Linux-Advocacy Digest #604, Volume #28 Wed, 23 Aug 00 22:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (josco)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Eric Bennett)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Eric Bennett)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chad Irby)
Re: Linux programmers dont live on this planet! (mlw)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (WickedDyno)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (ZnU)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Eric Bennett)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Eric Bennett)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Shocktrooper")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: josco <[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: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 17:27:30 -0700
On Thu, 24 Aug 2000, Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > With Office, it's been true for a very, very long time. Back to the
> > > Windows 3.1 days.
> >
> > Which only serves to demonstrate that Microsoft has a very long history
> > of this sort of thing.
>
> Oh, for fuck's sake, grow up.
>
> Is it _that_ hard to admit, even to yourself, that Office is the most
> popular suite because it is, and has been for a long time, the _best_ suite
> ? Office has been being reviewed and voted as the best office suite pretty
> much since the application category itself was first created.
Some facts:
The Anti-trust investigation against MS began in 1989.
The date the Feds began to investigate MS predates the creation of MS
Office.
The creation of MS office, was the bundling software at a discounted
price, cut off the cash flow for comeptitors who didn't own a monopoly in
software OSs. It's easy to "be the best" with that unfair playing field.
We also know MS also had the access to undisclosed APIs to engineer
Windows apps was documented for Windows386, 3.0 and 3.1 -- Then MS denied
their devleopers had access to hidden OS features/apis/hooks NOW MS admits
they did/do and it's called INNOVATION.
Office was going to be part of the anti-trust case but for the sake of
simplicity it was dropped - the case was won on the merits of the OS
abuses alone. In hindsight that was a wise decision.
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[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: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 20:29:27 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > The government is a black hole. They'll take as much money as
> > > > they can get away with and never try to spend it wisely.
> > >
> > > The money doesn't just vanish. Unless defense contractors get their
> > > hands on it, of course.
> >
> > Or government-subsidised health care, of course.
>
> Every other first-world democracy has it; it must have something going
> for it.
Other first-world democracies also spend money on defense contractors;
they must have something going for them.
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[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: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 20:36:52 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > And spending more than Gore on things like (broken) missile
> > > defense.
> >
> > And spending less than Gore on broken things like social security and
> > government health care.
>
> These social programs are broken mostly because the Republican congress
> refuses to fund them properly.
I consider Social Security to be fundamentally broken. Look at what it
was originally supposed to do... provide for a few years of
retirement... and look at what it's being asked to do today with an
increasing aging population and significantly longer lifespans. Social
Security should be largely terminated. I would support some sort of
program to protect people on fixed incomes from runaway inflation during
hard times, but not what we have now.
> > And of course even Gore is going to spend money on that broken
> > missile defense program.
>
> Yes, and that's bad. But Gore wants a more scaled back version.
Maybe you should throw your support behind Nader instead of Gore.
> > If that is in fact what the average American family would get. Given
> > the conflicting stories that each side puts out about the other's
> > programs, I have no idea what a realistic number is.
>
> As far as I know, the Republicans haven't put out any figures regarding
> the effect of the tax cut on the average family. They just talk in
> broad, general terms about "giving the money back to the people,"
> without specifying which people.
Bush claims, among other things, that under his plan an additional 6
million families will pay no federal income taxes at all.
http://www.bush2000.com/Issues.asp
> I'm quite aware. However, the fact that Bush isn't even _pretending_
> he'll do it is a rather bad sign.
He isn't being as specific about it, but I'd certainly say he's at least
pretending he'll do it. Also, the information on his web site says he'd
be putting a quarter of the surplus towards tax cuts, which is a far cry
from how you've tried to characterize his plan.
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
------------------------------
From: Chad Irby <[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: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 00:31:23 GMT
Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > The government is a black hole. They'll take as much money as
> > > > > they can get away with and never try to spend it wisely.
> > > >
> > > > The money doesn't just vanish. Unless defense contractors get their
> > > > hands on it, of course.
> > >
> > > Or government-subsidised health care, of course.
> >
> > Every other first-world democracy has it; it must have something going
> > for it.
>
> Other first-world democracies also spend money on defense contractors;
> they must have something going for them.
...and you might note that most of the countries that have
government-subsidized health care are either going broke or are scaling
back their care options radically...
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux programmers dont live on this planet!
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 20:54:25 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Ryan Walberg (MCSD) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > By "server" == "driver", he was probably talking about his X server.
> >
>
> That is what I was assuming that he meant, but as we know that is not a
> valid description.
Actually it is a very valid description. Although it behaves like a
driver with regards to hardware and privileges, it is, none the less, a
TCP/IP server which provides a service via TCP/IP. Simply because
Windows does not have an adequate analogy, does not mean the words are
incorrect.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 20:58:53 -0400
In article
<39a2a108$1013$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bob
Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<s>
> And despite your claim of vaguosity, bull! Our Constitution is far less
> vague than any other modern nation's. Hell, England doesn't even have a
> written constitution. Talk abou vague.
It has several documents which provide the same purpose though. It has
no single constitution, but has declarations which have the same force.
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 01:04:54 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > The government is a black hole. They'll take as much money as
> > > > > they can get away with and never try to spend it wisely.
> > > >
> > > > The money doesn't just vanish. Unless defense contractors get their
> > > > hands on it, of course.
> > >
> > > Or government-subsidised health care, of course.
> >
> > Every other first-world democracy has it; it must have something going
> > for it.
>
> Other first-world democracies also spend money on defense contractors;
Not like we do.
> they must have something going for them.
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[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: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 21:16:38 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad
Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > The government is a black hole. They'll take as much money as
> > > > > > they can get away with and never try to spend it wisely.
> > > > >
> > > > > The money doesn't just vanish. Unless defense contractors get
> > > > > their
> > > > > hands on it, of course.
> > > >
> > > > Or government-subsidised health care, of course.
> > >
> > > Every other first-world democracy has it; it must have something
> > > going
> > > for it.
> >
> > Other first-world democracies also spend money on defense contractors;
> > they must have something going for them.
>
> ...and you might note that most of the countries that have
> government-subsidized health care are either going broke or are scaling
> back their care options radically...
...when it was not necessarily so good to begin with.
Several months ago one of my co-workers and I discussed who we would
vote for in the primary. I said that I would vote for McCain. She
professed shock that I could be so cold-hearted as to support a
Republican.
A month or so later, I walked in when our secretary was discussing
women's health care with her. She had spent some time in England, and
she complained about how some man high-up in the bureacracy set the
rules on how often the government-supported health plan would let a
woman get some basic exams. It was much less often than the medical
community considers adequate, and she spouted off about the evils of
government-directed health plans where men make ill-informed decisions
about women's health.
And I was thinking, "this is a person who is going to vote for the
Democrats here in the US???"
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[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: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 21:19:13 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > The government is a black hole. They'll take as much money as
> > > > > > they can get away with and never try to spend it wisely.
> > > > >
> > > > > The money doesn't just vanish. Unless defense contractors get
> > > > > their
> > > > > hands on it, of course.
> > > >
> > > > Or government-subsidised health care, of course.
> > >
> > > Every other first-world democracy has it; it must have something
> > > going
> > > for it.
> >
> > Other first-world democracies also spend money on defense contractors;
>
> Not like we do.
But they should, because then we wouldn't have to do all the dirty work
for them.
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[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: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 01:08:11 GMT
In article <AoZn5.6785$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > One might note that the two main players in this particular case,
> > > Office and IE, *are* superior products, in pretty much everyone's
> > > opinion.
> >
> > Again, that's true _now_. Microsoft has made it unprofitable for
> > competitors to bother, so there is no serious competition.
>
> There certainly are competitors. Corel's WordPerfect
> is still being sold, and enhanced.
With very few exceptions, it's being sold as an aftermarket product,
which means that it has to be purchased separately, installed by
someone who has some clue of what they are doing, and set up so that
Works - which comes bundled with "low end" PCs - doesn't clobber it.
> Lotus seems to have given up trying to make SmartSuite competitive,
Again, because Microsoft effectively locked them out of the preinstall
market. This includes IBM's own machines. Some the antics and
strategies came up during the DOJ trial.
> but they are pushing it into new markets such as Rental and Leasing.
SmartSuite is good for markets that don't require interaction with
other PC users, but since most Windows/Office users seem to be unable
to load Lotus documents (even Lotus Spreadsheets make the younger users
nuts), it's still the Lotus user's oblication to import Microsoft
documents into Smartsuite. Microsoft keeps adding delightful new
features to make this more and more difficult.
A recent (6 months ago) incidend was when I recieved a document that
had strange little rectangles in it. I tried opening the document
with WordPro, it choked. WordPerfect tried to fit each page INSIDE
the little postage stamps (boy did that look silly). Even works got
a bit strange. I was on the road and I needed to read this document
on a machine that had recently crashed and had been reengineered in
the field - so I didn't have my Office CDs with me. I had to fork up
another $290 to install Office 97 (the document had Office-only
attachements as well). So here I am with 3 NT licenses, 2 Office
licenses, 2 Power-Point licenses, and 1 Laptop.
As for that funny little rectangle, even Office 97 choked. I finally
had to go to the author's machine, discovered that he had included a
WATERMARK, which I removed from the header/footer section, and suddenly
all 200 pages of this document could be read by WordPro, WordPerfect,
Applix Words, AND StarOffice. The goofy thing was that it was a blank
watermark, and the author was completely unaware of it.
So, here I am, out $600 for Office, $400 for Powerpoint, and
about $600 for NT Workstation. Suddenly, out comes Windows 2000.
I figure, "I'll be a sport, I'll give it a shot". Unfortunately,
I'm trying to install it on a machine with only 96 meg and no room
for expansion. I finally convinced my administrator to send me
an upgrade machine, which has 128 meg, and I find that the only way
I can run Windows 2000 with my standard application suite (Netscape,
Office, Smartsuite,... - a nice mix of older Microsoft and 3rd
party software), is to take out the CD-ROM and put in a second hard
drive to use as a dedicated swap drive. Fortunately, I've seen
Win2K on a 512 meg machine (where it really does go screaming fast
and very reliable), but it's likely to be a year or two before I
get a laptop than will run Win2K in any real speed. Needless to say,
when you run out of memory or partition space, nasting things happen.
Blame it on the hardware, blame it on the applications, even blame it
on configuration (it dual-boots Linux), but it just doesn't fit
into my current environment.
> One thing you fail to keep in mind
> though is that software is unlike most
> other products, cars, stereo's, whatever.
> Those products are mechanical,
> and they break down and fail after time,
> forcing users to buy new ones.
Not only that, but customer's expectations keep changing.
Back in the days of the Apple II, people were delighted with
Applewriter (on a 40x16 screen) and Visicalc (all 256 rows by 24
columns :-). Heck, with the MITS ALTAIR, we were thrilled if
we could get Micro-soft Basic loaded without breaking the
paper tape. :-)
(Gawd I'm a dinosaur :-).
> Software doesn't do this, so companies
> need to continually come up with new
> ways to get customers to buy new versions,
> and that's typically to enhance
> the product and make it better.
Microsoft does this one better. It deliberately breaks
backward compatibility.
Try running Office 2.0 on Windows NT.
Try running Office 2000 on Windows 3.1
Try reading Offire 2000 documents with Office 95.
It's a very effective business strategy if customers are ready,
willing, and able to pay for hardware and software upgrades
every 3 to 12 months (required for any organization of over
1000 users).
I remember doing a cost-analysis of a Sun IPC vs a Windows 3.1
PC. The 3.1 enabled PC cost nearly $6000 (this was in 1992).
The IPC cost about $8000. The Sparc 10 was a whopping $10,000.
That Windows 3.1 machine was an 80386/33 with 4 meg of RAM and
a 40 meg hard drive. It included Word, Excel, and Power-point (more
like Draw), which hadn't been packaged officially as "Office" yet.
It crashed several times a day when in regular and frequent use,
and the only way to get it to run reliably was to run each application
in full-screen mode. The biggest problem was that if you put a window
in the background and it tried to publish an OK/Cancel dialogue, it
didn't display the dialogue where it could be reached (since it was
covered by the forground application). But since it took exclusive
focus of the keyboard and mouse, the only way out was to reboot the
machine.
Blame the applications, blame the hardware, blame the user, but
it didn't work.
It's competitor, at nearly twice the price, was SunOS 4.0, which
included a 21 inch monitor, an optical mouse, a 500 meg drive, and
a new application suite called Applix Asterix. It invited the user
to create lots of windows, overlap them with impunity, and even to
position them so that real-time displays such as strip-charts,
scrolling status screens, and other real-time feedback was available
to the user. The user could cut-paste, using X11, from application
to application with very little required from the application.
It was expensive, but it worked.
10 years later, Microsoft has gone through 4-5 replacement level
revisions, including Windows 3.1, Windows 3.11, Windows NT 3.51,
Windows 95, Windows NT 4.2, Windows 98, and now Windows 2000.
Fortunately, many of us skipped one or two releases (not me of
course, I bloodied myself on everything but Windows 98).
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, those old Sun SPArCs are still working,
many of them are now working as servers at ISP locations, as
application servers, or even as file & print servers. Although
some of the newest Solaris stuff doesn't run on it, the Linux software
ports very nicely. And those 10 year-old applications still produce
formats that can be read/published to/from everything from Asterix
to Office 2000 and the very latest versions of WordPerfect, WordPro,
Words, and StarOffice Word.
10 years is ancient for a computer, but there are still SPArC 10s
and 20s being sold on e-bay. They're like the eveready bunny,
they keep going and going and going...
> Whether MS has competition from other companies or not,
> it is still in competition with all the copies of the
> software it sold before.
This is very true. I'm still running Office 97, NT 4.0, Windows 95,
and IE 3.0. This is because I ALSO use Mandrake 7.0, Netscape 4.7x,
and Applix Office 5.0
You see, the upgrades are such a hassle, that the risk of losing
critical information hidden in some system directory, that will
cost me many hours/days/weeks to recover, at $300 an hour, is just
such a hassle, that I'd rather NOT hassle with the upgrades.
Sure, I tried Windows 98, but it choked on my older PC. I tried
Windows 2000 but it choked on my older Laptop.
I have 10 perfectly functional computers ranging from a 486/50 to
Several Pentium 100s, some Pentium 200s, and a K6/233, that are
perfectly happy with Linux. They'll also run Windows 3.1. But
most of them have unbootable versions of Windows 95 because the
hardware configuration changed (replaced video cards, CD-ROMs,
and winmodems). Even the laptop is a Pentium-II/300.
Once in a while, when I'm digging through old archives, I'll
boot up Windows 3.1, with trumpet Winsock, so that I can launch
some arcane piece of software made by a company that no longer
exists (or was swallowed by a bigger fish).
Here's the joke. In the 10 years since I first did that survey,
the average Windows user spent nearly 5 times what the average UNIX
user spent on software and hardware. The UNIX user was more productive,
generate more revenue for his company (through the Web, application
services, high capacity databases, and complex applications). The
Linux users are off the scale. They spent less, made more, and
reached a higher level of competency than either of their compatriots.
Much of this was out of necessity (Slackware 1.1 was VERY ROUGH).
I not only see that Applications will improve for Linux, but that
we will see a whole new Genre of killer-apps for Linux that will
have capabilities that would make Microsoft jealous. Things like
real-time feedback, real-time animated charting (something like
performance monitor, but with 3D rendering, real-time charting,
logging, analysis, summaries, smoothing, and histograms. This could
be used to monitor everything from stock prices to cash-flow.
Imagine the first TV interview where the CEO of a huge company like
Federal Express is sitting in an interview, is asked how his company
is doing at the moment, pulls out his Ipaq/Linux hand-held with
wireless modem, hits a button, and you can see a second-by-second
of target verses actual revenue, expenses, and earnings.
And there's the ability to do "what-ifs" using a combination of
pipelined datastreams, simulation models, and user controlled
variables. It might even be possible to predict the outcome
of the next federal reserve meeting as much as 10 days in advance.
The fundamental game hasn't changed. The game is still to get
the best, most recent, and most relevant information to as many
users as possible, as quickly as possible, and in a format that
is most useful (most easily analyzed).
Getting the measurements from a radio telescope isn't particularly
interesting when it's just the raw numbers coming back from an
instrumentation feed, but when these numbers are crunched into
a 3Dimensional model or a full-color rendition, the entire picture
becomes much more interesting. At one time, such information took
months to process. Linux will be delivering real-time models that
can be manipulated by the user such as;viewing angle, position,
proximity, noise cancellation, even shading of the wire-frame,
that responds to real-time input.
--
Rex Ballard - I/T Architect, MIS Director
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 42 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 8/2/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Shocktrooper" <[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: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 01:25:16 GMT
"Chad Irby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > But why did they have to start by pulling the rug out from under the
> > consumer? Monkeying around with the method of setting market rates for
> > kilowatts, suppliers (and, eventually, consumers) have had to pay up to
> > 1000% increases on electrical rates. The whole "crisis" that afflicted
> > the west coast last month wasn't because there wasn't enough
> > electricity; it was because somebody figured out how to profiteer on it.
>
> Actually, it was *exactly* because there wasn't enough electricity.
>
> How did you manage to miss all of the "California is on the razor's edge
> of blacking out" stories in July and early August?
Um, because of restrictive licensing that prevented other electric companies to sell
their surplus electricity to the consumers in
the affected areas?
If you did not have quasi-monopolies for electric authorities you wouldn't have this
happen.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
