1: On Error GoTo Bye
Chap$ = "Chapter Title"
If Sel = 2 Then
Chap$ = WordBasic.[Selection$]()
End If
Ch_Name$ = WordBasic.[InputBox$]("What is the title of the chapter?",
"New Chapter", Chap$)
If Sel = 1 Then
WordBasic.CharLeft 1, 1
If WordBasic.[Right$](WordBasic.[Selection$](), 1) <> Chr(10) Then
WordBasic.CharRight
WordBasic.InsertPara
Else
WordBasic.CharRight
End If
End If
If layout = -1 Then WordBasic.ViewNormal
WordBasic.FormatStyle Name:="heading 1", Apply:=1
'Insert chapter title and seq codes
WordBasic.WW7_EditAutoText Name:="chap codes", Insert:=1
WordBasic.FormatSectionLayout SectionStart:=4
WordBasic.WW2_Insert Ch_Name$
If Not WordBasic.AppMaximize() Then WordBasic.AppMaximize
If Not WordBasic.DocMaximize() Then WordBasic.DocMaximize
'verify header text/reference
Header$ = WordBasic.[InputBox$]("What should the page header for this
chapter be?", "Chapter Header", Ch_Name$)
On Error GoTo -1: On Error GoTo Bye
WordBasic.FormatPageNumber NumFormat:=0, NumRestart:=0
WordBasic.NormalViewHeaderArea Type:=0, FirstPage:=1,
OddAndEvenPages:=1, HeaderDistance:="0.5" + Chr(34),
FooterDistance:="0.5" + Chr(34)
WordBasic.EditSelectAll
WordBasic.WW6_EditClear
WordBasic.FormatStyle Name:="First Header", Apply:=1
WordBasic.FormatPageNumber NumFormat:=0, NumRestart:=0
WordBasic.NormalViewHeaderArea Type:=4, FirstPage:=1,
OddAndEvenPages:=1, HeaderDistance:="0.5" + Chr(34),
FooterDistance:="0.5" + Chr(34)
WordBasic.EditSelectAll
WordBasic.WW2_Insert Header$
WordBasic.FormatStyle Name:="Header - odd", Apply:=1
WordBasic.ClosePane
If progsize = 0 Then WordBasic.AppRestore
If winsize = 0 Then WordBasic.DocRestore
If layout = -1 Then WordBasic.ViewPage
WordBasic.InsertPara
WordBasic.FormatStyle Name:="heading 2", Apply:=1
WordBasic.WW2_Insert "Overview"
WordBasic.InsertPara
WordBasic.FormatStyle Name:="Normal", Apply:=1
WordBasic.WW7_EditAutoText Name:="enable", Insert:=1
WordBasic.FormatStyle Name:="Overview", Apply:=1
WordBasic.WW7_EditAutoText Name:="overview", Insert:=1
WordBasic.WordLeft 1, 1
WordBasic.MsgBox "Press [CTRL] - O for new Overview point, [CTRL]
-[SHIFT] - P when done"
GoTo Bye
Bye:
If Err.Number <> 0 And Err.Number <> 102 Then
WordBasic.MsgBox "Error " + Str(Err.Number) + " occured. Please
contact a System Administrator."
End If
End Sub
=================================================================
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Gnome, KDE: Swing
Date: 18 Aug 2000 09:46:46 +0200
I think the great desktop of all desktops should be easy
to program in order to have lots of applications.
In terms of easy programming the best by far is the
swing toolkit of Java.
So, which is more like swing, gnome or KDE?
--
Dipl. Inf. Juergen Weber Fotopage: www.jwf.de
* Remove the NO. SPAM. to get my Email-Address *
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 04:01:26 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Pat McCann in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Quit blowing smoke up my ass.
>
>> Quite blowing smoke up everybody else's ass.
>
>There's something else I don't understand.
>
>Seriously. What's that mean?
>
>Stop lying? Stop hurting me? Stop pleasuring me?
Hmmm. Explaining vernacular is tricky, you know? I think "stop trying
to put one over on me" is probably the best approximation. I really
can't justify the imagery itself, I'm afraid. You know the phrase "you
have your head up your ass?" I have a friend who says (and I've used
this a couple times around here) "get your head out of my ass".
Assumably, because they were trying to blow smoke up there. For what
reason, I do not know, but the intent seems to involve deception on many
different levels.
>Enquiring minds want to know. (TM)**
>
>** Trademarks belong to trademarks owners.
> (Why do we have to explain that?)
Because identifying the source of something is one of the fundamental
justifications for trademark protection. It isn't an explanation; its
branding.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 04:11:18 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Pat McCann in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Further, in considering whether the previous court, which did not
>> consider disassembly to be fair use, had erred, it was noted that they
>> had "ignored [the fact that the work was software] entirely". This
>> indicates to me that whether the work is software is "cogent", not
>> merely "relevant". [;-)]
>
>[;-<] I guess we're going to have to keep seeing that word. Please
>tell us what it means and so we can translate.
>
>"This indicates to me that" "whether the work is software"
>"is cogent", "not merely relevant".
>
>So you find that "whether the work is software" is "forcibly
>convincing", "powerfully persuasive", "weighty", or "potent"?
Yes, and so did the court:
"The second statutory factor, the nature of the copyrighted work,
reflects the fact that not all copyrighted works are entitled to
the same level of protection. "
and
"Computer programs pose unique problems for the application of the
'idea/expression distinction' that determines the extent of
copyright protection."
>From the Sega v. Accolade decision
http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/2/977/1510.html
>That's what my dictionaries imply you are saying and it doesn't
>make sense. What ARE you saying? Please explain, not complain.
>
>Did you not use
>http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=cogent ?
Actually, I use www.m-w.com and www.infoplease.com .
I honestly don't understand what you think doesn't make sense. When a
fact, declaration, or argument *relates* to an issue, it is "relevant".
When it is relevant, and also is weighty or potent, when it refers quite
distinctly to the specific points being made, when it is not just
coincidentally important, but fundamentally persuasive, it is "cogent".
As in "cogent evidence" or "a cogent analysis of a problem", both from
Merriam-Webster's at the above url.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rasputin)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Gnome or KDE
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 09:17:32 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <Jim Richardson> wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 01:58:20 GMT,
> Tim Hanson, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
>>"Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>> The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> >>>> You had ones? All we had was zeros.
>>> >>> You were lucky.
>>> >>> We had to bang two rocks together to get the zeros...
>>> >> I had to walk 10 miles, uphill, in the snow just to get the rocks!
>>>
>>> You young whippersnappers had it easy! We had to quarry the rocks out
>>> of the ground at the bottom of a frozen swamp using only our noses.
>>> In the middle of a blizzard. And we were glad of it! You've never
>>> had it so good...
>>>
>>> > Both ways? :-)
>>>
>>> All three of them!
>>>
>>> Donal.
>>
>>Oh yeah? When we had done all that we had to put it all into a card
>>reader and write about it, using vi!!
>
>you were lucky, we didn't have vi, all we had was iii :)
Text editors? Pah!
Round these parts, we edit the inodes directly on the disk
with bar magnets.
--
Rasputin.
Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns.
------------------------------
From: Milton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: It's official, NT beats Linux (?)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 05:43:08 -0400
On Fri, 18 Aug 2000 04:39:57 GMT, Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>The benchmarks I'd like to see are the "bang for the buck" types, where
>M$ and Linux techs are given a specific number of dollars to spend and
>directed to find the best hardware and software for the price, then run
>comparisons on it.
And to test for reliability, let it run for say, 30 days under heavy
load.
That would assuredly, seperate the chaff from the wheat. :)
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 20:29:42 +1000
"Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> JS/PL wrote:
>
> > "Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > On Wed, 16 Aug 2000, JS/PL wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > > >How the hell would China know? There's not a legal copy of software
> > > >TO_BE_FOUND_ANYWHERE in China. They are the software pirate kings of
the
> > > >Earth, not to mention the being among the worst human rights
violators.
> > >
> > > I think all their LINUX copies are legal.
> >
> > I wasn't referring to coasters, I'm talking *installed* software.
>
> No. You're talking about low IQ trolling wrt Linux (not human rights).
>
> Linux is legally installed in China. MS would be glad to have China
pirate M
> software and be locked into MS technology (and pay of it someday) or if
not
> then for the fact illegal MS software blocks out Linux. (competitive
> inhibition).
How about if the Chinese are only giving out modified binary-only distros ?
------------------------------
From: Milton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: It's official, Microsoft® porting applications to Linux
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 06:46:01 -0400
On Fri, 18 Aug 2000 03:28:00 GMT, Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Milton wrote:
>>
>> In a desperate attempt, to regain some legitimacy in the high-tech
>> software arena, Microsoft® is letting a an experienced 3rd party,
>> Mainsoft, port it's applications to the state of the art operating
>> system, Linux.
>>
>> The results, so far, have been disappointing.
>>
>> Brought to you by Windows 2000 Magazine
>> http://www.wininformant.com/display.asp?ID=2874
>>
>> :)
>Well folks, now they're denying it. <yawn>
>
>http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/00/08/17/000817hnmslinux.xml
And in that article, Doug Miller, group product manager for the
Windows server group states:
""There is a relationship with Mainsoft, a very good close
relationship with Mainsoft to port certain Microsoft technologies to
Unix, and they're porting Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player.
We have those available for Solaris and HP-UX," Miller said. "But
there's no news here about Microsoft porting either of those
technologies to Linux or [porting] Office""
Well folks that's the absolute truth.
After much intense, painstaking research I have uncovered the critical
apps that Mainsoft *is* porting. This is highly confidential material
and I must insist that those of you reading this, NOT divulge this
info to anyone.
First some background
http://www.mainsoft.com/press/pr-internetexpl.html
"About MainWin
MainWin is Mainsoft’s Windows platform for UNIX systems including
Linux. MainWin includes the implementation of Win32 APIs and
Windows-based services on UNIX. Through strategic agreements with
Microsoft, Mainsoft has access to Windows NT- and Windows 2000-based
source code. Mainsoft has incorporated several million lines of
original Windows-based source code into MainWin. This ensures that
applications developed with C, C++ and Dynamic HTML for Windows will
run on UNIX as it does on Windows. To date, the company has deployed
more than one million end-user licenses of MainWin. For example, some
of the leading business applications re-hosted to UNIX and Linux with
MainWin include: Microsoft Internet Explorer; Microsoft Outlook
Express; Computer Associates’ OpenRoad; Alcatel’s X-Vision Enterprise
and Magic’s Enterprise Edition V.8."
A work in progress for over a year, Mainsoft's research and
development team, located in Lod, Israeli, working with Microsoft
employees from Redmond and a small group of developers from France,
[where Mainsoft originated].
And the fruit of their labor is:
Tada!
http://www.mainsoft.com/products/linux/linux_download.html
According to my highly placed confidential sources, the next major
port will be:
Solitaire
Have a nice day!
------------------------------
From: Sphere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Om
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 10:55:30 GMT
mlw wrote:
>
> Sphere wrote:
> [snipped DVD code]
>
> I would call that art, however, no "but" was defined. Since it does not
> compile, one could not possibly say you are hurting anyone!
I was kind of wondering about that. I
don't have a compiler on this machine.
> --
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
--
Sphere.
No permanence. No self. No perfection.
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 06:54:48 -0400
Reply-To: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> JS/PL wrote:
>
> > "rj friedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 17:10:17 "Christopher Smith"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > > Too bad for all of you. In a democracy not everybody likes
> > > every law - but they still have to abide by them - like it
> > > or not. MS broke the law; they got caught; the United States
> > > of America took them to court; the United Statesa of America
> > > proved they were guilty. Whether or not *you* like the law
> > > has nothing to do with it. Live with it.
> >
> > Depends upon the interpretation of the law. To me a drunk driver who
kills a
> > family has commited murder and IS a mass murderer. yet in the eyes of
the
> > law he/she has merely commited accidental manslaughter. To the DOJ and
> > their collusive judge, Microsoft is a monopoly, yet to consumers
Microsoft
> > is just_another_choice.
>
> You assume you can speak for consumers. You cannot. We speak via our
legal
> representatives - the DOJ.
> The market is distorted by monopoly power thus the market does not speak
for
> consumers - it is manipulated and distorted so badly that it needs to be
fixed
> by splitting MS.
It's too bad it will never happen. Free trade always prevails.
------------------------------
From: Sphere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Om
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 10:58:18 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
...
>
> If you honestly give a damn about this, quit making sophomoric posts of
> DeCSS and instead contribute dollars to the various defense funds
> through the Electronic Frontier Foundation (http://www.eff.org). The
> right to wear the clothing of your choice is the next MPAA target.
Did that already.
I'm just proposing a new art form. How many
versions of the source can compile to the
same binary?
--
Sphere.
No permanence. No self. No perfection.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
