Linux-Advocacy Digest #934, Volume #28 Tue, 5 Sep 00 20:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Open lettor to CommyLinux Commy's, and all other commy's to. ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: The Test: Dial-up Connections ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: The dusty Linux shelves at CompUSA ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Why I hate Windows...
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: How low can they go...? ("D'Arcy Smith")
Re: How low can they go...?
Mandrake users: Don't try this at home! ("Tim Cain")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Gary Hallock)
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! (Gary Hallock)
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! (Andrew Carpenter)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Open lettor to CommyLinux Commy's, and all other commy's to.
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 18:43:58 -0400
"Joseph T. Adams" wrote:
>
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : One night, Drestin Lack-of-facts decided to go rumble in the
> : Cass Corridor of Detroit, and was never heard from again.
>
> : pity.
>
> How does *anyone* survive in Detroit?
Detroit: Where the weak are killed and eaten.
>
> Joe
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Test: Dial-up Connections
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 18:46:12 -0400
"Paul E. Larson" wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> OK, so I finally did it... Tested two machines, one Linux and one Win98
> >> SE.
> >>
> ~~~~~~~trimmed~~~~~~~~
> >>
> >> After one hour the downloads were:
> >>
> >> Linux - 18MB
> >> Windows - 6.5MB
> >>
> >> After two hours, the accumalated total was (and we stopped here):
> >>
> >> Linux - 32MB
> >> Windows - 14MB
> >>
> ~~~~trimmed~~~~~~~~
> >> Other interesting facts:
> >>
> >> Install times:
> >> --------------
> >>
> >> Linux - 43 Minutes
> >> Windows - 45 Minutes
> >>
> >> Time from start to first working dial-up connection:
> >> ----------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Linux - 52 Minutes
> >> Windows - 48 Minutes
> >>
> >> Yes, it took only 3 minutes to configure windows to dial-up. Why? Well,
> >> I first had to create a user in Linux and enable that user to make ppp
> >> connections. This wasted some time. Aslo I had to enter the ISP's DNS
> >> IP in the Linux machine, while this was not an issue with the Windows
> >> box. The ISP's version of IE5 was used that did most of the set-up
> >> automatically.
> >>
> >> Time to authenticate:
> >> --------------------
> >>
> >> Average times:
> >>
> >> Linux: 4 Seconds
> >> Windows: 9 Seconds
> >>
> >> Total Connections per machine:
> >> -----------------------------
> >>
> >> Linux: 5 (3 line drops occured)
> >>
> >> Windows: 4 (2 line drops occured)
> >>
> >> Both machines were set-up to reconnect automatically. In all instances
> >> we restarted the FTP clients manually.
> >>
> >> That was that.
> >>
> >> I am now convinced. Linux IS faster on dial-up then Windows, especially
> >> on FTP. Any other person that want to add anything are welcome.
> >>
> >> PS. This test is still not 100% scientific. I KNOW THAT. Take it for
> >> what it is. I believe that this is typical times you should get from
> >> other machines in similar configurations.
> >>
>
> >
> >I have similar results from "cable modem" connections from identical
> >machines.
> >
> Either you are connecting to sites with slow connections or your cable
> connection is truly fscked up. I just did 19mb in 55 seconds.
That's inconsequential.
The important point is, hitting the same sites, SIMULTANEOUSLY, from
a Linux box and a Windows box, with identical hardware configurations,
(other than the Windows box having MORE memory), the Linux box ALWAYS
downloads the data faster.
Why is that?
>
> Paul
>
> --
>
> "Mr. Rusk you not wearing your tie." -- Frenzy 1972
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The dusty Linux shelves at CompUSA
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 18:48:24 -0400
Glitch wrote:
>
> Steve Martin wrote:
> >
> > Glitch wrote:
> >
> > > The first year of the first millenium was 1, not 0. There never was a 0
> > > year. This means the first decade was *over* *after* the 10th year, not
> > > the 9th. Therefore the 2nd millenium will be over at the end of the
> > > 2000th year, not the 1999th. So based on this MS has indeed 4 months to
> > > cough up whatever they are currently choking on.
> >
> > ...which brings up an interesting point. Remember Y2K? Remember how all
> > the
> > computers were going to choke because "stupid" programmers and "stupid"
> > computers all used a two-digit year? Any of this sound familiar?
> >
> > Well, here we are, all breathing a sigh of relief. Civilization didn't
> > end,
> > the bombs didn't drop, our cars still run, the can-openers still work,
> > aliens didn't land, and all's right with the world, right? So how many
> > of
> > you are now using four-digit dates, eh??? Dropped right back into our
> > old
> > habits, didn't we? We didn't learn a damned thing from all that hooraw.
> > Take a look; even Microsoft is calling their newest little attempt
> > "Windows 98ME" instead of "Windows 1998ME". Well, I put a four-digit
> > year
> > on everything I write, software as well as things like the date on a
> > check.
> > Guess it doesn't matter now, right?
>
> The same thing is going to happen in 2038 when in Feb., on the 19th I
> believe at 3am sometime, all 32 bit date fields will overflow since we
> will have surpassed the number seconds in a 32 bit wide field starting
> from Jan of 1970 ( I forget the day, possibly the 1st). WE dragged our
> feet with y2k and we will drag our feet with this problem. Given that
> Intel is finally releasing a 64 bit chip that will help somewhat but a
> lot of programs I assume use 32 bit data fields to hold the time and
> date.
>
Properly written programs use
struct time_val
Which is defined in the /usr/include hierarchy.
> btw, there are situations that did actually occur b/c of y2k, most of
> them occurred before the rollover but some things did occur b/c of
> devices not recognizing the roll over correctly. I've seen a lot of
> websites (AT&T being one of them) that had as their date variations such
> as 19000, 21000, 1900!, etc. Some devices had the same problem, but not
> all.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 15:12:53 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:_Sat5.8825$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Shannon Hendrix" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <WFYs5.8780$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch
wrote:
> > |"Slip Gun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > |> WOW! You must have one hell of a PC! (Maybe a bit like the Love Bug).
I
> > |> haven't been able to run 'doze for more than about 8 hours without
> > |> massive slowdown and crashing. Please tell me how you manage to
achive
> > |> this.
> > |
> > >It's not that difficult. Just maintain your system. Always keep
> > >your BIOS and drivers up to date,
> >
> > Why do you have to keep them up to date? Do you never get ones that
> > work?
> >
> > Once the BIOS boots the OS, why does it (the OS) care what version it
> > is?
>
> Things like Plug-N-Play depend on the BIOS to identify hardware. This is
> true even of Unix systems. Additionally, ACPI for power mangaement is a
> BIOS function, and ACPI has been a big thorn in most motherboard vendors
> sides. Few got it right at first, and many still don't.
Once the system is working right, why to you have to keep upgrading to
maintain stability as you have implied.
> > Windows is supposed to be a consumer "easy" OS, so why is this
> > necessary? What causes the registry to get in such a mess in the
> > first place? Is something wrong with this OS that causes this?
>
> crappy setup programs do this. Imagine if installing apps under linux
with
> RPM that your login files got messed up all the time (it's possible,
though
> unlikely that any apps would do that). It's roughly the same thing. It's
> the user friendlieness that causes the problem. (Ironic, isn't it?) But
> the lack of such user friendliness will always keep OS's like Linux behind
> in the market. The MacOS doesn't have this problem (yet) because it's
> "system components" are inits, which all load at runtime. Windows needs a
> mechanism to load system components on demand.
As Linux and unix already has? This sounds like another case of Windows
playing catch up with Linux.
> > >delete your cache files every so often, clean out your temp directory
> > >every so often,
> >
> > Why does a cluttered cache and temp directory affect the stability of
> > the OS? Is there something wrong with this OS?
>
> The same reason a full tmp directory can crash unix.
Dumping the no longer needed contents of /tmp /var/tmp and/or /usr/tmp is a
process that has been or can be automated with the use of cron on
Linux/unix. Is this not a case of unix being more "easy to use" than
Windows which requires the user to remember to do the job manually?
> > >and don't install hundreds of crappy utilities written by some kid in
> > >his basement.
> >
> > Isn't it the job of an operating system to keep a program from doing
> > that kind of thing?
>
> I don't know. Tell me what would happen if you wrote 100 crappy kernel
> modules and loaded them all?
Are trying you comparing utilities to kenel modules?
> > In my experience, the maintenance you suggest helps, but the problems
> > still eventually catch up with you. At the same time, the vast
> > majority of the Windows users I've seen have no idea how to perform
> > the maintenance you suggest. The machines just die and they don't
> > know why, and are frustrated by it. My UNIX machines never need
> > anything like this, so it makes you wonder which is "easier" in some
> > respects.
>
> No, your unix machines need different kinds of maintenance. Either way, a
> general user generally doesn't know how to do it.
Actually a unix box needs no maintenance to keep running. The most
maintenance I have had to do on most boxes is to review the logs. I have
not even had to log into them to do it. A cron job runs that periodically
trims the logs and emails them to me as well as submitting them for archival
storage. Another job will scan the contents of the logs and emails me a
priority message if any critical entries are detected.
------------------------------
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: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 15:48:34 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Christophe Ochal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:536t5.791$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
> 8oref8$fgr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > It make no different if the OS is written under the authority of the
> > manufacturer of the computer of if the manufacturer aquires it from else
> > were, the customer pays for it if they use it or not. In the case of
the
> > example computer system of the if it did not come with the OS the price
to
> > the customer would have been $1,130.00 instead of $1,150.00 for the
> machine.
>
> Has anyone actually tried to return his windows licence that came with a
> computer?
A client of mine did try that about 10 years ago, that was the Dos licenses
that came with several computers they purchased. From the get go those
machines were purchaed to run NetWare but yet they came with Dos bundled in
with the computers. So here they had six unneeded licenses for Dos that
could only be used on that particular model.
The client was determined on principal to take Microsoft up on the then
publicized offer to refund for unwanted and unused Dos licenses just as the
current offer is for Windows. It became a big run around between Microsoft,
the OEM, and the dealer. Finally when the cost to pursue the situation
further appeared to exceed the vaule of the refund should it ever have been
achieved, the client abandoned the attempt. The cost of the licenses and
the cost of the persuit of the refund amounted to a total of just over
$800.00 lost not counting time and salary, and consulting fees expended on
the issue.
------------------------------
From: "D'Arcy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 23:10:22 GMT
"Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:7F8t5.825$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> D'Arcy Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
> > So the DVD license holder is attempting to "squash small OS's"...
> > and why exactly is the DVD license holder trying to do that?
> How much do they ask for a licence?
The cost isn't there to stop DVD software from appearing
on "alternative" OS'. A side effect of the cost is that it stops
people from writing DVD software for small platforms.
You are the one claiming that the DVD license holder is attempting
to "squash small OS's" - what proof do you have of that? Licensing
fees themselves don't show such a desire. Why exactly do
you think that they want to "squash" any OS anyways?
..darcy
------------------------------
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: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 16:06:49 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:kPat5.50418$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:836t5.794$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Also, consider this: currently, < 1% of our target demographic uses
> > Linux..
> > > < 4% uses Mac. The other 95 or so % use Windows.
> >
> > Nah, 0.5% uses Amiga ^_^
>
> Not according to my stats, they don't....
Would you care to provide us with your statistics? What is the population
and the bias factors? Is the raw data available?
------------------------------
From: "Tim Cain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Mandrake users: Don't try this at home!
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 00:38:26 +0100
For the terminally stoopid in the group who require
constant amusement:
Try dragging and dropping "/dev/mem" into the
"advanced editor"!!!
Thrash! thrash! thrash! thrash! thrash! thrash! thrash!
thrash! thrash! thrash! thrash! thrash! thrash!.......
This really didn't seem to achieve much, not even a core dump.
Tim.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 19:43:21 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[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?
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
>
> Who sent over the first combat unit larger than a company?
> Who sent the first squadron of Air Force ground support craft?
>
> Who slided our troops from the position of tag-along ADVISORS into
> full-fledged direct combatants.
>
> Before LBJ, yes, Advisors took part in fighting...this is routine...
> Anybody who goes out in the bush carries a firearm, and shoots when
> it gets hairy.
>
> But before LBJ, it was always a couple of Americans giving advice
> and assistance to a much larger body of Viet Namese.
Who turned a war of independence from France into a crusade to stamp of out
communism? Who expanded the war into Cambodia? How long was Johnson president?
How long was Nixon president? Why did Nixon's war last longer than Johnson's war?
How many people were killed during the various presidencies?
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 16:41:18 -0700
"Zenin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> What would be the point? Unix has been a "network" centric
> operating system since day one. Certifying a system for a condition
> that is unlikely to ever have much if any practical use would simply
> be stupid.
>
> Perhaps that's why MS wanted the certification...as MS is great at
> building things with no practical use. :-)
It's a DoD defense certification. And guess what? There are OFTEN
circumstances where the defense industry needs to have machines that are
completely isolated from any network, with physical-only access.
And it's these situations that NT's certified for.
It's a military thing. You wouldn't understand.
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 16:41:56 -0700
"Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Simon Cooke wrote:
>
>
> > > they like on it? And therein we find the real problem; My parents
> > > are nothing close to "stupid", but computer professionals they are
> > > not. As such, this is a bug, clear and simple, both in the OS (for
> > > allowing it in the first place) and the application (for exploiting
> > > it).
> >
> > If you have such an issue with it, why are you letting your parents run
a
> > Win9X operating system? Surely they'd be better of with NT 4.0 or Win2k,
> > where you can give them a user account instead of a root account and
nicely
> > mollycoddle them so that you're the only person who can do anything with
the
> > filesystem.
> >
>
> How far away is Zenin from his parents?
Who knows? Certainly, 9X isn't going to help for remote administration.
Simon
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 19:51:11 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Ingemar Lundin wrote:
> through scsi-emulation?
>
> /IL
>
> > The point seems obvious to me. Linux *has* support for practically *any*
> ide
> > cd-rw. So, what was your point?
> >
> > Gary
> >
> >
By the way, how many cd-rw devices does Windows support out of the box. No
fair cheating by installing additional software. You are only allowed to use
the base Windows 98 install CD. To be fair, I will only be allowed to use
the base install CD for Redhat Linux 6.2.
Gary
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 19:58:36 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Giuliano Colla in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>Stuart Fox wrote:
>> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Just to save you the effort, 'sfcybear'.
>> >
>[snip]
>
>I tried to follow the discussion, even if I'm not really
>expert on networking issues. What I got is that in order to
>have a standard network feature like DNS work with W2K you
>must figure out how to do it, then modify something, install
>something, write scripts etc. in other components of the
>network. In my textbook knowledge, the basics of networking
>are that you may interconnect different users and servers
>without anyone being aware of what are the insides of the
>other, in order to avoid countless problems. That's
>something having even a standard name: "interoperability".
>If Microsoft has achieved to foul that with W2K, the only
>conclusion is that W2K is crap, not a debate on how to make
>this crap work.
Ooh-rah, Giuliano. I think you nailed it.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Andrew Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 09:36:56 +1030
Terry Sikes wrote:
>
> In article <9%at5.50425$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >The precise certification given is MEANT to be on a system which is NOT
> >network connected. It's meant to show that the system is reasonably immune
> >from physical attack.
>
> Nope, "physical attack" has nothing to do with it. Anyone with a
> Linux floppy can walk up to an NT box and read any file on the NTFS
> filesystem (further anyone with physical access to the system can
> simply remove the drive and take it away to their data recovery
> center).
I'd heard that the NT security certification not only required no
network card be present, but that no floppy drive was installed as well.
Was that the case?
(If it was, what *is* such a system good for?)
Andrew
[ opinions are my own ]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
