Linux-Advocacy Digest #950, Volume #28 Wed, 6 Sep 00 10:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! (James Kanze)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christophe Ochal")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christophe Ochal")
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools ("Joe R.")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes ("Joe R.")
Re: More non-compliance from Microsoft ("MH")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating ("MH")
Re: The Test: Dial-up Connections ("MH")
Re: how large corporations test on the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (Stefaan A
Eeckels)
Re: Max finally gets plonked ("Joe R.")
Re: Computer and memory ("Chad Myers")
Re: iMacs With iTitude (Tom Elam)
Re: what's up with Sun? (Fred Nastos)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes ("Anders Gulden Olstad")
Re: Programs for Linux (Leon Miller)
Re: what's up with Sun? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a (aflinsch)
Re: Computer and memory ("Christophe Ochal")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: James Kanze <[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 14:24:42 +0200
Zenin wrote:
> Unix has been a "network" centric operating system since day
> one.
Not true. Networking was cobbled on to Unix (unlike the case of NT).
But who cares? Unix networking, Unix windowing, and Unix security are
all hacks that have been cobbled onto an OS which wasn't designed for
them. But they were cobbled on a long time ago, and while the results
are far from elegant, they have been stress-tested for over 10 years,
and the bugs have been found and removed. And a lot of people know
enough about them to administrate them correctly.
I rather suspect that NT is a lot more elegant than Unix. All of the
current features were there from the start. But it lacks having been
around enough for all of the bugs to have worked their way out. And
for a large pool of really competent sysadmins to be available.
Still, it's actually quite usable. As a single user machine, provided
you install CygWin and Emacs.
--
James Kanze mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
Ziegelhüttenweg 17a, 60598 Frankfurt, Germany Tel. +49(069)63198627
------------------------------
From: "Christophe Ochal" <[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: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 14:32:53 +0200
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Said Christophe Ochal in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >How about their browsers, and how they introduced propriety systems into
> >webpages? Like eg what's it called again, ActiveX?
>
> I think you mean 'ASP', Active Server Page. ActiveX is a *different*
> evil thing, isn't it?
ActiveX is used for webpages too (there's a setting in the IE prefs for it)
> >Or their Java engine? (That got them a conviction)
>
> I hadn't heard any news, but I wasn't really watching what happened
> after the anti-trust trial got started. Do you have any info or links?
I just remember the outcome that forced them to rename their Java VM to M$
VM, because SUN had pulled them to court, T.Max might have some links tho
Amon_Re
------------------------------
From: "Christophe Ochal" <[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: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 14:36:17 +0200
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
Msmt5.8927$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<cut>
> > give me one piece of "evidence" that M$ produced that was valid
>
> I just did.
Ok, i accept these :)
But is this proof that they are infact, "innocent?"
Amon_Re
------------------------------
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: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 12:43:06 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Joe R." wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > "Joe R." wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Joe R." wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It is the HIGHT OF ARROGANCE to consider that man has even a
> > > > > > > noticable
> > > > > > > impact on climate,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And the height of lunacy to refuse to consider it.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've considered. Then I've looked at the numbers.
> > > > >
> > > > > Take ALL CO2-producing human activity on the face of the planet,
> > > > > and
> > > > > it amounts to a mere fraction OF JUST THE TERMITES (1/20th, to be
> > > > > exact).
> > > >
> > > > First of all, I doubt your numbers. Please feel free to provide
> > > > them.
> > > >
> > > > Second, CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas. In fact, it's one of
> > > > the
> > > > weakest. There are materials which have many orders of magnitude
> > > > higher
> > > > greenhouse effect.
> > >
> > > Yes. Water Vapor is the biggest. Of which the primary sources are
> > > evaporation from the oceans, and animal respiration.
> >
> > Water vapor has only a very tiny greenhouse effect, although its high
> > concentration does make the total impact significant.
> >
> > HOWEVER, water vapor is often an anti-greenhouse gas since clouds tend
> > to _reduce_ temperature.
> >
> > But as I said, you're ignoring the impact of chemicals which have
> > orders
> > of magnitude higher greenhouse impact than CO2. Fluorocarbons.
> > Bromocarbons. And so on.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Third, you're assuming that greenhouse gases are the only impact
> > > > humans
> > > > have had on the environment. They're not.
> > >
> > > The forces of nature are FAR stronger than those of man.
> > > Leave a building unheated in Michigan for 5 years, and it will most
> > > likely be in very sorry shape, if not a pile of rubble.
> >
> > That may be true. But that doesn't make your statement (that man can
> > have no impact on the climate) any less stupid.
>
> I didn't say "no" impact...I said "insignificant" when compared to all
> other processes.
You said:
> > > > > > > It is the HIGHT OF ARROGANCE to consider that man has even a
> > > > > > > noticable
> > > > > > > impact on climate,
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 12:46:08 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Courageous
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Read up where?
>
> Hint: most "partial birth" abortions are actually conducted during the
> first two-three months of pregnancy. And there aren't that many annually,
> in any case.
I somehow doubt this.
At 2-3 months, the fetus is too small to do a partial birth abortion --
or to need to.
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: More non-compliance from Microsoft
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 08:50:57 -0400
Then quit using it.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en]C-CCK-MCD {UCLA} (Win98; I)
There are no *nix boxes where you are?
> I was just testing html mail in hotmail and found that an html mail with
>
> www.foo.com
--snipped
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[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: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 08:53:50 -0400
Flood from:
"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
10 messages - purely semantics - one subject - within 1 hour.
Kill filed.
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Test: Dial-up Connections
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 09:00:20 -0400
I've decided that the sig line included in the flood of posts by this
individual, when weighed with the content of said posts, is without a doubt
a huge waste of bandwidth, time, and patience.
Someone should move him somewhere where there is no 'social contract', and
let him be eaten by his unpoliced peers in their utopia. Please.
He also, has been Kill filed. Life is too short for such complete nonsense.
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Paul E. Larson" wrote:
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: how large corporations test on the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 15:03:39 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>>>> "Stefaan" == Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Stefaan> Genes carry information that can cause creatures to behave
> Stefaan> in a certain way across generations.
> >> Possibly. The way in which behaviour is affected by genetics is
> >> poorly understood at the moment. This is particularly true in the
> >> case of humans.
> Stefaan> Notice _can cause_.
>
> As I said perhaps. I am not sure of any really clear cut cases
> of behavioural patterns being caused directly by genetic variation.
There are cases of similarity in behaviour being caused by
close genetic relationship, ergo the converse is probably
true also. See for instance:
Lykken, D. T., McGue, M., Tellegen, A. & Bouchard, T. J., Jr 1992,
Emergenesis: Genetic traits that may not run in families.
American Psychologist, 47, 1565-1577
Bouchard, T. J. Jr 1994, Genes, environment, and personality.
Science, 264, 1700-1701
Bouchard, T. J. Jr, Lykken, D. T., McGue, M., Segal, N. & Tellegen, A. 1990
Sources of human psychological differences: The Minnesota Study
of Twins Reared Apart. Science, 250, 223-228
Plomin, R., Owen, M. J. & McGuffin, P. 1994.
The genetic basis of complex human behaviors. Science, 264 1733-1739
(I probably cited these already sometime ago in this newsgroup.)
>
> >> I am far from convinced that genetics has got that much to say
> >> about the way that our society is, except in the very broad
> >> sweep. Our genes probably tell us that staying alive is a good
> >> thing. However as many societies have shown us even that can be
> >> overcome.
> Stefaan> Correct, and this is why most of the traits that are
> Stefaan> genetically determined were acquired when we were still
> Stefaan> walking across the African savannah.
>
> I wonder how the variability in these genes has been
> maintained from such a distance.
It's not that long ago in terms of the existence of our species
(what's roughly 7000 years compared to at least 2 million?).
> The point is that something being
> "affected by our genes" is only meaningful if we have
> variation. Behaviour is clearly "determined" by the genes in one
> sense. Our brains are produced of protein, the protein encoded by
> genes, and our brains determine our behaviour. Whilst this may be
> true, its entirely useless.
Interesting. We know that particular genes cause particular
physical effects (like trisomy). In this case, there is
obvious, and consistent, variation in the behaviour of those
so afflicted, across cultures. There's no reason not to believe
that particular behavioural traits can be linked to the genes.
What is certain is that we are not the slaves of these
traits, and (unlike other animals), we can use our brains
to counterbalance their effect. Note that this _also_ applies
to behaviour induced by the environment.
Accepting that certain (less desirable) behaviour is determined
by our genes does not justify it, or make it anymore acceptable
than when it would be caused by outside influences.
> We can ask "how much of the variation in
> behaviour is due to variation in the genes, and how much due to
> variation in the environment". If this variability has not survived
> since the savannah, then there is no question that we can
> meaningfully ask here.
It's not variability, it's fundamental characteristics I'm
talking about. We all smile, and smiling is in all likelyhood
a genetically determined trait, like walking, or developing
self-consciousness, or counting (see:
Wynn, K. 1992. Addition and subtraction in human infants.
Nature, 358, 749-750.)
>
> Stefaan> What is beyond doubt is that we do not consider all humans
> Stefaan> equally important, and that on the whole, people favour
> Stefaan> their close relations.
>
> People favour those that they define as they close relations.
> Which more or less collapses to a tautology, we define close relations
> as those that we favour. I am sure you would agree that the existence
> of friendship is considered as important as family in many societies.
But we select people. It's not really important _why_ we prefer
some people to others, the verifiable fact is that we do so.
Hence it seems reasonable to assume that the need to select people,
to construct hierarchies of loyalty is in fact a basic human
characteristic (and as such encoded in our genes).
> Stefaan> But to assert that we are _not_ inclined to favour those we
> Stefaan> feel closer to is unadulterated wishful thinking.
>
> Which is why I did not assert this. I said that we are largely
> incapable of determining whether or not we are related to an arbitrary
> individual, and that the dynamic of society operates often outside
> genetic relationship.
But nonethess quite often operates on basis of real or perceived
genetic closeness (cfr immigrants sticking together in their new
country).
> That we have family units, with children often
> bought up by parents is unsurprising as its reflects fundamental
> biology. However the way in which the family unit works differs widely
> from society to society. The US nuclear family is in no way God
> given nor universal.
And favouring one's offspring (through passing on posessions and
positions) is a universal human characteristic, and hence unlikely
to be the sole result of social convention.
> The only assertion that I have made, and that I
> would stick by is that if you want to look for explanations of
> society, look for them in society, and not in genetics.
Stating that the reason why society is as it is can be
found in society is not very productive, and has too
many overtones of people blaming their own inadequacies
on their environment (like, I was born A-OK and then
my parents, school, friends... ruined my character,
so it's not my fault :-).
Thanks for listening,
--
Stefaan
--
Ninety-Ninety Rule of Project Schedules:
The first ninety percent of the task takes ninety percent of
the time, and the last ten percent takes the other ninety percent.
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Max finally gets plonked
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 13:05:36 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said 2 + 2 in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >>How could anybody even question whether browsers were a separate market
> >>from operating systems, or that Microsoft combined the two by
> >>'integrating' IE into Win98? Even Microsoft must admit this. They just
> >>don't understand why its illegal, they can't deny they did it.
> >
> >Are you saying reasonable people can't disagree on this?
>
> Yes.
And there's Max in a nutshel.
Max is always right and no one has any right to disagree with him.
Ignore for a moment the fact that Max admits that he pulls numbers out
of his ass rather than posting factual information. Ignore for a moment
the fact that Max admits that he makes up his own definitions to suit
his purpose. Ignore for a moment the fact that Max doesn't have a clue
what logic is and seems to be debating both sides of half the topics
he's involved in. Ignore for a moment that Max admits that he doesn't
know the details of most of the things he's arguing about.
Max knows everythihng.
I've had enough. Someone else will have to take care of correcting him
so clueless newbies aren't led astray.
*plonk*
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 13:09:36 GMT
"Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:ycrt5.890$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> At least we look after our less fortunate civilians
By giving them everything? No encouraging them to make anything of
themselves or to work to bring themselves back on their own feet?
America has welfare which does things similar to this. I rewards
many people who have made a career out of bad life decesisions
but don't feel the consequences because Welfare will provide
them with income greater than that if they worked.
There's something wrong with your society if the lazy are
rewarded.
Yes, I know, some people on welfare actually need it for one
reason or another (physical disability, catostrophic
life event, etc) but the majority in the U.S. are not in
this situation.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Tom Elam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: iMacs With iTitude
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 07:38:44 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 03 Sep 2000 21:06:06 GMT, Tom Elam wrote this reply to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Volcania: The Volcano God):
>But Microsoft's has had its time. More and more people are becoming
>more and more skilled as we speak. Soon, there will be no need for a
>beginner's operating system. People will cry out for an OS that gives
>them the freedom to control their own world, to do what they want, how
>they want, they way they want. They will not be prepared to spend
>their hard-earned money filling someone else's pockets, they will be
>prepared to do it themselves, they will learn to build operating
>systems for themselves, how to write their own software.
Man, are you out of touch or what. 99% of the people on this planet never
have, and want to, see a single line of source code.
==============================
Tom Elam
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is
indistinguishable from magic." -- Arthur C. Clarke
http://members.iquest.net/~telam/
------------------------------
From: Fred Nastos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: what's up with Sun?
Date: 6 Sep 2000 13:24:42 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when David Steuber would say:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rasputin) writes:
> generally leads to things like using enormous but slow IDE drives,
> and trying to share RAM with the video board.
How much slower are IDE drives really? Are you comparing them to SCSI?
Thanks
------------------------------
From: "Anders Gulden Olstad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 15:32:50 +0200
Joe R. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I somehow doubt this.
>
> At 2-3 months, the fetus is too small to do a partial birth abortion --
> or to need to.
I know you can do "abort" on computers - but please take this thread somewhere
else but computer related groups.
--
Sing While You May!
------------------------------
From: Leon Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.linux,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.caldera,alt.os.linux.mandrake,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Re: Programs for Linux
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 09:41:29 -0400
Mark Gordon wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2000 22:36:25 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
> >On 30 Aug 2000 21:43:23 GMT, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>In comp.os.linux.advocacy robert w hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>:>
> >>: and if you want a fallback position, get win4lin (v1 is now only $35 I
> >>: hear) and run M$ software in a stable linux environment; and keep the
> >>: techie side of your id alive by experimenting with wine.
> >>
> >>How does this compare to VMware?
> >
> > It's less flexible and reliable when it comes to odd kernel
> > versions, it supports less hardware features, it's not dependent
> > on some funky virtual file system and it's supposed to be faster.
>
> Thanks for the info. I have downloaded the trial version and so far I
> am impressed.
>
> > Anyone get it working under Mandrake 7.1?
>
> No, I'm not that far along.
> --
> Mark Gordon
> Dyslexic C Programmer,
> At least the compiler ensures I spell variable names consistently wrong.
--
Integrated Information Solutions http://www.LogosNet.Net/
Business Computing Needs Analysis Voice: (954) 360-0538
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: what's up with Sun?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 06 Sep 2000 09:50:51 -0400
Fred Nastos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > generally leads to things like using enormous but slow IDE drives,
> > and trying to share RAM with the video board.
> How much slower are IDE drives really?
A lot. I suspect it has more to do with the design of the drive than
the bus it's on, suggesting that some IDE drives are faster than some
SCSI drives; however, the balance is usually tilted far in the other
direction.
For a reference point, I have a 7200rpm IDE drive which is not
perceptibly faster than a 5400rpm IDE drive I also have. Both are
very obviously slower than a 7200rpm SCSI drive I have.
> Are you comparing them to SCSI?
As opposed to Firewire, USB, or what have you? I would expect USB
hard drives to be slower. With modern drives, you'd hit your head on
the bandwidth maximum pretty fast if data comes out of the cache.
Firewire, I've never used. Parallel port drives? Yeah, right. I'll
stay out of _that_ particular mess, thankyouverymuch.
--
Eric McCoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: aflinsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 09:35:36 -0500
Eric Remy wrote:
> You know, I've never seen W2K crash due to anything other than an easily
> traced hardware problem. (I.e., bad driver, overclocked, etc.)
Exactly how is a bad driver a hardware problem?
------------------------------
From: "Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 16:02:15 +0200
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
kmrt5.29492$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:ycrt5.890$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > At least we look after our less fortunate civilians
>
> By giving them everything? No encouraging them to make anything of
> themselves or to work to bring themselves back on their own feet?
If it were that simple *no-one* would work, you really don't get it do ya?
> America has welfare which does things similar to this. I rewards
> many people who have made a career out of bad life decesisions
> but don't feel the consequences because Welfare will provide
> them with income greater than that if they worked.
EG: If i earn 1000$ a month on a job, and i get fired, i well get 65% of
that sum for 6 months, after that it will start to decrease untill it
reaches minimum income rates, you *DON'T* get more then you get for working,
you get *LESS*
You get what's needed to live
> There's something wrong with your society if the lazy are
> rewarded.
You have no touch with reality, or you're even dumber then i ever held
possible
> Yes, I know, some people on welfare actually need it for one
> reason or another (physical disability, catostrophic
> life event, etc) but the majority in the U.S. are not in
> this situation.
No, just those thousands of beggars that lay in the streets...
BTW, how many of them do you pass when you go to work?
Amon_Re
>
> -Chad
>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
