Linux-Advocacy Digest #39, Volume #29 Sun, 10 Sep 00 15:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows+Linux=True ("Ingemar Lundin")
Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years ("Ingemar Lundin")
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a (Peter Ammon)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (lyttlec)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 14:10:53 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >Actually, if you legally purchase a piece of software, you legally own it
>> >regardless of the EULA (Own here means to own a copy of the liscense and
>> >media upon which the software has been placed). Whether or not you have
>the
>> >right to USE that software is an entirely different matter and is what
>the
>> >EULA is all about.
>>
>> You're playing games, not contributing to the discussion. No, I didn't
>> expect anyone would be so *moronic* that they thought they'd roll back
>> time to before computers were invented, so that they could
>> discombobulate the phrase "purchase a piece of software".
>>
>> Stop being a pedantic ass. "Purchase a piece of software" means to buy
>> a box with 'software' in it, without any whining and bullshit about what
>> 'software' is to begin with. These days, you get a CD and a trade
>> secret license. Deal with it.
>
>In case you didn't understand what I wrote, I said precisely what you said
>here. Buying a piece of software means to buy the media it ships on
>(including packaging, documentation, etc..) and a copy of the liscense.
I believe I understood what you wrote, but I must admit I didn't make it
clear in my response. No, you do not buy media and a license. You buy
'software'; you receive media and a license, as that what the term
'software' means in this context. Call it a 'package' if you'd like,
though I can't see that clarifying things. The point is you buy a copy
of the IP; the trade secret license you are forced to accept is
secondary. You aren't 'purchasing a license' in the *copyright* sense,
because you don't need permission to purchase, own, or use a copy of
someone else's IP. You only need a copyright license in order to
produce or distribute copies. The licenses you agree to when you
'purchase' software have nothing to do with copyright permissions. It
is copyright which prevents you from copying software, not the license.
>Perhaps it's too much for you to comprehend that though.
Stow it.
>The point where my description differs from yours though is that the EULA
>has nothing to do with the purchasing of the software. The EULA only covers
>your right to USE it (which is probably why it's called and "end USER
>liscense agreement"
No, the EULA only covers your right to *acquire* it; you can't acquire
it unless you agree not to use it except as dictated by the license.
The reason this apparently trivial or minuscule difference is important
is because it includes the recognition that if the license limits you in
any way greater than copyright law itself, it risks 'overreaching', and
thereby becoming unenforceable.
This understanding is based on the Lasercomb America v. Reynold's case,
in 1987. http://www.urich.edu/~jolt/v1i1/liberman.html#fn61
"{39} On appeal, the Fourth Circuit decided that the non-compete clause
of the license agreement was anti-competitive and
contrary to public policy.[68] The court upheld the defendant's
copyright misuse defense and held that the plaintiff's copyright,
as well as the license agreement, were unenforceable.[69]"
Note that by attempting to egregiously use the requirement to agree to a
trade secret license to limit the rights of the owner of a copy of the
intellectual property, the owner of the IP itself not only invalidated
the license, but also their copyright!
The point is an EULA does *NOT* confer the 'right' to use the software.
You already HAVE that right, as the legal owner of the copy. What the
EULA does is *restrict* YOUR RIGHT to use the software, by requiring
that you agree to a trade secret license, unrelated to copyright
protection, in order to *acquire* the software.
--
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: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux=True
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 18:19:11 GMT
well...95% of computer owners using a GUI based OS (Mac and Windows) doesnt
seem to think that using a mouse is too difficult...did you teach 3rd grade
drop-outs?
/IL
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
news:8pgg6p$9nv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Ingemar Lundin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:BgKu5.2270$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > No we have not. Windows GUI is slow, illogical and inconsistent. Look
> at
> > > the fancy newer stuff like Actide Desktop ans Channels.. nobody uses
it
> > and
> > > if one does it just causes irritation. Look at dialogs like
"Search" -
> > > pretty messy for i dialog dont you think? (unfortunattely KDE emulates
> > it).
> > > Look at the "Start" button: You click on that one to close the
system..
> > > dont you think this is confusing? Try to make a new user right-click
> with
> > > their mouse on a icon.. They just dont get it. Try to make them resize
> or
> > > move a Windows. Doesnt work.
> >
> > Active desktop is a MS thing and can hardly be incorporated in to
Linux...
> >
> > Exactly why do you think thats confusing?
> >
> > confusing for new users? well for a Linux user perhaps...
>
> No, to a new computer user. Have you ever tried to teach someone how to
use
> the Windows user interfaces to a brand new adult computer users? I have,
in
> displaced workers retraining. They were taught graphical user interfaces
> and command line interfaces, they invariably caught on to the command line
> interface faster and were more productive sooner with it than the
graphical
> user interface.
>
> We had to use the highest resolution mice available and had to be very
picky
> about the shape of the mice, to reduce the various problems they were
having
> in learning how to handle the devices. Some of the problems included:
> Moving the mouse cursor to the right location without overshooting or
> missing the target. The timing of double click so that the system will
> interpret them *as* double clicks. Clicking without moving the mouse and
> missing the target.
>
> Some of the hardest question to answer in a way to make the user interface
> sound sencible to them have been. If all these little picture (icons) are
> so good and everybody is supposed to understand them why do they have
those
> names and descriptions under them? If the meaning of this picture is so
> clear to everybody I guess I am the only one who can not understand it,
but
> why does it have those word (tool tips) come up when I leave the mouse
> there? This is supposed to be easier, so why do I have to do all that
with
> the mouse to see the files on that floppy when could have just typed in
"dir
> a:\ /s"?
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 18:23:37 GMT
up 39 minutes?
im running Windows 98, and as we speak have been up 11 hour so far (not me,
the system :-))
/IL
>
****************************************************************************
***
> > A clean desk is a sign of a cluttered desk drawer.
<
>
****************************************************************************
***
> > 1:05am up 0 days, 0:39:02, load: 22 processes, 83 threads.
<
>
****************************************************************************
***
> * NetRexx - The onramp to the Internet -
http://www2.hursley.ibm.com/netrexx *
>
****************************************************************************
***
> * ICQ# 76727806
*
>
****************************************************************************
***
> * Registered Linux User Number 185956
*
>
****************************************************************************
***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 14:23:55 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sat, 9 Sep 2000 21:52:10 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> >Actually, if you legally purchase a piece of software, you legally own it
>> >regardless of the EULA (Own here means to own a copy of the liscense and
>> >media upon which the software has been placed). Whether or not you have
>the
>> >right to USE that software is an entirely different matter and is what
>the
>> >EULA is all about.
>>
>> Does this mean that you may transfer ownsership ( that is sell ) the
>software
>> if you don't agree to the EULA ? ( for example, Win98 licenses are
>definitely
>> non transferable if you accept the EULA. )
>
>Yes, you can sell the software and the liscense to someone else. The EULA,
>however, may not be valid after doing so.
The EULA may not be valid before doing so, either. Doing so, however,
cannot invalidate the EULA. This is known as the 'first sale doctrine'.
>That doesn't mean you haven't
>sold it, or that the new owner has not purchased it. It just means the EULA
>does not allow the use of the product after having transferred it to someone
>else (if the EULA is so written).
You're simply squirming around, not addressing the point. No, an EULA
cannot prevent you from selling the 'product' you bought. What it does,
in the text that you guys are getting confused about, is prevent you
from selling just *part* of the 'product', that being either the license
to use OR the copy of the IP, without the other.
If I buy a VCR, and then disassemble the product and then resell the
power supply separately from the rest, which I may or may not resell,
there's nothing in the world the manufacturer can do to prevent me from
doing so. Except, of course, insist that I agree not to do it in order
to purchase the VCR. Such a license cannot reasonably place any
restrictions on my resale of the VCR itself, nor can it control what I
do with the VCR itself in any other way. Not and be enforceable, at
least; the text can say whatever the vendor wants it to, that is not an
issue of debate. In fact, unless the vendor can provide some reasonable
and convincing purpose in such a restriction which is both
*pro-competitive* and "in keeping with public policy", (which means it
is neither an anti-trust nor a real copyright issue), I can ignore such
a license and the law will not enforce it.
Whether something is legal is not predicated on whether someone will sue
you for it. Keep that in mind, or you're just handing away your rights
under threat of intimidation.
http://www.urich.edu/~jolt/v1i1/liberman.html
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[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: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 14:26:49 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Sun, 10 Sep 2000 00:32:24 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>
>>Are large stores like Electronics Boutique and Babbage's and their customers
>>pirating software when the stores purchase preowned computer games from the
>>public and resell them back to the public again?
>
>I'm pretty sure these EULAs allow transfer.
EULAs neither allow nor can deny resale of your property. They do
prevent (possibly legally, possibly not) you from reselling just the
license without the object code, or just the object code without the
license.
>The only place where I've seen restrictions on resale is for MS OS licenses.
And I would guess that those clauses themselves are limited to the OEM
versions. This simply prevents reselling the license without reselling
the entire computer, as 'the product' is defined as the combined bundle,
within the license itself.
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[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: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 14:27:46 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> You mentioned renting, that's all I asked about.
>
>As a matter of fact I didn't, I was talking about stores buying and selling
Don't get pedantic on me, mj. The subject of renting came up before you
joined the discourse.
--
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: Peter Ammon <[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: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 14:32:51 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Shocktrooper wrote:
>
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:aCAu5.464$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Peter Ammon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In general, I hate toolbars. They take up lots of screen space, the
> > > icons are generally unfathomable and require hovering the mouse over
> > > them to see what they do, and they're usually no faster than a menu
> > > choice, since they're such a small target. They only work effectively
> > > in web browsers...and I assume the dock in OS X will add to that list.
> >
> > Toobar buttons are designed for speeding up certain activities. Those
> > activitieis still occur on the menu if you are so included (in most cases),
> > but once you become familiar enough with the application and know what the
> > buttons do then they can make you more productive.
> >
> > In other words, they don't slow you down if you don't know them, since you
> > can just as easily hit the menu. But they can speed you up since you need
> > not open a menu, track through the menu (and possible submenus) to get to a
> > function.
>
> I can't believe anyone who has ever used configurable toolbar's has ever actually
>sat down and used one for a while on an applicatio
> they regularly use.
...were you drunk when you wrote this? :)
> Once you learn them, it becomes *highly frustrating* to not be able ot use them!.
It always amazes me how differently people use the interface options.
Some people prefer to switch apps using the menu, others using
command-tab, others by clicking in windows, and I use ApplWindows. I
have a Windows using friend who feels highly uncomfortable on the Mac
unless he has the control strip fully extended at the bottom of the
screen. "I just need some sort of control bar down there," he explains.
I never see him use it.
-Peter
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 14:36:22 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >I can quote more if you'd like? HTML Help being one example, the use of
>> >embedded browser rendering surfaces being another.
>>
>> Oh, you mean software *design*. I thought you meant "software
>> development practices" when you said "software development practices".
>
>Ha. When proven wrong, change your argument.
Ha. You changed the argument, and expected it to 'prove me wrong'.
>For your information, software design *IS* a software development practice.
>Much like arguing without any reason is a T. Max Devlin practice.
Would this be the argument or the reason part? You don't seem very
practiced at putting the two together, if I might say so.
If software design is software development practices, why isn't it
called software development practices, but software design, instead?
Just because you can't handle the distinction between the two
abstractions is no reason for me to pretend to be just as simple minded.
My point was (and your insistence on the matter illustrates that point
rather convincingly, thank you) that software developers who think they
are the final authority on what 'good software design' is should go back
to school; that's fine in the academic world, but when talking about the
commercial world, it is the consumer that determines what is 'good' and
what is not. The developer can provide, possibly, many advantages by
using 'componentized' products. The question is whether that is merely
the easiest way *for the developer* to provide those advantages, or
whether those advantages are unavailable to the consumer with any
alternative design.
IOW, software which is designed based on what makes good *development
practices* is good for developers, but not necessarily good for
implementors and users. In fact, it might be considered an inverse
relationship in many ways. What determines if software is well
*designed* are the desires and requirements of the consumer, not the
producer.
That concept is hard to see and understand, I'll admit, in an industry
where attempting to monopolize is considered the norm; the excessive
profits are so attractive that writing software in the easiest way
possible for the developer and then wrapping it in a trade secret
becomes much more lucrative than writing *good* software. Hopefully,
that may change soon.
--
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: lyttlec <[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: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 18:37:32 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Sat, 9 Sep 2000 21:52:10 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >>
> >> >Actually, if you legally purchase a piece of software, you legally own it
> >> >regardless of the EULA (Own here means to own a copy of the liscense and
> >> >media upon which the software has been placed). Whether or not you have
> >the
> >> >right to USE that software is an entirely different matter and is what
> >the
> >> >EULA is all about.
> >>
> >> Does this mean that you may transfer ownsership ( that is sell ) the
> >software
> >> if you don't agree to the EULA ? ( for example, Win98 licenses are
> >definitely
> >> non transferable if you accept the EULA. )
> >
> >Yes, you can sell the software and the liscense to someone else. The EULA,
> >however, may not be valid after doing so.
>
> The EULA may not be valid before doing so, either. Doing so, however,
> cannot invalidate the EULA. This is known as the 'first sale doctrine'.
>
> >That doesn't mean you haven't
> >sold it, or that the new owner has not purchased it. It just means the EULA
> >does not allow the use of the product after having transferred it to someone
> >else (if the EULA is so written).
>
> You're simply squirming around, not addressing the point. No, an EULA
> cannot prevent you from selling the 'product' you bought. What it does,
> in the text that you guys are getting confused about, is prevent you
> from selling just *part* of the 'product', that being either the license
> to use OR the copy of the IP, without the other.
>
Bookmans has always insisted that all the original packaging (including
the EULA) be present whenever they accepted software for trade. This
seemed to satisfy the gamers, but not Microsoft. If your premis is
correct, why would MS threaten to charge Bookmans with piracy?
>>SNIP<<
> --
> 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: T. Max Devlin <[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: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 14:50:06 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
>> As for software design, all I care about is whether I want to buy it, or
>> whether the many people who ask me or pay me for advice want to buy it.
>> In that case, I'll remind you that while 'componentized software' might
>> make things easy for developers, it sucks as a *software design*. When
>> developers get their head out of their asses, and realize that software
>> *users* care about different things than software *developers*, maybe
>> we'll get some software that isn't only 'better than nothing'.
>
>Examples of bad user experience due to componentized software please?
Why, so you can quibble about each one and pull the standard 'omniscient
troubleshooting' hand-waving. No, sorry, the examples are too trivial
and numerous (and therefore not trivial) to be convincing to one who
isn't interested in being convinced no matter how compelling the
evidence. "DLL Hell" is a good way of generally characterizing many of
them, though.
Here's another 'experience' which might illustrate my point. I use a
news reader called Agent. It is reliable, relatively quick, and
efficient, if not perfect. I use a browser called Netscape, which is
neither of the first two, but more of the second than the alternatives
(at least insofar as I already have it and know how to use it.)
With Agent, I can zip up the program directory (and data subdirectory)
in a zip file, copy the whole thing to a new computer (or the old one
after an OS re-install), unzip it, and its ready to go. With Netscape,
there are DLLs scattered all over the place, and I must re-install the
software in order to get it to work.
If componentized software is such good 'design', how come there still
isn't a system-wide spell checker for any common operating system? If
componentized design is a good thing, why do fewer applications use the
'common dialogs' than not? If componentized design is a good thing, why
can't I only use the components of Outlook that are useful to me?
Componentized design may sound like the holy grail to developers, but
from the user's perspective, it sucks, at least as its implemented
today, and probably as it would always be implemented in a commercial
software market. Its a ruse, not a software development practice.
Depending, of course, on what you mean by 'componentized design'.
Usually it means the 'chromeless browser window' idea, which is rather
stupid to begin with, just like browser-based help. Its laziness on the
part of the developers, not efficiency; at least not in the real world.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[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: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 14:52:12 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sun, 10 Sep 2000 12:30:59 +1000, Christopher Smith wrote:
>> >
>>
>> >1. What is bad about HTML as a help file format.
>>
>> Not terribly printable.
>
>HTML (when rendered) is perfectly printable if it's written to be.[...]
A blow-torch is a perfectly fine desk lamp, if its built to be.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
