Linux-Advocacy Digest #881, Volume #28 Mon, 4 Sep 00 04:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...? (Mike Byrns)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[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: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 07:10:42 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> Said Mike Byrns in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Mike Byrns in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> >[...]You probably
> >> >have installed some software along the way that has ignored the
> >installation
> >> >rules and replaced internet software. The IE5 install will fix it.
> >>
> >> LOL! Anybody who buys this advice at this point is a moron, I swear.
> >
> >Max, I know you are a better at proper argument than that. I've seen it.
>
> Which should tell you something about how trivially moronic I think your
> advice is, Mike. I've already done the 'proper argument' for IE's
> pathetic design and Microsoft's "re-install; that'll fix it" idiocy,
> years ago. Which is why, "at this point", anyone who pays attention to
> a "an app screwed something up; reinstall IE and that'll fix it", except
> to ridicule it, is a moron.
I should have probably pointed instructions to use the repair option. It's not a
reinstall, it just replaces overwritten system files with their proper versions.
Just another way that Microsoft has to work to compete.
I don't find the design of IE to be "pathetic" in any way. It is an open,
well-factored, modular set of high to low level internet application services
that are implemented by many applications other than the iexplore.exe browser
executable. The internet services core has been through several revisions, from
3 to 5.5, and each of the revisions has maintained a high level of backward
compatibility with the previous. Where backward compatibility was compromised,
only a handful of circumtances, it was to correct defects that could not be
reasonably corrected any other way or to reflect changes in internet standards
that neccesitated that change. Since these libraries are implemented using both
COM and traditional interfaces, applications that that use COM and expect a
previous version of a libary are unaffected by these backward compatibilty
issues. The old interface is preserved to support older applications and insure
backward compatibility. COM libraries are a true advantage of the IE and Windows
design that has not yet been copied by UNIX or Macintosh. It is a true Microsoft
innovation. Too bad many developers are too short sighted to use it.
The apps that overwrite these core libraries are at fault. Plain and simple.
Their developer documentation explains this in many places. The files that are
not to be touched are plainly listed. If they need a function from a system
library they need to follow the system's directives to find it. They cannot
simply downgrade a system component to make their lives easier. If they would
just use COM to query the available interfaces they would have no problems. But
still they stick to calling by ordinal. It's like they want to have problems on
Windows. None of this is undocumented. Microsoft PUSHES this on developers. I
think these app developers have used this to take advantage of Microsoft. This
is no more.
Windows 2000 and Windows Me watch the state of core system files and silently
replace the version that the wayward app wrote with a backup. If that app
doesn't work then oops! The app developer gets a support call. They will claim
that Microsoft "sabottaged" their installation and refuse to refund the
customer's money. It will probably develop into another mudsling session. So
what. They were the ones more guilty of sabottage. Microsoft has been really
nice in this regard up to now. Time for the MS-haters that write for the Windows
platform to shape up. There's no sense in making Windows users pay for their
petty powerplays.
Maybe the app developer (Adobe, Corel, AOL, Oracle, and Apple in 99% of the
cases) will need to program Windows with the same attention to platform rules as
they do Mac and nix.
>
> For example; you don't seem at all concerned about fixing what "it" is,
> or even finding out what "it" is. You seem to presume that as long as
> IE5 works, it doesn't matter whether the other app does.
Actually is doesn't. IE5 is the OS now. If the other app chooses to use
Microsoft code then they can at least do it without screwing all the other apps
that do it right.
> You obviously
> assume that the fault will not re-appear, and give no clues how the user
> is supposed to get his app to work; as long as IE works, Microsoft is
> 'done', even though its their platform and their network software which
> has a problem.
No. It's not. IE5 supports their call. They just choose not to implement the
standard calls to locate it. Instead they write their own version of the truth
to the hard drive and other apps be damned!
> You've given no hint that it is possible to troubleshoot
> the system and figure out what 'it' is, but you presume to be able to
> 'fix it'. That's moronic.
It is possible to troubleshoot the situation. It just wouldn't gain the user
anything. Anti-MS apps and clueless shareware will still break the rules until
the user upgrades to 2000 or Me. They just need to understand that many apps
that are written by many of the same folks that lobbied the DoJ choose to break
all the rules on install. Funny thing is that in the majority of the cases,
replacing their version of the DLL with the system version has no ill effect on
the offender app due to Microsoft's close attention to backward compatibility.
It was really just a question of the wayward app vendor taking the time to test
with each of the versions of the OS or simply using the failsafe COM interface to
prevent all these issues.
> As is the fact that you can't troubleshoot
> the system and figure out what 'it' is in a way which is more convenient
> than making the entire installation (and all OS, and most app,
> configuration settings) a moot point and keep the end-user on the
> "carrot and stick" upgrade merry-go-round.
Nah. Once you figure out the apps that trash your system you can look for
alternatives. This is not some witch hunt or some conspiracy theory. It's
fact. Many apps from MS competitors have compromised system integrity. The same
way they could, but choose not to, on the Mac and nix platforms.
> >Categorical ad hominem, if that's possible, has been achieved! After a
> >decade of work with the Windows platform I can safely and authoritatively
> >say that there have been innumerable instances where core operating system
> >files have been overwritten by 3rd-party installers.
>
> And after more than a decade of work with Microsoft products of all
> stripes, I can safely and authoritatively say that this is a result of
> Window's crappy design, and pretending that it isn't a crappy design as
> long as you follow Microsoft's rules is a criminal cop-out from a
> monopolist, or a naive cop-out from a minion, not valid technical
> discussion.
Overwrite LIBC6 or otlib with your own version and see what happens. You are
right, it's not a valid tech discussion. It's pure politics and it will be over
this year and next when Windows 2000, Windows Me and Windows .NET prohibit it.
For now reinstall or repair. Complain to the app vendor since they are the one
that broke the rules.
> >It's apparent that
> >their desire to cash in on Windows is in conflict with their desires to play
> >by the rules of the platform.
>
> If its a platform, then their desires to cash in on Windows *are* the
> rules of the platform. Platforms are made for *customer's* and ISV
> developers, not for the platform developer's benefit.
No, they are made only for the customer's benefit. ISV's need to play by the
rules to keep the Windows user experience as beautiful as it can be. If they
compromise it then they are truly being anti-competitive.
> >There is nothing that prevents an installer
> >from destroying the operating environment on Macintosh, and the same can be
> >said of the myiad apps whose installers require root priviledges on nix.
> >It's just a question of trust.
>
> Yes, you're right. See, I trust Apple, to some extent at least.
Why?
> I
> don't trust Microsoft farther than I could spit on them.They've been
> ripping people off blatantly for years. Why the hell would anyone trust
> them when they (or their minions) say that its someone else's fault when
> MS software turns out to be crap?
The MS software cannot be judged as anything when significant parts have been
replaced. In many cases it "turns out to be" something less than what Microsoft
shipped since Adobe, Corel, AOL, Oracle, or Apple have DESTROYED significant
parts of the Microsoft software. This is pure and simple. I know you understand
it by now.
> Installers that require root
> privileges on Unix *don't* trash the operating system, see.
They could though.
> And while a
> Mac app might 'destroy the operating environment', I've never heard
> anyone provide the advice "reinstall the OS" in order to clean up after
> a *successful* installation.
Call 1-800-SOS-APPL. Tell then some app overwrote some things in you system
folder. Don't bother bullshitting on this. I know it far too well.
> >> Most computer illiterates would even know that "internet software" means
> >> "Microsoft crap-ware"
> >
> >Please define this term. Do you mean the free advances to the OS available
> >to every user, free of charge? In short, prove what you say.
>
> Free of charge? What the hell are you talking about? Oh, you mean the
> criminal tying. I get it. I think the federal judge already "proved"
> that part.
What's "Microsoft crap-ware"? Oh you must mean the most successful browser on
both Windows and Mac plaftorms. I get it. So where's the illegal tying on the
Mac, Max? Easy, there isn't any. Just as integrating internet services into
Windows isn't either. The best example of this is the injustice due to
technological ineptitude exhibited when TPJ denied a motion by Microsoft to show
that internet services were not removed when TPJ supposedly "removed" Internet
Explorer from Windows 98 in five minutes by deleting the desktop icon and the
Internet Explorer folder from the programs folder. Had TPJ allowed it (as he
should since he did not strike his findings from the record after his
denial-of-motion) Microsoft would have simply asked him to bring up Windows
Explorer, you know, the file manager and have TPJ type any URL into the address
box and press enter. Even with Internet Explorer "completely uninstalled" as per
TPJ, that internet page would have displayed perfectly. Had he done the same in
AOL it would have been the same. AOL uses the internet services of the OS to
render pages. What he "uninstalled" was the application front end -- not the
services. This proves his illegal tying agument false.
> >> and the way IE5 'fixes' it is to break everything
> >> else,
> >
> >Not so at all. I cite the MSDN sources freely available at
> >http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp. Please find failures at
> >backwards compatibilty that prove your claim.
>
> Sorry, I'm not sure what you're asking for, and MS software sucks too
> much to support any reliable investigation;
"Sucks too much to support reliable investigation"? You better be able to prove
that value judgement but, as it is really a value judgement, you should not and
your opinion should be discarded from the discussion. For most people Microsoft
software does not appear to be too "sucky?" to prevent reliable investigation.
There are many venues where reliable investigation of Microsoft software is
exhibited. www.arstechnica.com is an example.
> there are literally too many
> failures at 'backwards compatibility' (by which, I take it you mean
> 'compatibility with non-MS software', since that's the only issue we've
> examined so far).
There have been examples of Microsoft software not being compatible with
Microsoft software. Not many though because Microsft takes care to play by the
platform rules.
> One of the reasons its taken so many in the industry
> more than a decade to realize just how incredibly crappy it is, is that
> it is so bad you can't do reliable testing.
I'm afraid you are going to have to cite a non-biased example to back that
statement up. Adobe seems to be able to write fairly well for Windows when it's
not rewriting the OS caching algorithms and replacing core system files. They
seem to be posting some job apps for Windows testers i.e.
http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/careeropp/jobs/00-0010150.html. As I have tested
Windows and Mac and nix apps and services for a decade I can attest to the
consistancy of the Windows model over the UNIX model (when all "flavors" of nix
are considered) and the reliability of the Windows model vs. Mac. In short, I
think you are wrong.
> Windows is literally *too
> awful* to be able to categorize all the ways it fails; it doesn't even
> do it repeatably, in most cases.
I can categorize and characterize the ways that it *CAN* fail. I routinely show
repeatable cases where apps fail on Windows. In rare cases I where Windows
itself fails I can characterize and repeat them too. Most of the time a service
pack fixes it since Microsoft is EXTREMELY attentive to my feedback even though
I've never worked for them (I have been offered several jobs there :-). "The
anability to reproduce a problem lies in a misunderstanding of the problem", Cem
Kaner.
> People who use MSDN, rather than
> trying everything they can to avoid Microsoft OSes entirely, are
> obviously not very bright, or haven't spent very long doing real work
> with real computers.
I won't address that troll untill you can back it up. I so want to "K" you right
now for that categorical ad hominem. Heh. But I just thought that it applied
even to you. You do NOT "try everything you can to avoid Microsoft OSes
entirely" since you use Windows constantly (from what we all see) and must be
from you own admission "obviously not very bright, or haven't spent very long
doing real work with real computers." I didn't say it, you did.
> Or they don't have a choice.
That's like saying "I don't have the time". We all know what that means. We
don't care enough. Why? Because we accept things as they are. Some people like
to bitch. That's my final answer.
> Most are a
> combination of the three, and I'm sick of seeing the mess the computer
> industry has become, all to justify Microsoft's outrageous profits.
Blame Microsoft for all that. It's OK. You are entitled to your opinion. But
without proof, it remains yours. And a simple opinion. And not defensible in
any arguement. Drop it, please.
> I know its going to amaze you that I throw out all these accusations
> without "backing them up", and then expect that I can 'get away with
> that' by explaining that Windows is obviously so bad that I don't even
> need to "back them up", except to point to the current events and
> industry conditions. It must seem incredibly unfair. But so do
> Microsoft's actions, so you'll just have to deal with it.
NO. I DON'T. I don't need to deal with your effluent. It does not seem unfair
except to those folks that actually listen to your outflow. And it doesn't
"amaze" me, as I've seen it before, many times on the losing side of the same
argument. It doesn't even "amuse" me anymore. You have to acept the fact that,
when you try to present an arguement, you must prove it to be effective. I know
it must seem unfair, but your actions require it.
> It doesn't amaze most people I talk to, though, when the subject of just
> how bad Microsoft products work comes up. Everybody seems to be
> catching on to how much Windows sucks, as both a product and an OS.
> Even the end-users; even the MSCEs.
Chalk one up to the media and how easy it is to flog the champion when you are
shown to favor the underdog. You said "even the end-users". That seems faulty
as they are the only important point.
I was wandering about at CompUSA the other day and I asked a few folks (like I
always do) why they were looking at PC's when the Mac area was just a few feet
away. I know it's kinda sick but if you are posting here you are as bad as I am
:-). I asked them what Windows has to offer that Mac does not. I got back
standard Microsoft rhetoric. A testamemt to effective marketing.
I challenged the example stained t-shirt alpha-male to think and I found that he
was less in the know that the cadre of kids and the worn-looking wife that
accompnied him. They were much better versed.
The kids said, "We don't want AOL because it's LAME and only LUSERS use it".
The mom said "I want my kids to get experience with the real world. Not the
BMW-Mac world. We live in a nice little trailer and I keep it nice for us but we
need a computer that I can afford WITH the groceries!" I asked about linux and
only the pimply faced 14-year-old responded. "dood I'm gonna dual boot this
eMachine and show the man that they should PH34R MY L33T M4D SK1LZ. I'm hackin'
WalMart as soon as we get it!" He'd never owned a computer nor used one except
in computer lab at high school.
Try to get one of these folks to use linux. Make them like it. They are
America. God love them. They built my care in Lexington, KY! :-)
> >> so long as MS software-cum-federal-offense works to maintain the
> >> customer's lock-in.
> >
> >So long as the appeals are accepted you have yet to be vindicated.
>
> So long as the appeals don't overturn the conviction, Microsoft has yet
> to be vindicated.
Neither have you :-) Wait and see. With GeoW coming in it'll all be a wash...
IMO :-)
> >> Admit it, Mike; you *must* be an astroturfer, to try to get away with
> >> such mind-boggling deception and ignorance.
> >
> >No, Max. I am a realist. I feel that you must fall far from the other side
> >of the fence. I hope I am wrong.
>
> Yes, you are wrong. I have no desire to be anything but realistic and
> pragmatic.
IMO false.
> You aren't being a realist, Mike; nobody trying to be a
> realist would still buy that happy horse-shit after a decade of trying
> to work with Microsoft OSes.
Took me from $16K in 87 to six digits in 2000. Happy-horse indeed! Not too many
sleepless nights to boot! Remember that I do QA. I should sleep tight if I do
my job right :-)
> Any honest person with that much
> experience, the most they can generally say is "it isn't the worse piece
> of shit on the planet; I've seen crappier software than this".
> Honestly.
Sure. But when you look at it that way my C64 was the shit :-)
>
> >Note that this is not an invitation to be ingnored as you have offered so
> >many other folks. I just want to debate your points without ad hominem.
>
> Yes, I'm sure you would. I've seen your work. You're rather good at
> what you do; you seem to always have just a bit more technical
> background and info than the anti-MS side.
And that is my fault. I think you mean I have more proof! :-)
> You manage in most cases to
> provide enough 'inside' technical detail
Freely available detail if you choose to look without prejudice. Microsoft's site
is often the purveyor of much anti-Microsoft sentiment. From the inside no
less. But only on the tech details. There is much truth to be had there. As
well as marketing schpeel. We both know that when we see it.
> that you can safely take the
> discussion out of the area that the original poster is concerned with.
The area's name is proof or truth in most cases. Cite instances where I am
wrong, Max. I *DO* know what I am talking about and am not afraid to show it!
> It seems like you must have a great deal of help in picking what
> intricacies inside the proprietary closed-source OS you're going to put
> up against the knowledge and experience of the Unix developers;
The UNIX folks could have read the design docs I posted too. They are freely
available on the web at the URI's I cited. I just happen to have read them in
the past year or so (or whatever my current memory window is now :-)
> perhaps
> you've merely studied the MSDN info and have a good grasp of the
> intricacies after your obviously wide and deep experience with Microsoft
> products.
I chose Microsoft since I found learning the nix intricacies to be more
obstructive to my success. It takes a year of detailed study of Microsoft
technology to attain the same level of "grace" as it takes a a nix "admin" five
years. Even you should understand and validate that... I'm just a simple public
schooled boy from the wrong side of the tracks who bought a C64 with money made
from blacktop sealing driveways. I am able to program in BASIC, C,C++, ASSEMBLER
(variety of CPUs), FORTH (oh 76 where are you now :-(), COBOL (hate it), FORTRAN
( hate it too), and PASCAL (hate it afer learing C :-) I learned the first 4 on
an 8-bit CPU. I've met, well sortof it was a press event in both cases, Jobs and
Gates. I've talked with Bjarne Stroustrup on IRC and helped to develop to IMAP
protocol. I've not yet really grasped the "intricacies" of anything. I'm only
in my thirties. Ask me again when I'm older.
> Well, if you'd like to give a serious debate a shot, without ad hominem,
> then I will accommodate you, apologetically.
K
> But I'm not going to make
> any promises to buy bullshit, technical or otherwise.
What if I prove it? :-)
> I'm not going to
> accept that the way things in the OS work as explained to you on MSDN
> has any real bearing on how the software actually behaves or gets the
> job done, as that is unverifiable and not, therefore, realistic.
So the MSDN case studies are out?
> I'm
> not going to consider any value judgement concerning technical
> possibilities or potential to outweigh even the most trivial and
> ignorant consumer concern;
I hope not :-)
> if it doesn't work, it doesn't work, and if
> the consumer wants it one way,
Show me the comsumer then :-)
> then there's no reason it shouldn't be
I'll show you another.
> that way, unless you can convince me otherwise.
Show me it's worth it. I type all day, I have CTS -- convince my why I
should...
> In short, I'll debate
> you, but only for real; not just to see who can obfuscate more or get
> over the other persons' head in proprietary details.
It's up to you to research. That's the price you pay for asserting truth. Can't
do it, you blew it.
> I'm sorry if this
> seems biased and unfair to you or your position; Microsoft made the bed,
> whether you lie in it is your choice (no pun intended).
No, it's your challenge. You need to operate in the constraints you applied.
> I am not a Unix developer, you see, and so I don't care how the
> proprietary details work. Unix libraries work; Windows DLLs don't.
Proof? Windows libs work for more people everyday than nix libs do. I CAN prove
that if it's not obvious by market share.
> I
> don't need citations from MSDN explaining how DLLs function,
I think you do.
> or what
> they're supposed to do
Yep. You do. IMO.
> so we don't have the problems we have. We have
> the problems, I'm not interested in shifting blame to application
> developers
We are when the blame is proven to be so placed. I have numerous examples.
> (its MS's platform they're developing on,
Yes.
> often with MS's
> development tools;
Standards based -- just like nix :-)
> if the app fails, its MS's fault as much as anyone's,
Not when you overwrite libraries!
> as far as anyone can tell,
I and all the rest of the Windows cognicenti can.
> and since non-MS platforms don't have
> anywhere near the problems of MS platforms in this regard,
I have LIBC/GLIBC proof otherwise. Show yours and we'll dance :-)
> it is
> appropriate to consider that MS is not providing sufficient support to
> ISVs to get their products to work; that's MS's fault, not the ISV's.)
There is no other OS maker that provides the comprehensive support that MS does.
msdn.microsoft.com
> So, you see, I'm not sure if you really want that debate.
Oh, but I do!
> I'm going to
> be a real bastard, and I'm not willing to cut you any breaks on
> blame-casting.
Good as long as it cuts both ways.
> I'm prepared to ignore technical explanations where they
> conflict with operational experience or commercial expectations.
Then you are opening the argumement escape hatch. No deal. You have to prove
why.
> I'm
> going to expect honest and complete but non-technical answers
I'll explain the tech reasons in plain English.
> to naive
> and silly end-user questions.
When they are confirmed to verifiably be from the described source.
> I'm going to presume that Microsoft is
> guilty of federal crimes, and has been diligently anti-competing for the
> entire history of their existence.
I will not. Litigation is ongoing.
> Because all of these things are
> appropriate; Microsoft has proprietary source code
GE has proprietary toasters.
> and a predatory
> attitude.]
Up to you to prove since the DoJ has nothing but procedings to cite. No final
judgement.
> I am not planning on giving them any breaks. That's how we
> got into this mess.
This mess was caused by free thinkers. It's called debate.
> So, if you'd like to debate, fine. Before we begin, you're going to
> have to do something for me. Please answer the following questions, as
> honestly as possible. Then I'll turn off my attitude:
>
> Who is your employer?
Metris Companies
> Does your employer receive any consideration or
> compensation whatsoever from Microsoft pursuant to your employment?
No.
> Have you ever been contacted by or been in contact with any employee of
> Microsoft corporations, directly?
No. Except for my friends there. :-)
> Have you or your employer ever made a
> financial agreement with Microsoft corporation outside of end-user
> licensing of software?
We license Windows NT and Office.
> What was the complete scope and character
> (including all particular clauses) of any non-end-user licensing or
> other agreements with Microsoft corporation?
N/A
> Are you now, or have you
> ever been, an astroturfer?
Explain in more detail, Max.
> If you can convince me you're not simply trying to spread FUD, Mike,
> then you'll have my apologies (and my condolences; you certainly have
> too much technical comprehension to be wasting it supporting crappy
> software from a monopolist) and we'll start over from square one. I
> await your response.
When I'm shown to refute you then I expect you to extend the same courtesies. I
reject your silly condolences. I feel that after this missive you are then only
one still on square one.
------------------------------
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: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 23:27:09 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bernd Gehrmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > So long as any clone of Qt were open source and free did nothing to make
> > software using it incompatible with Qt that would be fine with us. Go
> > ahead.
>
> Ah, and then you "go ahead", take their source code, replace their
> copyright notices with yours and release the stuff under the BSD
> license. With the above statement, you have a guarantee that they
> don't sue you for doing that.
>
> What crack are you smoking?
Have you ever head reimplementing to the same API as another library?
------------------------------
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: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 23:28:22 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bernd Gehrmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 1 Sep 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > Not if they are asked. What should they do? Ignore the question?
> >
> > There is the ever popular "no comment".
>
> And - not surpringly - this was also the answer in this case.
If you have been following this thread, you would know that is what I have
already said.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
