Linux-Advocacy Digest #823, Volume #28 Sat, 2 Sep 00 00:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform (D. Spider)
Re: software (Christopher Browne)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Unix user 10yrs + says Linux is bollocks (D. Spider)
Re: Why doesnt SuSE and RedHat wait until later this autum? (Grega Bremec)
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (Eric Bennett)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (Craig Kelley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (D. Spider)
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: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 03:00:29 GMT
It appears that on Sat, 2 Sep 2000 10:58:52 +1000, in
comp.os.linux.advocacy "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"D. Spider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> It appears that on Sat, 2 Sep 2000 09:38:43 +1000, in
>> comp.os.linux.advocacy "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> Are you confusing crashing the X server with the OS <again> ?
>> >
>> >I doubt it, I've seen Netscape hang up the entire machine (I assumed it
>was
>> >Netscpae, since the problem only ever occurred running it).
>>
>> Netscape is usually to blame when a workstation appears to hang up,
>> but that's still supposition, not proof. What did you do to
>> troubleshoot it?
>
>Ctrl+Alt+Bkspc to kill the X server. When that didn't work, I tried
>telnetting in from another machine to kill it. No go. Couldn't even ping
>it. It was _dead_.
Ok, that would prove it. I don't disbelieve you, I'm just saying I've
never seen it. I've seen windows (both the DOS and NT incarnations)
die like that many times.
>
>> I've honestly never seen this happen. I've seen it *claimed* that it
>> had happened, but in every case where I've had the opportunity to
>> confirm the case myself, it was just a hung X server, and restarting X
>> solved the problem - i.e. the OS itself continued running without a
>> glitch the entire time.
>
>Not in this case. Although X is pretty as well.
"X is pretty as well?"
>
>> >Of course, for most people on workstations, locking up the X server is
>just
>> >as bad as locking up the entire machine.
>>
>> Not at all, that's totally crazy. Just shut down X and restart it -
>> the kernel and other services should be unaffected
>
>To the end user the effect is the same. They lose all the data in whatever
>they were working in. The fact it takes 30 seconds to restart the X server
>instead of a minute to reboot is irrelevant - the end result is the same.
Typically one loses a lot less even in this rare event. *nix programs
generally autosave pretty frequently. I've had my X server go down a
few times, though not recently, and Netscape is the only program I've
ever lost anything in - I don't use Netscape for anything important,
so it doesn't seem like a very serious problem to me.
>> >> I have had netscape bomb, I have (once or twice in 4 years) had
>netscape
>> >> kill the xserver, I have never had netscape take down the whole system.
>> >
>> >It happens. The X server is quite capable of hanging the entire machine,
>> >and Netscape is quite capable of initiating that hang.
>>
>> Which X server are you using?
>
>XFree 3.3.6. Also see it with older versions.
I'm fairly new to personal unix, and thus to X, but I've used 3.3.6
and now 4.01 and not seen this ever happen. Not saying it's
impossible, just rare.
>> >I'm surprised you've only had Netscape bomb the X server once or twice in
>> >four years. It happens quite regularly to me.
>> >
>>
>> The only problem I've seen at all frequently with Netscape is a memory
>> leak condition that manifests on pages with a ton of data in an entry
>> form. If you don't kill it before it gets out of hand, it can be
>> annoying, but it certainly does NOT take down the OS, or even the X
>> server - if you leave it alone and don't kill it yourself it
>> eventually slows the machine to a crawl (churning the swap drive like
>> it thinks it's windows, quite funny to watch actually) until you run
>> out of swap space and the system terminates Netscape. It's annoying,
>> yes, but it's a far cry from the results of the same error on a
>> windows machine, where it can take down the whole OS, and if it
>> doesn't it probably has at least destabilised it so you need to reboot
>> anyway.
>
>Netscape does the same thing on Windows, with exactly the same effects.
>Churn and churn until it runs out of RAM. Kill it and move on. Problem
>solved.
Well, not really. When this happens in windows the app can and often
does corrupt memory not assigned to it. You really need to reboot to
be sure everything is ok, and I've seen some very bizaare things start
happening when the machine is not rebooted.
>Mozilla is even worse, it has huge memory leaks just downloading things (M8,
>at least).
Well, although I am no Mozilla fan, I must point out that M8 is
positively *ancient* and a LOT of problems have been fixed.
>> I haven't seen this problem once with the newest version of Netscape
>> btw, although that doesn't necessarily mean it's completely fixed.
>
>Netscape is just crap. It's only redeeming feature is it's availability on
>a number of platforms.
I have to agree. On the bright side, my favourite windows browser
(opera) should be ported to X11 soon. If the port is half as good as
the original I will be quite happy...
>
>> At any rate none of this is at all relevant to the original thread,
>> because we were talking about servers. X and Netscape are workstation
>> programs, you shouldn't even install those on a normal server, let
>> alone execute them.
>
>Then why do you say an NT mahcine sitting at a login prompt is going to be
>noticably effected ? How is the GUI going to crash the machine if it's not
>doing anything ?
>
Ok, you do understand the difference between running a program and not
running a program, no? You can run a program and just let it sit
there, and it still takes resources (memory and cpu) while it runs,
even if from the user point of view it's doing nothing, it IS doing
something - if only running an idle loop waiting for input.
When the program in question is a GUI, and the video drivers are
running in kernel space, that's just more potential trouble. Taking a
risk like that may make sense in some cases, but not having the choice
of whether to do it or not is just poor design.
#####################################################
My email address is posted for purposes of private
correspondence only. Consent is expressly NOT given
to receive advertisements, or bulk mailings of any
kind.
Since Deja.com will not archive my messages without
altering them for purposes of advertisement, deja.com
is barred from archiving my messages.
#####################################################
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 03:14:12 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when [EMAIL PROTECTED]
would say:
>On Fri, 01 Sep 2000 23:38:42 GMT, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> >Just for you, I'll say that I want it to run on the 80x86, StrongARM,
>>> >Alpha and SPARC.
>>>
>>> Do you think you will have a serious market across all of those
>>> architectures(sp?) ?
>>
>>Yes, the current systems are decades obsolete and pathetic. And even
>>if nobody else adopts it, it's enough that I will.
>
> Besides, much of what is currently limiting Alpha and Sparc is
> their lack of support for the predominant "DOS compatibility"
> standard. Take away that network effect and things could change
> dramatically.
No, the "main" thing limiting them (and throw in StrongARM, MIPS, and
PPC for good measure) is that there do not exist the combination of:
a) Multiplicity of competitive vendors selling motherboards as is
the case with IA-32 [Asus, Gigabyte, Tyan, Shuttle, Intel being
merely some of the better known vendors]
b) Multiplicity of competitive vendors selling complete systems,
including diversity of sales channel and company size.
c) Lots of general purpose applications of widespread interest.
These lacks feed each other: the paucity of hardware vendors discourages
software development, and vice-versa.
It looks quite suspicious right now that the IA-64 architecture that
the "Gartner Groups" were trumpeting two years ago as the death of all
other architectures is _still_ not generally available...
I am getting suspicious that it may go the way of the failed iAXP32, to be
succeeded by Yet Another Pentium Upgrade of the 8008...
In any case, it is a strangely ubiquitous software system that would
_seriously_ be marketable on so many architectures.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/>
Rules of the Evil Overlord #195. "I will not use hostages as bait in a
trap. Unless you're going to use them for negotiation or as human
shields, there's no point in taking them."
<http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[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: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 13:32:18 +1000
"D. Spider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It appears that on Sat, 2 Sep 2000 10:58:52 +1000, in
> comp.os.linux.advocacy "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
[chomp]
> >> I've honestly never seen this happen. I've seen it *claimed* that it
> >> had happened, but in every case where I've had the opportunity to
> >> confirm the case myself, it was just a hung X server, and restarting X
> >> solved the problem - i.e. the OS itself continued running without a
> >> glitch the entire time.
> >
> >Not in this case. Although X is pretty as well.
>
> "X is pretty as well?"
Sorry, "X is pretty unstable as well".
> >> Not at all, that's totally crazy. Just shut down X and restart it -
> >> the kernel and other services should be unaffected
> >
> >To the end user the effect is the same. They lose all the data in
whatever
> >they were working in. The fact it takes 30 seconds to restart the X
server
> >instead of a minute to reboot is irrelevant - the end result is the same.
>
> Typically one loses a lot less even in this rare event.
I wouldn't call it rare. I have the X server crap out at least once a
month. That isn't rare, it's positively common.
On a desktop unix box, you'll most likely be using X, even if just to have a
dozen XTerms open. Kill X, and everything goes with it. The difference
between this and having The whole OS crash is largely semantic.
> *nix programs
> generally autosave pretty frequently.
So do Windows programs. Doesn't make much difference if you've had a fit of
inspiration and written 400 words since the last autosave.
> I've had my X server go down a
> few times, though not recently, and Netscape is the only program I've
> ever lost anything in - I don't use Netscape for anything important,
> so it doesn't seem like a very serious problem to me.
Eh ? How do you "lose" something in Netscape ? That's be like "losing"
something in Acrobat reader.
> >> >It happens. The X server is quite capable of hanging the entire
machine,
> >> >and Netscape is quite capable of initiating that hang.
> >>
> >> Which X server are you using?
> >
> >XFree 3.3.6. Also see it with older versions.
>
> I'm fairly new to personal unix, and thus to X, but I've used 3.3.6
> and now 4.01 and not seen this ever happen. Not saying it's
> impossible, just rare.
It's happened to me about as often as NT crashing. That is, about 4 times
in the last 3-odd years. Linux crashes (as in the kernel) are somewhat more
common - probably 3 or 4 times a year. FreeBSD is the only OS I've used
that's never crashed on me, but I"ve only been using a machine with it
running for a year or so.
I might add that NT has IME recovered a lot more gracefully from sudden
power outages (power is flaky around here) than Linux. I've never lost an
NTFS filesystem, I've lost several ext2 ones.
> >Netscape does the same thing on Windows, with exactly the same effects.
> >Churn and churn until it runs out of RAM. Kill it and move on. Problem
> >solved.
>
> Well, not really. When this happens in windows the app can and often
> does corrupt memory not assigned to it. You really need to reboot to
> be sure everything is ok, and I've seen some very bizaare things start
> happening when the machine is not rebooted.
Maybe if you're using Win9x, and if you're using Win9x for much at all then
quite frankly you get what you deserve. No-one using Win9x is even remotely
interested in stability.
> >Mozilla is even worse, it has huge memory leaks just downloading things
(M8,
> >at least).
>
> Well, although I am no Mozilla fan, I must point out that M8 is
> positively *ancient* and a LOT of problems have been fixed.
Indeed, it's been a while. I see no reason to bother with Netscape or
Mozilla when IE is so good.
> >> At any rate none of this is at all relevant to the original thread,
> >> because we were talking about servers. X and Netscape are workstation
> >> programs, you shouldn't even install those on a normal server, let
> >> alone execute them.
> >
> >Then why do you say an NT mahcine sitting at a login prompt is going to
be
> >noticably effected ? How is the GUI going to crash the machine if it's
not
> >doing anything ?
> >
>
> Ok, you do understand the difference between running a program and not
> running a program, no? You can run a program and just let it sit
> there, and it still takes resources (memory and cpu) while it runs,
> even if from the user point of view it's doing nothing, it IS doing
> something - if only running an idle loop waiting for input.
If the login box is using enough resources on your machien to be even
noticable, they it's simply underpowered for anything you're going to be
using it for. I doubt you could even measure the amount of CPU time it
would be taking and the amount of meory would not only be small, but almost
all paged out in any event.
> When the program in question is a GUI, and the video drivers are
> running in kernel space, that's just more potential trouble. Taking a
> risk like that may make sense in some cases, but not having the choice
> of whether to do it or not is just poor design.
Not if that design lowers development and production costs, especially when
the risk is almost entirely theoretical.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (D. Spider)
Subject: Re: Unix user 10yrs + says Linux is bollocks
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 03:36:35 GMT
It appears that on Sat, 05 Aug 2000 20:22:07 -0400, in
comp.os.linux.advocacy Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sat, 05 Aug 2000 00:31:21 +0100, trem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Linux is frustrating the shit out of me.
>
>Honestly, if you were a UNIX user for 10 years I can't see how this
>could be true.
>
Oh, it could easily be true actually. When you work on an HP-UX or
Solaris or whatever system at work, chances are your boss paid big
bucks and techs from HP or Sun came out and set everything up, and
come out again if you ever have a REAL problem. You could easily go 10
years in that sort of setting without ever having to do an OS install,
particularly not on third party hardware.
#####################################################
My email address is posted for purposes of private
correspondence only. Consent is expressly NOT given
to receive advertisements, or bulk mailings of any
kind.
Since Deja.com will not archive my messages without
altering them for purposes of advertisement, deja.com
is barred from archiving my messages.
#####################################################
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grega Bremec)
Subject: Re: Why doesnt SuSE and RedHat wait until later this autum?
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 03:41:19 GMT
...and A transfinite number of monkeys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> used the keyboard:
<snip>
>
>* Move to glibc 2.2/gcc 2.96 - This WILL break C++ programs that were
> compiled using egcs, as they will not be binary compatible.
>
>* Move to XFree86 4.0.1 - This breaks existing XF86Config files, and
> uses a fundamentally different X Server architecture.
>
>* Move toward better FHS compliance - some directory structures are
> incompatible with RH 6.x (ie. /usr/share/man, rather than /usr/man
> and /var/www, rather than /home/httpd/html).
>
>* Complete readiness for kernel 2.4 (proper binutils/modutils/etc)
>
>* Changing the initscripts to support things like USB
>
>* Moving to other incompatible subsystems, like LPRng.
>
>* Moving to newer GNOME, KDE
OK then. First of all, my apologies for being too fast in assuming
they won't be doing anything radically new in the new release. The
question still remains, however, why not use the 2.4-testX kernel if
the users are supposed to be "used to" the fact the x.0 releases are
very unstable. I mean there are going to be KDE 2.0beta and GNOME
beta included, right? So why not add yet another pre-release quality
software and sell it at half the price of a bugfixed release?
I doubt it does anybody any good that pre-release quality
distributions are available as shrink-wrapped software which can be
bought for the same price as some later, stable release. No matter
how the regular users are "supposed to be used to that fact". I mean,
there are new users as well, who heard of RedHat, and if they heard
that it's supposed to be a good distribution, imagine their horror and
dismay when they experience the load of beta-related problems they'll
get when they install it on their box (that is, if they manage to get
past the installation procedure [hint 6.0]).
Regards,
--
Grega Bremec
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gbsoft.org/
------------------------------
From: <[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 20:25:22 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8opni2$phf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> <[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".
It is not my scheme, it is just the way thing used to be done. If you chose
to not register your software then that is your personal choice. If that
means that you are not qualified for the upgrade, then that is your personal
choice as well.
> > If not why do the want the
> > users to register the software?
>
> Many reasons. Use your imagination.
Pardon? I was saying, if they don't keep that information what do they want
us to provide them that information in the for of registerations.
------------------------------
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 20:34:55 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8oprjt$dab$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On a desktop unix box, you'll most likely be using X, even if just to have
a
> dozen XTerms open. Kill X, and everything goes with it. The difference
> between this and having The whole OS crash is largely semantic.
If all you want is a number of xterm running, all you need to do is don't
run X and take advantage of your box's VC's. -- Less overhead, faster
response, and perhaps better security.
> I might add that NT has IME recovered a lot more gracefully from sudden
> power outages (power is flaky around here) than Linux. I've never lost an
> NTFS filesystem, I've lost several ext2 ones.
Are you using UPS with you host monitoring and auto shutdown when the power
is off too long? I the environment that you describe it is mandatory
reguardless of the OS.
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[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: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 00:00:52 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Courageous
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > To get a conviction, you have to prove that it was abused or illegally
> > obtained. And a demonstration that a company improved its products does
> > not meet that burden.
>
> Tying arrangements and per-unit license agreements do a fair
> job of it, though.
Yes.
> > Obviously not. The text is quite clear. Growth and development are not
> > 'willfully acquiring and maintaining monopoly power' ***IF*** they are
> > achieved through development of superior products, business acumen, etc.
>
> Maxlin's argument is that a company that acquires what we citizens
> refer to as a monopoly through superior product, business acumen,
> or serendipity is not, in fact, a monopoly. He rather doesn't mind
> that he insists on using a definition of the word different than
> the one that has been an use for almost five centuries.
Well, here is some more information for him to absorb. The following is
an exchange, from July 1998, between Mike DeWine (R-OH), chairman of the
antitrust subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Mitchell
Kertzman, who at the time was the CEO of Sybase.
===============================================
DeWine: Let me ask this question to everyone on the panel who would like
to respond to it. Well start with you, Mr. Kertzman. As chairman of the
antitrust committee, I'm very sensitive to charges that Microsoft has
been using its monopoly power on the desktop operating system to provide
leverage for other products. However, as I understand it Microsoft has
only about a 40% share of the market for enterprise operating systems.
Since Microsoft does not appear to have market power in the enterprise
market, how much impact will it be able to have by bundling products
with Windows NT?
Kertzman: Well, Senator there are...
DeWine: First of all, is 40% about right?
Kertzman: There are varying degrees of that but it's certainly
significantly less today than their desktop operating systems share,
which is approaching 100%.
DeWine: Right.
Kertzman: The first thing is that they have stated publicly is that
their strategy on the desktop is that Windows 98 is the last OS on the
desktop of its architecture and that Windows NT will be the future of
the desktop. Therefore, they have given a clear signal that Windows NT
will be the platform for everything and that will automatically increase
the operating system share of Windows NT and increase that leverage. The
second thing they are doing in their business practices is they are
linking pricing of Windows NT and Microsoft Back Office, which is the
application that runs on Windows NT, to purchases made of desktop
software (operating systems and applications). They have a program
called Microsoft Select which basically says that if you do a certain
volume... for example if you buy all of your email software from them
instead of from Lotus, and buy all of your applications, word
processing, spreadsheets from them instead of Lotus, you will get a
bigger discount on your NT-based and Back Office software. So, they are
linking the pricing of the NT based software to their market share and
their pricing and monopoly ability on the desktop. And, added to that,
I mean, 40% market share is a significant market share on which to
build. It's not, certainly not a monopoly...
DeWine: It's not a monopoly, though.
Kertzman: But it's not trivial. You know, this whole notion of
"monopoly", monopolies are not... you're... I certainly don't want to
lecture the chairman of the antitrust subcommittee. Monopolies
themselves are not...
DeWine: That's all right.
Kertzman: Monopolies themselves are not illegal. Microsoft having this
market share on the desktop is not itself illegal.
DeWine: But...
Kertzman: It's the linking and leveraging...
DeWine: The point though is that legally, once you become a monopoly,
different standards apply.
===============================================
Note what DeWine says: "once you become a monopoly, different standards
apply", not "once you become a monopoly, you have broken the law".
Now I suppose Max will argue that Congress doesn't understand its own
laws, and I suspect he *would* try to lecture the chairman of the
antitrust subcommittee.
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
If I return people's greetings, I do so only to give them their greeting back.
-Karl Kraus
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 01 Sep 2000 22:01:05 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () writes:
>
> Bullshit. Quite often, government assistance programs have the
> end result of pushing you down farther, rather than allowing
> you to be elevated or helped up for a time.
>
> [deletia]
>
> US Welfare programs specifically discourage upward mobility.
One only has to look to the sad state of the Native American
"reservations" to see the truth in this.
(and now the Hawaiians actually *want* the same status)
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
