Linux-Advocacy Digest #799, Volume #28 Fri, 1 Sep 00 13:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (Perry Pip)
Re: SmartShip needs multiple platforms (Was: Am I the only one that finds this just
a little scary? (Perry Pip)
Re: Nothing like a SECURE database, is there Bill? (Stuart Fox)
Re: HOTMAIL Hacked? (Milton)
Re: How low can they go...? ("JS/PL")
Re: Max's Jailhouse Thread Was (Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary
Split Save It?] ("JS/PL")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a (Peter Ammon)
Re: philosophy is better than science (Phillip Lord)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: Anybody Wanna Fuck My Virgin Whiteboy Ass? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: 1 Sep 2000 15:19:09 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 21:00:51 -0400,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Steve Mading wrote:
>>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> : Steve Mading wrote:
>>
>> :>
>> :> : So the Japanese are just going to land large forces on California?
>> :> : And the American Navy is not going to interdict the supplies sent
>> :> : to such Japanese troops in California?
>> :>
>> :> No Panama Canal yet. The US Navy would take a long time to get
>> :> there in full force. (This was the main reason for building the
>> :> canal in the first place. It increased the power of the Navy by
>> :> decreasing it's response time to go between oceans.)
>> :>
>>
>> : Land guys at Nicaragua, have them march to the west coast, and have
>> : other ships pick them up there. Yes, the Navy would already have to
>> : have ships in the Pacific, but that's cheaper than a transcontinental
>> : railroad.
>>
>> Those ships would not be there in the Pacific. Remember we are talking
>> about a scenario where someone's taken over the west coast. I was
>> presuming from that that they destroyed the naval threat there too,
>> since with a large functioning navy to defend the area it would be
>> nearly impossible to take over the coast. I was therefore operating
>> on the assumption that if the coast were already taken, the pacific
>> fleet has to have been taken out already, or it has to have been very
>> far away at the time. Either way it isn't available to help in the
>> operation. The Naval strength all has to come from the atlantic fleet.
>>
>> Sea travel also has an awful lot longer route than the railroad route,
>> even with the central american shortcut. Rails were just as fast as
>> boats by then, and the rail route would be more direct.
>
>Actually, the key difference would be which method would be easier to
>keep the force supplied with food, etc.
Yes definitely.
>The railroad makes more sense,
>as the railroad itself helps to transport back east more raw iron
>ore for making more engines, etc.
But another issue with maching soldiers across Nicaragua was that all
an enemy Navy had to do was attack the ships coming of the West coast
of Nicaragua and California was cut off completely and a sitting duck
for a land invasion. The railroad gave you a supply route that was
much more difficult for an enemy to cut off.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: SmartShip needs multiple platforms (Was: Am I the only one that finds
this just a little scary?
Date: 1 Sep 2000 15:19:17 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 29 Aug 2000 00:20:51 GMT,
Anthony D. Tribelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Anthony D. Tribelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>>>> Three *consective* paragraphs directly quoted from the article:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ron Redman, deputy technical director of the Fleet Introduction
>>>>>> Division of the Aegis Program Executive Office, said there have been
>>>>>> numerous software failures associated with NT aboard the Yorktown.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Refining that is an ongoing process," Redman said. "Unix is a better
>>>>>> system for control of equipment and machinery, whereas NT is a better
>>>>>> system for the transfer of information and data. NT has never been
>>>>>> fully refined and there are times when we have had shutdowns that
>>>>>> resulted from NT."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Yorktown has been towed into port several times because of the
>>>>>> systems failures, he said.
>>>>>>
>
>The ship's systems comprise more than an operating system.
Redman is clearly talking about the OS.
>The part or
>parts of the system that failed were not identified.
NT is responsibe for the system failures.
>We don't know if he
>is talking about the WinNT operating system itself
NT == NT.
>or a WinNT based system
>that consists of the WinNT OS and assorted Win32 applications.
Irrelevent.
>There is no
>specific information here,
Just that NY caused failures and the Yorktown has been towed into port
several as a result.
>Your interpretation of conjecture is self serving
Pot, kettle, black.
>I am not saying
>that general purpose computers have no place on ship.
So then we agree multiple platforms are needed for Smartship.
>I am saying that
>using general pupose computers everywhere is a mistake,
Agreed.
>that it is taking
>things too far,
Agreed.
>and that even your scenario uses them a little too liberaly.
Have you done a complete analysis on the needs or SmartShip?? Have you
taken into consideration the Navy's commitment to controlling costs
and using COTS. How do the markets compare for embedded vs. general
purpose platform tools for 1) GUI frameworks for the command and
control of machinery and 2) a large database engine, several gigs in
size.
>The bridge and other centralized locations would be appropriate
>locations for the custom solutions.
I believe the Navy is looking for COTS solutions, not custom
solutions. Nonetheless, some specialized embedded OS consoles would be
reasonable on the bridge as a backup.
>Supplementing these with machines that
>do more complex analysis is fine.
But the sailors will not want to move from one machine to another
while operating the ship.. They will want to do all their work from
one console. So you might look for application compatability and
portability between platforms to make the UI's consistent. Vxworks has
both posix and X API's available.
>I think the use of the phrase "general purpose" has evolved quite a bit
>here. What I initially objected to was the use of general purpose WinNT or
>Unix boxes, ruggedized or not. Yes, a WinNT or Unix kernel could be used.
WinNT kernel is unsuitable for critical real-time embedded
control. With it's memory leaks, you'll be rebooting your controllers
on a regular basis. With GDI and all the other crap in the kernel your
looking at a minimum of a 20MB footprint.
>I still lean towards VxWorks.
For embedded controllers sure. But have you done any development work
on VxWorks?? If you did you would know why I say it won't support
highlevel GUI applications very well. VxWorks is also not
multiuser. So how are you going to implement security?
>> ... Embedded OS's like Lynx
>> and VxWorks simply can't support high level GUI's to well ...
>
>No, for example:
One narrow example does not disqualify my statement "can't support too
well"
> http://www.wrs.com/html/esec.html
>
> The Sharp Ipmera is a VxWorks-powered device, implements PIM,
> E-mail, and Web-browsing features, and includes personality
> modules for the whole family. Furthermore, it has a built-in
> printer, making it truly a standalone appliance device.
You aren't recommending this for the Yorktown, are you? This is not
even rugged hardware, it's just a personal internet device. Provide me
a URL to some COTS rugged hardware, including the graphics
accelerator, that can run this UI. Also provide me a URL to a COTS
software product that provides a framework for building GUI machinery
command and control screens that will run on this UI.
>Supplemental machines doing useful but non-essential things being
>implmented differently.
You fail to see there are some essential things that VxWorks can't do
very well.
------------------------------
From: Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nothing like a SECURE database, is there Bill?
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 15:06:55 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> On 31 Aug 2000 10:44:51 GMT, Steve Mading
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >: Steve Mading wrote:
> >:>
> >:> It seems to me that in this type of situation, the installer
> >:> should generate a random, but usable, password from some very
> >:> simple scheme, ("Roll a d46, 1-26 equals A-Z, 27-36 equals 0-9,
> >:> and 37-46 is the punctiation marks above the numbers", repeat for
> >:> 8 characters). Then it could tell you what this password is during
> >:> the installation program. Is there any product out there that
> >:> uses this technique?
> >
> >: Why dod that?
> >: JUST PROMPT THE ADMIN FOR A PASSWORD.
> >
> >I assume from this you are also implying, "...and refuse
>
> Nope. The end user should still be able to shoot themselves
> in the foot if they really want too. Oracle has already lived
> up to it's responsibilities by walking the novice admin through
> the process of changing the default passwords.
>
Which two previous posters (myself and someone else)have already
pointed out that Oracle DON'T do on either NT or Linux. So Oracle have
half lived up to their responsibility. Responsibility must also be
borne by the admin to be familiar enough with the software to know what
should be changed after a default install. Presumably they know enough
to say create a new database (a change from the default), so they
should be reasonably expected to change the password as well...
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Milton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: HOTMAIL Hacked?
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 11:26:17 -0400
On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 19:00:00 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>These types of things are not usually a hacking of the site itself so much
>>as a hacking of the DNS entries. We would have read about any such major
>>hack, so it was likely a DNS hack.
>>
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8ol2rq$n5o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> Tried to access Hotmail from 0900 to 1000 SA Time - got redirected to a
>>> porn site. Did anybody else pick this up?
>
>In case you're not aware, 'fkddan', the fact that it is a "DNS" hack may
>mean it was limited to people who tried to access Hotmail to your ISP's
>network. According to the DNS system, your dialed in from "mweb", in
>New Zealand. It might be your ISP, or it might have been all of New
>Zealand. But since you posted your message on the 28th (even though it
>didn't show up on my server until the 31st, and Erik also responded on
>the 31st), he's probably right that if it had been a large-scale hack,
>it might probably have made the news.
>
>I say "might probably" because the DNS system is, in many ways, the
>"achilles's heel" of the Internet, and it wouldn't surprise me if news
>of a hack were somewhat muted, if not suppressed, so as not to seem to
>be inciting unrest by causing the public to become concerned about the
>danger.
Well maybe they better be concerned, here's another DNS hacked URL
Lycos FTP search.
http://ftpsearch.com/
Isn't that another recently converted to windoze NT 2000 site?
Am I seeing a pattern here?
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 11:18:01 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> No, I'd say we already have seen. Response to Windows ME is even less
> than W2K.
Considering it not for sale until the middle of September I imagine response
WOULDN'T be too good yet, now would it.
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Max's Jailhouse Thread Was (Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$
Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 11:26:27 -0400
"2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8oo4ol$63d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Max is like some petty criminal that gets caught, makes a bunch of dumb
> decisions thinking he know what he's doing, disregards his lawyer's
advice.
>
> Now he's sitting in prison. He has really been impressed with himself,
with
> a big trail, everyone paying a lot of attention to him, where he otherwise
> can't get noticed.
He reminds me of that character on In Living Color the guy sitting in jail
in the skit with the Barbara Bush look alike. I forget the characters name.
He'd make a great jailhouse lawyer.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: 1 Sep 2000 15:45:38 GMT
On Fri, 01 Sep 2000 03:19:26 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[ irrelevance snipped ]
> or are you just
>another person who doesn't like my attitude and wants to try to ridicule
>me because you don't have anything useful to say?
No, I am criticising you because you are spewing defamatory rhetoric in
a public forum. Your baseless attempt to deride me as not having anything
"useless" to say is diversionary and irrelevant.
>>I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate it if some ignorant usenet clown started
>>spewing defamatory rhetoric about you.
>
>It happens all the time, Donovan. Just happened a second ago, in fact.
To be "defamatory", a claim has to be factually wrong.
Can you point out a post that posts something both
derogatory and factually wrong about yourself ?
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 12:07:30 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Eric Remy wrote:
>
>
> You're confusing things. MacOS has no equivalent to the Task Manager in
> NT/W2K. The app list you can tear off from the application menu is the
> equivalent of the Windows task bar. The Task Manager does far more than
> than application tear-off, quite a bit of which is not even possible in
> MacOS. (MacOS has no idea of priorities, for example, and so can't have
> functionality to set them.)
Check out Peek-A-Boo
http://clarkwoodsoftware.com/peekaboo/
It lets you monitor CPU useage for your processes, kill processes, set
priorities for the processes, and more.
-Peter
------------------------------
From: Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: philosophy is better than science
Date: 01 Sep 2000 16:21:42 +0100
>>>>> "Perry" == Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Perry> Translation: you can't find a decent job so you say
Perry> corporations exploit people.
>> Other people have only to open their eyes to verify what I say.
Perry> I don't see other people defending you.
Well I will. Although Richard's style of arguing leaves
much to be desired he is correct in his assertion that corporations
exploit people. This is not necessarily the fault of the individuals
as its built into the class system by which we run our society. If you
want evidence of this take the terms which has become more prevalent
over the years which is "human resources". Similarly "human assets".
Of course corporations are not human so can not be considered
to be psychopathic. There again corporations are not human so, to my
mind should have no rights to say privacy for instance. The fact that
we do ascribe so many human rights to corporations is a sign that of
the strangeness of our society.
Perry> The reason the general public believes in science is because
Perry> to the tangible results produced by engineering and medicine.
And the reason therefore that the general population believes
in Creationist theory is?
Its an cliche that 99% of scientists who have ever lived are
alive now, yet most of the really important advances that science
produced happened a while back. We have no real evidence that the
current importance that we place on science now is justified. There
again we spend less money on science than we do on the military (at
least the US and the UK do), and less money than we do on the stock
exchange, and I am happy to agree thats its money better spent than
either of these.
>> and of course, this is not at all what philosophy is about.
Perry> For you philosophy is about justifying your hatred of the
Perry> world.
I think that this is a cheap shot. Like Richard I find
much which is unpleasant about our society. I would say that this is a
long way from hating the world. Personally I like to think that I have
a lot of joy in my soul. I tend to believe the best in people, and
often find that this believe is well supported. Its for this reason
that I really dislike the class system by which we run our society and
which prevents most people from achieving anything like their full
potential.
Perry> I suggest you start with the one you hate the most: yourself.
Perhaps he needs to chill out a little, but I think that
the Freudian psychobabble advances the argument little.
Phil
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 00:21:40 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:oiHr5.8423$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8on2n3$hdh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > That doesn't stop X from being able to crash the OS though. Any
> software
> > > that accesses hardware, regardless of the mode it's using can crash
the
> > > computer.
> >
> > Unless the OS is written to prevent one user mode process from crashing
> the
> > entire system.
>
> No. I will repeat this again. *ANY* OS that allows direct hardware
> manipulation from a given process (user or kernel) can crash the machine.
> All I have to do is set the video hardware to an invalid state which
faults
> the bus and the system is toast, user mode or not.
>
> In fact, this is why Netscape can often crash systems running X.
I have never seen any X client or server ever crash the system on any unix
OS. I have seen it with X servers running on Dos and Windows though.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 00:19:28 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:KgHr5.8421$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8on2n1$hdh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:ugDr5.8408$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > They don't behave *ANYTHING* like Icons. Icons can be moved. Icons
can
> > be
> > > dragged onto other icons. Icons can be double clicked to lauch
> > > applications. Icons can recieve drop messages and launch
applications.
> >
> > That describes only one implementation of graphical user interface
icons.
> > That does not invalidate other implementations of icons from being
called
> > icons. If that were the case then you could not even refer to the icons
> of
> > older versions of Windows as icons.
>
> We're talking about consistency within ONE implementation. The Windows
> Explorer. Not other implementations.
Except that you were discounting X icons from being icons.
------------------------------
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, 1 Sep 2000 01:04:55 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 17:17:48 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >
> >>The rest of that response was:
> >>--------------
> >>We are not lawyers, we are developers, and we do not want to sue people.
> >>On the other hand I cannot guarantee that we will never sue the Harmony
> >>project. Who knows what will happen in the future. If e.g. some Redmond
> >>based company starts pumping funding into Harmony to "embrace and
extend"
> >>Qt we might consider suing.
> >>--------------
> >>
> >>All in all, what Carl Thompson asked was to the effect, is it true you
would
> >>sue anyone who made another toolkit that could be used as a dropin
> >>replacement for QT? Eirik Eng's answer was not responsive to the
question
> >>asked.
> >
> >It was sufficiently responive IMO.
>
> I agree. And he certainly didn't even seem to threaten those who would
> clone QT, but merely those who would try to inhibit competition.
But also fails to mention that they would not take action against
cloners--leaving a lingering fear of litigation, uncertainty if the act of
cloning Qt would be safe or not, doubt as to the intent of Troll Tech in
this matter. The effect to limit or eliminate the desire to directly
compete with Troll Tech by developing a competing drop in replacement for
Qt. What large company do we know of that has employed such tactics?
Could you explain how Eirik' response addressed Carl's concern?
> >It isn't clear that you can "license" an API specification, so it's not
clear
> >that your requirement is even legally binding. The reason they kept their
> >mouths relatively shut was for fear of saying something stupid.
>
> Like what he just said. Apparently, he doesn't get the idea of what is
> meant by the concept "free market competition", any more than most of
> the Microsoft defenders do.
Attention pronoun confusion, who is the :he" in "...he doesn't get..."?
> The second one, at least, is nightmarish. The first one might as well
> be "GPL QT", which is begging the question, I'm afraid, though its a
> suggestion I'd support, if I could figure out how TT can still make
> money. I can't, off the top of my head, but the same goes for me. I
> think maybe the guys at TT could, though, if they tried a little harder,
> but I'm just guessing, really.
They were not meant to be the ways that Eirik should have answered, they
were meant to be examples of how the question be Carl could have been
answered to remove any lingering doubt as to Troll Tech's intention to
*anyone* (not just the Harmony project) that would want to clone or replace
Qt with a competing implementation.
The argument that Troll Tech is made up of programmers and not lawers so
they could not address the question properly without causing themself legal
trouble in the future is foolish. Troll Tech is an organization in
business, as such, if they have legal concerns such as this question, they
should seek legal advice for the wording of their response. A response that
could settle the question and protect their rights.
> So what's so special about QT, anyway? Doesn't it haven *any*
> competitive merits, other than being 'done' and easily available? I
> mean, its gotta do *something* well, right?
So far it appears to me, that in this case, all it had going for it to be
selected for use with KDE is that it was available and the original KDE
developers liked it enough to use it over developing their own.
The only reason that it has not been "cloned" is that pesky doubt of
possible litigation that, so far as I know, had never been settled one way
or the other--a version of FUD in action.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Anybody Wanna Fuck My Virgin Whiteboy Ass?
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 16:11:19 GMT
In article <8oo1pr$gev$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Black Dragon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :>Do you like fucking and then shooting your load into a willing
> :>asshole? If you do, I'm the guy for you!
>
> Bill Gates doesn't read this newsgroup. Might wanna try posting
> elsewhere.
>
> Joe
>
c.o.m.n.a would be ideal.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
