Linux-Advocacy Digest #339, Volume #29 Wed, 27 Sep 00 21:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively ("Shocktrooper")
Re: Linux? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) ("Colin R.
Day")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) ("Colin R.
Day")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) ("Colin R.
Day")
Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge (FM)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Colin R.
Day")
Re: How low can they go...? ("James Stutts")
Re: Why I hate Windows... ("Ingemar Lundin")
Re: How low can they go...? ("James Stutts")
Re: GPL & freedom (Zenin)
Re: How low can they go...? ("James Stutts")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("James
Stutts")
Re: Why I hate Windows... ("James Stutts")
Re: Why I hate Windows... ("James Stutts")
Re: GPL & freedom ("Frank McGrath")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Shocktrooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 23:16:02 GMT
"Alan Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> You do realize that there are Mac POS systems, right.
No, thereisn't any doubt that there are Mac POS systems...
;-)
--
How fast is YOUR computer?
Here is my nearly 3 year old Dell Dimension XPSR-400
Unreal Tournament, 1024x768@32bit color,
All visuals and sound quality on highest
Cityintro: Max: 96.95fps , Avg: 62.82fps
Wicked400: Max: 53.21fps , Avg: 39.93fps
Just imagine what a "twice as fast" G3 can do!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux?
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 23:28:27 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Coconut Ming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Which is Linux version or clone that have many user is using now?
> Redhat? Corel? Or original linux?
> Any thing on that?
> Can give some comment on that?
> i need some advice.
> thanks
>
> From
> kokming
>
See the poll results on...
http://linux.com.my
Redhat seems to be favoured by their visitors.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 19:45:19 -0400
Richard wrote:
>
> > > So my anger stems
> > > from the fact that I have to deal with utter assholes on a daily
> > > basis. Seem reasonable to you?
> >
> > No, your anger stems from your own cluelessness.
>
> How much do you know about Unix exactly?
Probably more than you, certainly more than you've shown.
> My guess is that you
> know nothing about how it works internally.
And my guess is that you know nothing as well.
> And of course, this
> is the first count of the indictment against Unix; that users
> can't learn how it works and are reduced to mindless enthusiasm.
Can't learn how it works? I don't know how this applies to
commercial Unices, but I know far more about Linux than the
average Windows user knows about Windows. Linux may be
complex, but it is also lush. For example, it is much easier to
read config files than to puzzle out the registry. Also, the
file hierarchy in UNIX/Linux is better for exploring, as the key
directories have a more consistent naming scheme.
>
> The more manic you act now, the more like a chump you'll feel
> later so don't do anything too dumb.
You should have taken that advice yourself, loser.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 19:50:06 -0400
Richard wrote:
> > attempted to simplify the design. It seems as though the more complex
> > the hack, the better off a redesign would be of that subsystem!) and so
> > I wouldn't call his experience of Unix mindless enthusiasm.
>
> My aim is that users learn as much as they want to learn about the OS,
> and that they do so as easily and efficiently as possible.
>
And what OS allows this?
>
> The thing about Unix is that it's not very modular and you can't leverage
> your knowledge of one component of the system to the task of understanding
> another component, let alone leveraging /using/ the system to understanding
Not modular in what sense? And what OS has such leveraging?
>
> the internals. Nor is it possible to read a document in /process that tells
> you what processes
> are, how to make /all kinds/ of processes yourself, etc.
And what OS does this?
>
> If you had such documents distributed across the system and a sane naming
> scheme and layout then users could navigate the system at will and never
> have to encounter a monolithic "This Is What You Have To Learn" document
> for them to memorize.
>
Linux has a sane naming scheme; you have an insane standard for naming
schemes.
>
> Understanding how the system works mostly involves understanding all of the
> higher level abstractions used by the system and how they interrelate, rather
> than how they're implemented. In any programming project (even imperative),
> it's always about the data and never the functions.
>
And what OS does this better than UNIX/Linux/BSD?
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 19:51:01 -0400
Richard wrote:
> "Colin R. Day" wrote:
>
> > Richard wrote:
> >
> > > Hey, buddy, I also don't like professionals writing bad code. I have
> > > just as much agaist most implementations of Unix as I have agaist
> > > Linux.
> >
> > Then your standards of software quality are lame.
>
> And how do you figure this exactly?
Your moronic postings are the big clue.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (FM)
Subject: Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge
Date: 27 Sep 2000 23:01:00 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In particular, Smalltalk and ML are elegant while C++ and Java are
>massively ugly. Does this correspond with maintenance problems?
LOL. I thought you were a fan of dynamic/weak typing?
Dan.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 19:55:01 -0400
Matthias Warkus wrote:
> > >
> >
> > In what sense are rights given to one by the government? In the sense
> > that government can refrain from siezing it?
>
> Next time pay attention. The constitution is not the government.
OK, in what sense are rights granted by the Constitution?
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "James Stutts" <[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, 27 Sep 2000 19:40:30 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said James Stutts in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [...]
> >> >Speaking, I'm sure, for the majority of the US that doesn't live in
> >> >California, I couldn't care
> >> >less what the citizens of San Diego agree to. I used to live in a
town
> >with
> >> >only one cable
> >> >service (and a private electrical company). I never really had an
issue
> >> >with the electrical service,
> >> >but cable service was lousy. The only option was satellite. Instead
of
> >> >whining about it
> >> >to the world, as you seem want to do, one either accepted the poor
> >service
> >> >or chose the
> >> >alternative.
> >>
> >> I have no idea what you're referring to. You brought up cable
> >> companies.
> >
> >I was drawing an analogy between the "choice" situation for broadcast
> >services and OS.
> >That's not hard to follow.
>
> Apparently, it was. What precisely is the analogy? Cable service and
> OSes? That doesn't make any sense. You weren't drawing an analogy, as
In both situations, there may be a monopoly. There are still options
available,
regardless.
> I see it, so much as begging the question. Why are cable services likes
> OSes? Just because you don't have much choice in either?
>
> [...]
> >> The one where Microsoft has been convicted of multiple felonies.
> >
> >The Supreme Court will answer that.
The Appeals Court will do that fine on its own.
<snip>
> >What criminal monopoly? Have you ever priced Windows (actual purchase
> >cost) to the competition?
>
> Yes. And it is higher than it would be if they didn't have a monopoly.
How do you know? Their prices have remained the same and are what the
market
will bear.
>
> >Have you ever bought Solaris (before the recent
> >near giveway) or IRIX? The haven't raised prices. If anything, their
> >prices have dropped.
>
> That is not the issue. The issue is would they have dropped more if the
> monopoly not be artificially controlling prices through non-competitive
> means.
These prices aren't very much now. At least not compared to the
applications.
Price RedHat in the store and compare it to Windows.
>
> [...]
> >> It sure as hell wasn't 'free'. I don't spend "the company's money"
> >
> >Your employer paid for it. You didn't. To you, it was free.
>
> It doesn't work like that. If nothing else, I'm a stock-holder.
You, yourself, didn't pay for it. It was a tax deduction for your employer.
If you want to make a change to a different platform, start at home.
>
> >> without reason. I demanded they buy NT because I refused to use 98 and
> >> I could supposedly run the products of my trade on it, as well as
> >
> >You have a trade, Max? What is that?
>
> I troubleshoot.
What profession is that, exactly?
>
> [...]
> >> Avoiding the monopoly is a cost to me; money, time, and compatibility
in
> >> an un-ending parade of reasons why monopolization is illegal.
> >
> >Making life convenient for you isn't the basis of the law.
>
> No, its the basis of the free market. The free market is the basis of
> the law.
The free market is one that has minimum government interference.
>
> [...]
> >> I chose the monopoly product because it is a monopoly product, which is
> >> to say because I didn't have any commercially feasible alternatives
> >
> >Commercially feasible for what? What, besides posting drivel to
newsgroups,
> >do you use a computer for?
>
> Anything I can manage to get it to do. In particular, professionally,
> manage global networks.
Pardon me if I'm not impressed.
>
> >> available due to the criminal behavior of the monopolist.
> >
> >Due to your laziness, more likely.
>
> Heh. Yea.
>
>
> >> >> --
> >> >> T. Max Devlin
> >> >> *** The best way to convince another is
> >> >> to state your case moderately and
> >> >> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
> >> >
> >> >"Sounds to me like you're a moron" doesn't state your case moderately
or
> >> >accurately.
> >>
> >> That would depend on the circumstances and context, if one had any
> >> interest in moderation or accuracy.
> >
> >Well, you certainly missed the circumstances and context here. You've
> >convinced no one of anything.
>
> No, I've convinced many people of many things. Most of them don't post
> much because of assholes who pounce on them, but I regularly get email
> from people who find my statements at least somewhat convincing.
>
> >If you choose the "monopoly product", then you (and those like you)
continue
> >that monopoly. I used Solaris before NT. I have choices. So do you, if
you'd bother to actually
> >look. Of course, you'd have to find something else to complain about.
You are one of those
> >"network engineer" types, aren't you. Got to be.
>
> No, I'm the one who cleans up the messes of the 'network engineer'
> types, and try to explain how to avoid them in the future.. And the
> "network admin" types, the 'application programmer' types, and the
> 'telecom guys', as well. You're trying to convince me that purely on
> technical merit you 'chose' the crapware that the monopoly is pushing
Purely on the basis that the application support I needed was available on
it
at a FAR lower price than it would have been on IRIX or Solaris. No reason
to pay the commercial Unix tax. One doesn't just use an OS.
JCS
------------------------------
From: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 00:45:27 GMT
"Roberto Selbach Teixeira" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>>>> "James" == James Stutts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> James> Sure it is. It costs quite a bit less than NT. You do get
> James> what you pay for.
>
>
> Oh, my god! Do you, really? I think Win98 is *way* too expensive for
> what it offers, which is basically nothing. Think about it, what do
> you do with a computer with only windows on it?
fucking it hard with notepad ;)
/IL
------------------------------
From: "James Stutts" <[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, 27 Sep 2000 19:42:32 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 21:06:08 -0500, James Stutts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Mon, 25 Sep 2000 20:48:38 -0500, James Stutts
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >
> >> ><snip>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Installed the way an OS should be installed: BURNED INTO ROM.
> >> >
> >> >Kind of removes choice from the OS equation, doesn't it?
> >>
> >> There are several OSes available for Atari's actually.
> >
> >Changing ROMs is a non-trivial task for the average user.
>
> Actually, compared to many PC upgrades a ROM upgrade isn't
> too terribly difficult. However, that ignores the painfully
> well known fact (at least for those that know squat about
> Atari's) that one need not alter the ROMs to use another
> operating system.
My original response had nothing to do with Atari computers, but the idea
that an OS should be installed in ROM.
JCS
------------------------------
From: Zenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 00:43:53 -0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: On Wed, 27 Sep 2000 14:34:27 GMT, Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:>
:>> "unrestrictive licence" is an oxymoron.
:>
:>I differ. The dictionaries I've looked at appear to support me.
:
: A licence has no other purpose for existing.
No, the *conditions* of a license (if any) have no other purpose for
existing. The single purpose of the license is to explicitly allow
particular usage (which may amount to "any" or "all" use) with or
without qualifications (restrictions), while at the same time still
holding onto the keys to the kingdom (the copyright).
In practical usage however, things are a little different. An
"unrestricted" license my allow for any and all usage, so long as
you don't hold the copyright holder responsible for any possible
damages or other liabilities should they occur. Yes this
"restricts" the user in that the user isn't allowed to sue the
giver, but to get into a huff about such not being really
"unrestrictive" is arguing strict semantics over common sense in
practice which is simply silly.
--
-Zenin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) From The Blue Camel we learn:
BSD: A psychoactive drug, popular in the 80s, probably developed at UC
Berkeley or thereabouts. Similar in many ways to the prescription-only
medication called "System V", but infinitely more useful. (Or, at least,
more fun.) The full chemical name is "Berkeley Standard Distribution".
------------------------------
From: "James Stutts" <[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, 27 Sep 2000 19:44:23 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 21:43:08 -0500, James Stutts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >"Zenin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> James Stutts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> :> James Stutts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> :> >> Installed the way an OS should be installed: BURNED INTO ROM.
> >> :> >
> >> :> >Kind of removes choice from the OS equation, doesn't it?
> >> :>
> >> :> There are several OSes available for Atari's actually.
> >> :
> >> : Changing ROMs is a non-trivial task for the average user.
> >>
> >> So is installing an OS onto a hard disk.
> >
> >One involves inserting a disk and following instructions. The other
> >involves taking the cover off your machine,
> >finding the ROM, gently prying it from its socket, and installing the new
> >one. All while grounded. The two
> >really aren't that comparable.
>
> Certainly.
>
> Swapping ROMs is much more straightforward.
For the average (home) user, opening the case makes them nervous. So, Jedi,
this wouldn't be correct.
One thing: why do have the people on Usenet post under a handle? Not
willing to stand
behind your statements?
JCS
------------------------------
From: "James Stutts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 19:50:12 -0500
"Mark Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> James Stutts wrote:
<snip>
>
> I phrase my arguments just as lucidly as you do yours. Welcome to
> kindergarten. Ever make a personal observation as to the politics of
> centers of higher education? Why are college towns almost always
> invariably liberal? I find your arguments dubious and baseless in common
Universities are islands of repression in the midst of a sea of freedom.
Those in
my field tend to have advanced degrees before they even enter the work
force.
We don't tend to be all that liberal. Of course my degrees are in aerospace
engineering,
not underwater basketweaving.
As to the mentality I wish to pervade the White House: the understanding
that they aren't
above the law. Gore's statement concerning "controlling legal authority"
was a statement
that "I know I broke the law, but you can't do anything about it".
JCS
------------------------------
From: "James Stutts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 19:54:53 -0500
"Roberto Selbach Teixeira" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>>>> "James" == James Stutts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> James> Sure it is. It costs quite a bit less than NT. You do get
> James> what you pay for.
>
>
> Oh, my god! Do you, really? I think Win98 is *way* too expensive for
> what it offers, which is basically nothing. Think about it, what do
Nothing to you, perhaps. Something to someone, or upgrade copies wouldn't
sell.
JCS
------------------------------
From: "James Stutts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 19:59:04 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 21:20:52 -0500, James Stutts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >"Osugi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:8qp2gf$6qu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In article <8qj4rv$ric$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> "James Stutts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Actually, the better approach is to not use a home operating system
> >> (Win98)
> >> > in
> >> > a corporate environment. NT was designed for this. While not
> >> perfect, it
> >> > is
> >> > far more stable than Win98.
> >> >
> >> > JCS
> >> >
> >>
> >> Why should a "home" operating system be inherently unstable? Less
> >
> >In this case, "home" is equivalent to "cheap". Commercial operating
systems
> >are expensive.
>
> No they aren't.
Not compared to applications, but they aren't free. Ok, a few are free.
>
> The engineering cost of software can be amortized over
> HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of users. That argument simply has
There aren't always HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of users.
> no merit given the economies of scale involved with any
> software.
>
> >
> >> powerful and less feature rich would be understandable (home users
> >
> >In some ways, Win98 is more feature rich. Provided your primary interest
> >involves games.
>
> Than what?
>
> Only in a few boundary situations would Win98 be more 'feature rich'
> even from a gaming standpoint than all of the other alternatives.
> Quite simply, game companies need to exploit the same economies of
> scale as any other software vendor. So being "too bleeding edge" isn't
> really economically feasable for many developers.
>
> So, many games aren't.
Well, until Win2k came out, the only way to play a game written using the
DirectX API
greater than 3.0 would have required 95 or 98.
>
> >
> >> don't usually need 2 gig of ram or support for 16 processors), but
> >> stability should be a given. Unfortunately MS seems to have convinced
> >> many people that stability is a feature that you have to pay extra for.
> >>
> >> BTW, isn't the typical home computer expected to work harder than a
> >> business workstation? Games, scanners, digital cameras, printers, all
> >
> >A "business workstation" isn't primarily used for desktop apps. That
would
> >be
> >a "PC". My Win2k "business workstation" has been used for everything
from
> >Monte Carlo simulations to CAD. Game graphics, while pretty, don't
involve
> >geometries
> >with all that much complexity. The components available for the
workstation
> >line of a
> >company like Dell are far more capable and expensive then their home
line.
> >Unless you
> >really want to try to use an Oxygen GVX1 card for a game. Kind of a
waste
> >for a $1k
> >graphics card...
>
> Actually, you've not seen Quake III until you've seen it on an Oxygen.
Well, my computer works for a living.
>
> [deletia]
>
> That and the gap between 'pro' card and 'gamer' card has been
> narrowing for quite some time now.
They still support different feature sets and capabilities. A VX1 costs
the same as a newer GeForce, but one does windowed OpenGL much better and
at higher color depths.
JCS
------------------------------
From: "Frank McGrath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 01:07:36 GMT
For what it is worth, here is my 2cents.
I enjoy programming, but do most of my programming for my employers. Most
of my development is proprietary to the companies I have worked for. At
several points in my career, I have considered the use of GNU software, but
have found that I could not use it due to the software licensing rules.
If GNU software was truly free, I would then have been able to use such
software even when engaged in a proprietary extension. If I were able to use
GNU sub-components, I would have been glad to report bugs, send in
enhencements to a central authority, etc. I am certain my employers would
have been been happy to have me cooperate with truly open software.
I believe that the GPL adherents are zealots. If they were truly interested
in freedom, they would publish their software openly, and allow others to do
whatever they wished. In contrast to GPL, Perl is truly free. GPL is not
Free. It is a religion that dictates the rules of the game. It enforces
that all must play by their rules or not play at all.
>From a philosophical perspective, why should we want software to be free?
Why do we tolerate Copyright for books and music that lasts 70 years? Why
should software be free from the beginning, while other creative efforts are
protected?
To answer my own question, I believe that we want to promote common use of
core functionality. This means that we should want to allow ALL software
developers to use and promote core functionality.
GPL does not do this. GPL is a virus. GPL should not be supported in its
current format. A truly free alternative should be developed to take its
place. Software developers interested in freedom should not support the
GPL.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
