Linux-Advocacy Digest #821, Volume #28 Fri, 1 Sep 00 23:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (Rick)
Re: Linux programmers dont live on this planet! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Joe R.")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Joe R.")
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools ("Joe R.")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Joe R.")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Joe R.")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Courageous)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform (abraxas)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 21:37:53 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Fri, 01 Sep 2000 17:25:00 -0400, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >>
> >
> >> > Finally, vouchers. As many of you may have seen, there are now studies
> >> > from three states indicating that minority students, particularly
> >> > Hispanic and African-American, do better in private schools. I think
> >> > vouchers are a great idea, *provided* that *extra* taxes are implemented
> >> > to pay for them. The bad thing about vouchers is that the money for
> >>
> >> Why do you need *extra* taxes for vouchers, when you have just
> >> stated above that the per-pupil costs of private schools are LOWER
> >> than that of public schools (Primarily to lower salaries, reduced
> >> red-tape and significantly smaller bureacracy).
> >>
> >
> >First, private schools charge "more" per student.
> >
> >> > them, at present, comes out of public school budgets (so far as I
> >> > know.)
> >>
> >> So what?
> >>
> >
> >If you delete 25% of the public school budget, you might as well close
> >public schools.
>
> Then close some schools.
>
> As a "stab in the dark": howabout ~ 25% of them.
>
How about fixing the parents and students instead?
> >
> >> If 25% of the kids leave the public schools through vouchers,
> >> then exactly what is wrong with the public schools having their
> >> budger reduced by 25%
> >>
> >
> >At the present time, public schools are massively under-funded. Class
>
> Yet those private schools seem to do more with less.
>
No, they dont. Private schools have MORE $/student than public schools.
Public schools have always done more eith less, especially K-12.
> The real problem isn't the money being thrown at schools at all.
>
> >sizes are extremely large. If you want better education in public
> >schools.. re-institute a students right to fail a course. Re-institute
> >having the student take responsibility for their own actions.
>
> Inner city schools were still cesspools when children were
> "free to fail" and one could point to plentiful examples.
>
Actually, they are not. It i smuch harder to fail students now. BTW, in
what public school do teach?
> [deletia]
> >> > American. I can afford to send my daughter to my own school, so that's
> >> > where she goes. It seems to me inherently unfair that equally good
> >> > opportunities are denied many kids because their parents can't afford
> >> > them.
> >>
> >> I think it's inherently unfair that many parents are denied the
> >> opportunity to send their kids to private schools because those
> >> funds are confiscated by the government.
> >>
> >
> >Public schools were instituted in order to guaranetee every had the
> >opportunity to get a good BASIC education. Public school was NEVER
>
> "Basic" changes over time. Civilizations progress.
>
No, it doesnt. Basic education is just that. Basic. While a basic
education does include more now than 200 years ago, it is still less
than that afforded at most private schools.
> [deletia]
> >> They take everyone's money, and in return, run the school in a
> >> deliberately fucked-up fashion (Goals 2000 , invented - spellling,
> >> no-phonics-allowed, there is no "truth", only various opinions
> >> socialist propagand induction centers). Since the money has
> >> ALREADY been filched from the parents, most don't have the $$$
> >> to send their kid to a decent school.
> >>
> >
> >Read your history. Your statement is untrue. People continue to buy
> >"name-brand" consumer goods instead of saving. The country is at almost
>
> The voice of experience says otherwise.
>
What experience/ How many kids in school are wearing Puma, Adidas and
all the other brand names instead of clothes 1/2 cheaper. How many high
scool kids have alost new or new cars? How many have almost full time
jobs, but use that money for the latest "brand-name" stuff instead of a
college fund?
> >full employment. Statistically, it is at full employment. People DO have
> >more money to use for private tuition then they have had in the past.
>
> In the burbs, or where people actually have to work for a living?
>
> [deletia]
.. and what do you call actually working for a living?
Accountants actually work. So do bank employees, retail sails people,
teachers, police, etc... as well as construction workers and other
"manual" laborers.
--
Rick
* To email me remove theobvious from my address *
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Linux programmers dont live on this planet!
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 01:55:02 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 1 Sep 2000 15:49:33 -0700
<8opcqb$rnl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> ls -l /proc/<pid>/fd suggests that X is opening a lot of sockets.
>> I don't know if it has to open one per client (for its end of
>> the socket connection), or what, although another ls -l sure suggests
>> that it does.
>
>They are anon unix domain sockets, i.e. sockets that do not exist in the
>file system. There is usually one per active client.
>
>> Yeppers -- and of course the name spaces are totally different;
>> Unix domain networking uses pathnames, whereas TCP/IP uses /etc/host
>> entries, DNS, and a few other things which I don't know at this time.
>> (Compatibility? What's that?) Sigh...but both work reasonably well.
>
>OK, you are close. Internet domain networking uses IP addresses and port
>numbers for its naming system. Host name is a distinct layer created for
>our convienence, DNS resolution and multilevel donmain named were introduced
>to replace /etc/host when it got too big for standard use. However, it is
>up the the resolver library or some other means to resolve a host.doman into
>an IP address, it is the IP address that is used in internet domanin
>netoworking.
>
>> Let's hope they're complementary. :-)
>
>They are just different pathways for the data to be communicated between the
>clinets and the host.
Oops! I meant "complIMentary". :-)
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- it's been one of those weeks
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[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: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 12:23:03 +1000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8opjmj$o4m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8opgrv$lph$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8opga2$j0d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ignoring the privacy issues of software manufacturers having every one
of
> > their customers on file, the sheer volume involved would be incredibly
> > wasteful of time and resources, not to mention a managerial nightmare.
> >
> > Does anyone with significant customer volume still do this ?
> >
> > In any event, "upgrade" versions are the same, functionally, as full
> retail
> > versions - they just require you to prove you actually own the software
> > they're upgrading.
>
> But don't they keep that information already?
Only *if* you give it to them. I certainly don't. Your scheme would
_require_ me to register with a company to be able to acquire "upgrades".
> If not why do the want the
> users to register the software?
Many reasons. Use your imagination.
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[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: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 02:15:32 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Curtis Bass
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Seán Ó Donnchadha" wrote:
>
> -- snip --
>
> > I stopped trying to reason with him when, after dozens of posts
> > regarding antitrust law, he attempted to wiggle out of embarrassing
> > defeat by proclaiming that he'd been using his own definition of
> > "monopoly" that bears little resemblance to the common one.
>
> "His own" definition, Sean? Or simply the *correct* one?
>
> Just because something is "common" it certainly doesn't follow that it's
> "correct."
>
> It's precisely this "common wisdom" that Max is arguing *against.*
> After all, a thousand years ago, it was "common wisdom" that the Earth
> was the Center of the Universe. As little as two hundred years ago, it
> was "common wisdom" that contaminants in the body's fluids is what
> caused sickness, and so bleeding was the order of the day. In fact, the
> Father of the United States of America, George Washington, was literally
> bled to death three days before the year 1800, thanks to "common
> wisdom."
>
> No, Max tends to use URLs and references to precedents and cases to back
> up his position.
ROTFLMAO.
Are you talking about the same Max who is cluttering up this group with
unsupported drivel?
--
Regards,
Joe R.
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[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: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 02:20:00 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Curtis Bass
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Joe R." wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Well, I certainly can't let such a personal attack go unnoticed, but
> > > I
> > > must say that it practically fills my heart with glee to see you two
> > > discussing how incomprehensible you find my statements. I have this
> > > theory, see, that if I keep posting, despite the trolling, and try to
> > > be
> > > as accurate, consistent, and practical as I can,
> >
> > That's the problem. I believe you _are_ being as accurate, consistent,
> > and practical as you can. Yet you're still incomprehensible.
>
> Max may be "incomprehensible" to certain individuals, but he is by no
> means universally so, as I comprehend him rather well, but then I tend
> to have a stronger grasp of English than many, perhaps even most of the
That's rather hilarious.
If you had any clue about the issues Max is babbling about, you'd see
how foolish he is.
That's exactly my point. He posts drivel which is absolutely wrong and
couches it in terms which make it sound reasonable so the gullible are
fooled.
Sorry you fell for it.
> people whom I read here in USENET. One reason I don't engage in the
> discussion is primarily due to my own ignorance of the subject matter,
Said ignorance makes you susceptible to tactics like Max's where he
posts things that _sound_ reasonable, but are clearly wrong if you
understand the topic.
As an aside, it's notable that ignorance doesn't stop Max from posting
-- by his own admission. Nor does he feel any obligation as he admits
that he posts things that are completely fabricated.
> to which I freely admit (but I tend to write quite eloquently on
> subjects with which I am familiar), yet I can credit Max for providing
> URLs and arguing from a position of research, citing what seem to be
> relevant cases and precedents. His opponents seem to simply say "you are
Max has provided nothing except a few snippets that he's taken out of
context and which he then proceeds to distort way beyond recognition.
> ignorant, you don't know what you're talking about, yadda yadda yadda"
> and leave it at that.
You must be reading some other group.
Max's arguments have been steadily demolished by at least a dozen
different people who have provided infinitely more support than Max ever
has.
>
> If I am alone in my assessments, then I rather pity Humanity . . .
Or maybe you should try becoming educated in these subjects rather than
falling for Max's glib lies.
--
Regards,
Joe R.
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 02:22:58 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rick
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >At the present time, public schools are massively under-funded. Class
> >
> > Yet those private schools seem to do more with less.
> >
>
> No, they dont. Private schools have MORE $/student than public schools.
> Public schools have always done more eith less, especially K-12.
I think you'd have to back that up.
At one time, I saw figures that the average expenditure for private
schools was less than for public schools. Your assertion certainly isn't
obvious enough to pass without evidence.
> > >Read your history. Your statement is untrue. People continue to buy
> > >"name-brand" consumer goods instead of saving. The country is at
> > >almost
> >
> > The voice of experience says otherwise.
> >
>
> What experience/ How many kids in school are wearing Puma, Adidas and
> all the other brand names instead of clothes 1/2 cheaper. How many high
> scool kids have alost new or new cars? How many have almost full time
> jobs, but use that money for the latest "brand-name" stuff instead of a
> college fund?
Absolutely.
In fact, a lot of public schools are starting to learn from private
schools and require a uniform. Too many stabbings over name brand image
items that some criminal wanted.
--
Regards,
Joe R.
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 02:25:45 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> On 28 Aug 2000 10:43:08 GMT,
> Donovan Rebbechi, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> >On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 08:20:20 GMT, ZnU wrote:
> >>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> >
> >>How do you account for the fact that minorities are disproportionately
> >>poor?
> >
> >Minorities are not disproportionatly poor if you control for IQ.
>
> I am a little confused by this statement, are you saying that minorities
> tend to be of a lower IQ? or that the poor tend to be of a lower IQ?
He's saying that IQ has some impact on the amount of poverty
(presumably, that less intelligent people tend to be less wealthy).
His assertion is that after correcting for this "fact", there is no
longer any correlation remaining between race and poverty.
Now, since it's well known that there _is_ a correlation between race
and poverty, then the logical conclusion would be that there is a
correlation between race and IQ.
Now, I think much of that is just mumbo-jumbo, but that's how I
interpret what he said.
--
Regards,
Joe R.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 22:26:27 -0400
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>"Curtis Bass" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>>
>> "Joe R." wrote:
>> >
>> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]=
t
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Said Se=DFn Donnchadha in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> > > >"Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> -- snip --
>>
>> > > >I stopped trying to reason with him when, after dozens of posts
>> > > >regarding antitrust law, he attempted to wiggle out of embarrassi=
ng
>> > > >defeat by proclaiming that he'd been using his own definition of
>> > > >"monopoly" that bears little resemblance to the common one.
>> > >
>> > > Well, I certainly can't let such a personal attack go unnoticed, b=
ut I
>> > > must say that it practically fills my heart with glee to see you t=
wo
>> > > discussing how incomprehensible you find my statements. I have th=
is
>> > > theory, see, that if I keep posting, despite the trolling, and try=
to
>be
>> > > as accurate, consistent, and practical as I can,
>> >
>> > That's the problem. I believe you _are_ being as accurate, consisten=
t,
>> > and practical as you can. Yet you're still incomprehensible.
>>
>> Max may be "incomprehensible" to certain individuals, but he is by no
>> means universally so, as I comprehend him rather well, but then I tend=
>> to have a stronger grasp of English than many, perhaps even most of th=
e
>> people whom I read here in USENET. One reason I don't engage in the
>> discussion is primarily due to my own ignorance of the subject matter,=
>> to which I freely admit (but I tend to write quite eloquently on
>> subjects with which I am familiar), yet I can credit Max for providing=
>> URLs and arguing from a position of research, citing what seem to be
>> relevant cases and precedents. His opponents seem to simply say "you a=
re
>> ignorant, you don't know what you're talking about, yadda yadda yadda"=
>> and leave it at that.
>Max arguing from a position of research is a very rare thing. This
>anti-trust discussion he is in is the first time I've ever seen it, and =
is
>fueled more by his irrational hatred of Microsoft rather than any inhere=
nt
>character traits. That doesn't stop him drawing just plain wrong
>conclusions, however.
NO the problem is YOUR constant M$ cheerleading pea brain that can't see =
how
that you are squirming around with a wish that M$ will get away with brea=
king
the law. -- Do you get paid to come here with drivel, or is your lack of=
life
that brings you here?
--
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 02:29:17 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 12:44:44 GMT,
> Joe Ragosta, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> >> >
> >> Since the biggest cost to the poor is taxation of one sort or another,
> >> why do you think the poor have such a tough time?
> >
> >
> >The biggest cost to the poor is taxation of one sort or another?
> >
> >Care to back that up?
>
> 14% SS (your employer pays about half, but it comes out of the money
> you would be getting if the govt wasn't), a couple percent for the
That's certainly one interpretation, but is subject to question at the
low end of the scale. If you're earning minimum wage, you're getting the
LEAST the employer can get away with. If they could get away with less,
they probably would.
> mediscam,
> call it 15% for fed taxes, and 6% more if you live in a state with a
The poor aren't paying 15% of income for fed taxes.
> state
> income tax. Add 6% for sales taxes (minus the food) and we are allready
Only 6% of the amount of goods you purchase -- which is a small
percentage for most people.
> approaching a 45% tax burden. Now, everything you buy has, in addition to
Only by blowing up the figures drastically.
> any sales tax, costs incured by previous levels of taxation. Granted,
> food
> isn't taxed directly, but you pay for the taxes the farmer and the
> grocery
> store pay. To top it off, you pay taxes on taxes. Example, say you pay
> 15%
> withholding on your paycheck, then another 7% directly to SS (ignoring
> the
> wad that your employer took out allready) you have paid 15% of 7% to the
> IRS,
> and 7% of 15% to the SSA, sick...
The only thing you forget is that the poor are exempted from most of
these taxes (except sales taxes).
AND, with earned income credit, most of the very poor actually receive
money back rather than paying it. The money received is generally much
greater than the amount paid in SS taxes.
So much for your theory.
--
Regards,
Joe R.
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 02:32:45 GMT
> Only 6% of the amount of goods you purchase -- which is a small
> percentage for most people.
Also happens to exclude food.
> The only thing you forget is that the poor are exempted from most of
> these taxes (except sales taxes).
If you are very poor, you're quickly approaching food and
rent, which are both exempt from sales taxes.
> AND, with earned income credit, most of the very poor actually receive
> money back rather than paying it.
I don't like earned income credit much, frankly.
C//
------------------------------
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: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 12:52:53 +1000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:39b06554$1$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>>Max arguing from a position of research is a very rare thing. This
>>anti-trust discussion he is in is the first time I've ever seen it, and is
>>fueled more by his irrational hatred of Microsoft rather than any inherent
>>character traits. That doesn't stop him drawing just plain wrong
>>conclusions, however.
>
>
>
>NO the problem is YOUR constant M$ cheerleading pea brain that can't see
how
I don't "cheerlead". I post my opinions about some topics and I advocate
NT.
>that you are squirming around with a wish that M$ will get away with
breaking
>the law.
Not in the least. I really couldn't care whether they've broken the law,
since I consider the specific law to be wrong, and the law in general to be
a joke.
Whether Microsoft, as a company, live or die from this I really couldn't
care about - as far as I'm concerned they're just another corporation.
> -- Do you get paid to come here with drivel, or is your lack of life
>that brings you here?
I might ask you the same question.
Glad to see you bring up the good ol' "they must be getting paid" line
again - it's getting to be as reliable as Godwin.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
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: 2 Sep 2000 02:55:49 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Sep 2000 20:45:26 GMT, D. Spider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>It appears that on 1 Sep 2000 18:52:24 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
>>
>>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> "abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>> news:8omfu1$17la$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>>> One more point would be this:
>>>>>
>>>>> No matter how big ANY video driver for linux is, it does not exist inside
>>>>> the kernel. Thats the point.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>I have never, ever seen X crash linux, ever. And ive been using linux constantly
>>>for the past five years.
>>>
>>
>>I haven't either. However, AFAIK, there is some truth to his claim,
>>i.e. it is not technically impossible for this to happen, given a
>>sufficiently screwed up X server.
>
> An X server accesses the system much as a device driver would.
>
> This is why one can crash a system.
>
Can you demonstrate the instability of X as a result of the above assertion?
=====yttrx
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
