Linux-Advocacy Digest #344, Volume #29 Thu, 28 Sep 00 09:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Chris
Sherlock)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Chris
Sherlock)
Re: hypocritical Unix apologists (Chris Sherlock)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Chris
Sherlock)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Chris
Sherlock)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Chris
Sherlock)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Roberto
Alsina)
Linux Deployment Tools ("J.Smith")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 21:57:05 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Richard wrote:
>
> Chris Sherlock wrote:
>
> > User need *some* understanding of fileheirachy to be able to use a
> > computer effectively! Yes, that's right, even in Windows and even on
> >
> > Apple computers. Filesystems were *made* to make life a bit easier.
> > Can
> > you imagine the chaos that would ensue with people's organisation if
> >
> > they could only store their files in ONE directory?
> >
> > To be able to open files a user needs to be able to navigate through
> > the
> > file hierachy. While I don't hold these people in contempt, and I
> > certainly don't deride them!, I do not have as much respect for them
> > as
> > I would other users. All it means is that they have not learned how
> > to
> > use the tool that they *need* to use properly.
>
> Maybe. However, the file hierarchy is not simple or elegant
> and isn't as easy to learn as one might think. You need to
> know global (usually arbitrary and irrelevant) information
> to successfully navigate a tree. If you start at the root
> in a Unix system, you'll have to know that the system has
> separate areas for users and programs. If you don't, you
> have to know that '..' goes "up" for some reason.
I guess that we have a difference of opinion here. I do find the Linux
filesystem to be very simple and elegant - from an administration point
of view anyway.
> It is very difficult in Unix to show the interrelationships
> between things and most people never bother. In a lattice
> structure, it is much easier to create layouts with multiple
> points of view that all make sense.
I truly don't know anything about "lattice structures". What are you
talking about when you mention them?
>
> > > The key difference is that it is programmers' *jobs* to write good
> >
> > > software and it *isn't* users' jobs to put up with bad software.
> >
> > At the same time, however, surely it is the job of the user to:
> >
> > a. learn how to use the application to at least a tolerable degree,
> > and
> > b. provide feedback to help the programmer to write better code
> >
> > With a. you need to learn at least the very basics of the O/S and
> > it's
> > environment and with b. it is the responsibility of the coder to
> > respond
> > and give the user a way to communicate over the program.
>
> Yes. But different environments can make a huge difference.
> Users have to learn to not get lost in a building, but they'll
> easily get lost if all doors only go one way and if every
> decision at the beginning of their journey will have severe
> consequences even after they've gone through two dozen rooms
> deeper into the building. Imagine the chaos in a workplace if
> you had to retrace all of your steps to switch from Customer
> Support of Product X to Research of Product X because the
> company had partitioned the workplace into Human and Technical.
> And partitioning everything along product lines wouldn't help
> either, it would just mean that researchers could never talk
> to each other!
This happens in a lot of companies :) Seriously, a good GUI can make all
the difference for users. This is why I really like GNOME and KDE.
>
> > Interesting... when I first looked at your post I thought that this
> > looked like a stupid idea, now that I've dug into it a bit more I
> > can
> > see this may have some merit! The only thing would be that the
> > storing
> > of constantly changing data would be a bit of a performance
> > bottleneck.
> > Maybe I've missed something here (if I have, don't flame me! just
> > point
> > out to me what I'm missing)
>
> :-) I wouldn't have done that; there's a world of difference between
> someone who has questions and someone who's already made up their
> mind.
This is what newsgroups are here for! Discussion. And the odd flame.
> If you implement it correctly then changing an object before it has
> had a chance to be written to disk will replace the version in the
> cache, so the first modification doesn't ever get written. This is
> acceptable because changes that come so close together are unlikely
> to be initiated by a human user.
If only I had more time in the day I would probably investigate this
further.
>
> > I find the Linux filesystem layout to be quite intuitive (OK, so the
> >
> > naming conventions aren't really intuitive). For instance, all apps
> > go
> > to the /usr space, every changing (I guess you could call it
> > "persistent") data is stored in /var, users data is stored in /home
> > -
>
> > can't make this name much more intuitive :) - /root holds the
> > administrators data (an excellent idea, makes administration that
> > much
> > more easy) and /etc holds configurations. OT, but why did the last
> > directory (/etc) get a named the way it did?
>
> I think you meant /not persistent/ for var.
More persistent than RAM! :) Actually, it does store persistent data
(what about the spool files? aren't these persistent?)
> I was talking about a lot more than just the filesystem layout.
> But to take the layout as an example, processes should be found
> in both /proc and wherever users get access to them, which could
> be in the user's domain, in a group's domain, or in a global domain
> (domain meaning part of the filesystem associated with a user).
>
>
> > The section that you describe that fits in best with the filesystem
> > standard is /proc, BTW.
>
> Yes. But /proc only represents processes. If you change the
> representation (anything in /proc) tha processes won't see
> it (hopefully) or something disastrous will occur.
Ummm... what about /proc/filesystems, /proc/ide, /proc/cpuinfo,
/proc/modules and the /proc/net heirachy?
>
> > > > There are no two sides and you are charging head first at a
> > windmill.
> > >
> > > But then, who'll be my Sancho?
> >
> > Your who?
>
> Sancho Villa (?) was Don Quixote's sidekick. :-)
Oh. I wasn't aware of that!
>
> > I find C and C++ to be extremely elegant in the way that they do
> > things.
> > Don't know much about Java, except for the fact that it's beauty
> > lies in
> > the fact that it can be written once, compiled into bytecode and
> > then
> > run on any platform with a bytecode interpreter. I guess that's what
> >
> > makes it so slow.
>
> What makes it slow is that it's so new and there hasn't been enough
> energy put into optimizing it.
Not that slow when it really comes to it. They are making Java servlets
now, you know.
Chris
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 22:01:10 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Richard wrote:
>
> Goldhammer wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 27 Sep 2000 04:16:26 GMT, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >Half the OS projects out there are about being a thousand times
> > >more efficient, reliable, and secure than Unix and it will never
> > >be sufficient.
> >
> > Can you explain what you mean here? Can you provide specific
> > examples?
>
> OS supremacy has to do with politics and nothing more. Unix
> will remain dominant for a long, long time for no better reason
> than that it is the status quo. Inertia is a factor in any political
> system, not just some technical "network effect".
>
> Go through
> http://www.cs.arizona.edu/people/bridges/oses.html
> http://www.tunes.org/Review/OSes.html
Here is a snippet from
http://www.cs.arizona.edu/people/bridges/oses.html
Linux
Group Members: Linus Torvalds and a Cast of Thousands
Linux is a freely-distributable implementation of UNIX for
80386, 80486 and Pentium machines. It supports a wide range of
software, including X Windows, Emacs, TCP/IP networking
(including SLIP/PPP/ISDN), and the works. Ports to non-x86
machines such as the Alpha and SPARC also exist. This is one
rocking project.
I guess that they don't seem to think that Linux is too bad!
Chris
>
> and you can see an endless list of OSes. Just search for
> keywords like 'small', 'reliable', 'secure', et cetera. Though
> you probably want to stay away from microkernels since
> they are inherently stupid (oh goody, more APIs in the
> system. Just what we needed! Mind you, bloated warthogs
> like Unix are hardly an improvement.)
>
> If you want a secure OS then just pick *any* OS that is
> based on capabilities instead of access control lists (*).
> There is no lack of them but EROS comes to mind soonest.
> With capabilities, worms and trojans become effectively
> impossible and most security holes just disappear.
>
> Then there's the Cache Kernel and L4 that come to mind
> as far as efficiency goes.
>
> *: this is due to the fact that with ACLs, all of the information
> on who should get access is with the users (with processes being
> understood as users) but all of the information on who actually
> has access is with the objects. With capabilities, this information
> is once again unified in one place.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 22:44:28 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: hypocritical Unix apologists
Richard wrote:
>
> FM wrote:
> > Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >I object to the title of this post. DOn't know about you, but I haven't
> > >heard of any notable Linux developer by the name of "FM".
>
> I probably should've titled it as "angry Linuxers" then. (*)
I don't think that would be a good idea to post that in c.o.l.a. Not
unless you don't mind getting flame from every side :)
Chris
> > Of course not, since I'm not a software developer.
> > I also don't go by FM in the real world.
>
> And you claim that one needs to have programmed in
> order to know anything worthwhile about design?
> What a hypocritical son of a bitch!
>
> If you're going to insist on credential X (no matter
> how idiotic it is) then make sure you have it asshole!
> You are such a completely useless flake.
>
> *: this doesn't invalidate my accusations against
> programmers but it makes proving them much more
> complex (possibly beyond any USENET discussion) as
> it forces socio-politics into the subject domain.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 22:44:32 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
[snip]
> > > What's a skip?
>
> > A big, metal, yellow thing that you hire out to throw large quantities
> > of rubbish in to. Eventually, a bad-tempered bloke will come along with
> > a lorry, pick it up and take it to the dump, spilling half the contents
> > along the road in the process.
>
> Ooookay.
>
Very aptly put, that description.
[snip]
> > Reverse engineering is usually used to describe the process of having a
> > black box that does something and making a version that works in the
> > same way by analysing what comes out and what goes in. Aren't there any
> > documents describing the architectural design?
>
> Linus certainly never wrote any! What passes for documentation of the
> design is "The Linux Kernel Hacker's Guide".
>
Hey, works for some!
> > I have to say that I think that free and bad is still free.
>
> "You are free to shoot your own foot" is technically a freedom, it's
> just not any kind of meaningful liberty.
Interesting - this argument gets complicated if you beleive in
predestination :)
> > > The GPL is necessary but *not* sufficient to ensure liberty.
> > > The GPL defines "source" as "the preferred format for human
> > > manipulation" (going from memory). Well, C/C++ is not source;
> > > Smalltalk code compiles *down* to C code.
> >
> > C/C++ is source if it was written in C++. Machine code is source if the
> > program is written in machine code. I think it is reasonable to define
> > source as whatever the author actually wrote.
>
> And postscript is source if someone is stupid enough to write in it?
Yep. It's may not be very nice to look at until it is formatted but it's
still source.
> > > Between compatibility and "everything else", I'll pick everything
> > else.
> >
> > It really depends on what your needs are.
>
> My needs are higher than what any Unix can ever provide. Most people's
> are, they're just unable to do anything about it.
Although you're ideas for an O/S sound very interesting, the fact is
that many many people use Unix and they are more than happy with it once
they get to know it a bit better. I find it extremely powerful and
flexible for my needs!
[snip]
Chris
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 23:08:54 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Perhaps you should think about what you are saying here. You are asking
a Linux advocate to leave comp.os.linux.advocacy
Although I have respect for the fact that you have ideas for a new O/S,
wouldn't you be better off posting your ideas in comp.os.research?
Chris
Richard wrote:
>
> FM wrote:
>
> > Of course, his complete disregard for facts should
> > be apparent to all by now.
> >
> > Damn I so should've resisted the urge to reply to a
> > troll.
>
> Does that mean that I can expect you to go away?
> Please say yes!!
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 09:22:32 -0300
El mié, 27 sep 2000, Richard escribió:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> El mié, 27 sep 2000, Richard escribió:
>> >they are inherently stupid (oh goody, more APIs in the
>> >system. Just what we needed! Mind you, bloated warthogs
>> >like Unix are hardly an improvement.)
>>
>> So you propose small OSs that are not microkernels. Say DOS?
>
>It depends whom I'm proposing it to. For you; yes, absolutely,
>DOS is the best OS possible!
Sorry, I left DOS behind ages ago.
>(Careful reading will reveal that I proposed nothing, except
>that microkernels are stupid.)
But you claim to be designing a OS. Obviously, if you are sane, you will not
design something "stupid" and you will design something "good", so hopefully
you will design a small non-mk OS, right?
>> >If you want a secure OS then just pick *any* OS that is
>> >based on capabilities instead of access control lists (*).
>> >There is no lack of them but EROS comes to mind soonest.
>> >With capabilities, worms and trojans become effectively
>> >impossible and most security holes just disappear.
>>
>> You know Linux is getting capabilities, right?
>
>Now this is fucking hysterical.
Well, I don't know what you are doing. If you are fucking, I guess being
hysterical gives it some pizzazz.
> Not that it matters since
>in order to get rid of security holes you need to get rid
>of ACLs entirely. And you'll never do that in Linux since
>it would require rewriting the filesystems, the kernel
>*and* every application that does any kind of I/O. What
>you'll get instead is a Frankenstein's monster that is
>neither ACL nor capabilities and costs twice as much to
>learn and implement (more than twice actually since we're
>talking about an exponential curve here).
Blah, blah, blah. Maybe you can be a tiny bit specific.
>Linux is also "getting" logging and looking at the design
>documents of Dtfs, anyone can tell that it's a monster that
>falls far short of the potential (on top of being ugly,
>inextensible and unmaintainable).
Dtfs? What's Dtfs? The journaling fs I know are Reiser, ext3 and XFS.
>The Unixer's treatment of everything as a "feature" to be
>slapped on top of an already large mountain of "features" is
>ludicrous and contradicts reality. That's not how design works
>but you'll have a hard time explaining this to people who
>think that Dr. Frankenstein was involved in "design" work.
At least the collage works.
>> >Then there's the Cache Kernel and L4 that come to mind
>> >as far as efficiency goes.
>>
>> There once was a L4-Linux. Nice thing.
>> L4 is a microkernel, isn't it?
>
>L4 sucks and is massively stupid from top to bottom. But
>there you go, Unix idiocy. "Research" OSes whose only goal
>is to prove just one tiny point in relation to Unix.
You said L4 is an example of efficiency. Yet, of course since L4 is a
microkernel, you also said it is inherently (and massively) stupid, and sucks.
I think you have a serious case of gataflorismo. Look it up.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 09:26:43 -0300
El mié, 27 sep 2000, Richard escribió:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
>> El mié, 27 sep 2000, Richard escribió:
>> >No, I'm saying that every lame-ass argument you've made about how
>> >Unix is the "perfect" OS and that every other OS is so obviously flawed
>> >because it didn't defeat Unix could easily be applied to MS Windows.
>>
>> You must be confusing me with someone else. Unix is not perfect. All
>> OSs are flawed, though, but so is UNIX.
>
>Oh, I forgot, it's only research OSes that you think are completely useless.
Nonpractical, not useless. They are useful to do research, of course.
>> Perhaps you are projecting your attitude towards your pet OS unto my attitude
>> towards mine.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 09:31:09 -0300
El mié, 27 sep 2000, Richard escribió:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> El mié, 27 sep 2000, Richard escribió:
>
>> Apparently you seem to believe biology applies to operating systems.
>
><rolleyes> We'll just add Memetics to the list of things you don't know.
Indeed I know nothing of the sort.
>> >> Of course, applying human psychology to inhumans is rather stupid.
>> >
>> >If it works then there's nothing stupid about it. And applying human
>> >psychology to groups *of* humans makes perfect sense.
>>
>> Saying that "corporations are psychopaths" "works" is quite peculiar.
>
>I guess you've never heard of "abstraction" and "axiomatic system" before.
You know, I wrote a monography about Gödel theorem, so I know a fair bit
about axiom systems. And abstraction... well, I wouldn't go there if I were you.
Now, let's assume that "corporations are psychopaths" is actually a correct
analogy (it can't be much else, since psychopathy is defined in function of the
human behaviour, not the inhuman one.
What is your proposed analogy for treatment? Putting corporations on drugs?
>Oh wait, maybe it's just that you believe they're reserved for math? Talk
>about magical thinking! But you'd hardly be an academic without engaging
>in professional arrogance, right?
I am not an academic, what gave you that idea?
>Here's a clue: psychopath does not imply human, it only implies 'being'
>and corporations fulfill all of the criteria of beings.
By that reasoning, hurricanes are probably psychopaths, while gravity fails
just short. You need to ask your psychyatrist about it.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 09:35:25 -0300
El jue, 28 sep 2000, Donal K. Fellows escribió:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Here's a clue: psychopath does not imply human, it only implies 'being'
>> and corporations fulfill all of the criteria of beings.
>
>According to Webster's, a psychopath is a mentally ill or unstable
>person; especially : a person having a psychopathic personality. And
>psychopathy is a mental disorder; especially : extreme mental disorder
>marked usually by egocentric and antisocial activity. Obviously,
>since organizations are not people, they cannot be psychopaths (it
>follows directly from the definition.) However, they can behave in a
>manner that would be indicative of psychopathy if it was exhibited by
>a person.
>
>For someone claiming to have a formal logic training, you are
>remarkably sloppy with your definitions. You must be a mathematician.
Donal, I am sure you meant phylosopher ;-)
--
Roberto Alsina (with a soft spot for math people ;-)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 23:30:44 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Crap. I meant "rendered", not "formatted".
Chris
Chris Sherlock wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > > What's a skip?
> >
> > > A big, metal, yellow thing that you hire out to throw large quantities
> > > of rubbish in to. Eventually, a bad-tempered bloke will come along with
> > > a lorry, pick it up and take it to the dump, spilling half the contents
> > > along the road in the process.
> >
> > Ooookay.
> >
>
> Very aptly put, that description.
>
> [snip]
>
> > > Reverse engineering is usually used to describe the process of having a
> > > black box that does something and making a version that works in the
> > > same way by analysing what comes out and what goes in. Aren't there any
> > > documents describing the architectural design?
> >
> > Linus certainly never wrote any! What passes for documentation of the
> > design is "The Linux Kernel Hacker's Guide".
> >
>
> Hey, works for some!
>
> > > I have to say that I think that free and bad is still free.
> >
> > "You are free to shoot your own foot" is technically a freedom, it's
> > just not any kind of meaningful liberty.
>
> Interesting - this argument gets complicated if you beleive in
> predestination :)
>
> > > > The GPL is necessary but *not* sufficient to ensure liberty.
> > > > The GPL defines "source" as "the preferred format for human
> > > > manipulation" (going from memory). Well, C/C++ is not source;
> > > > Smalltalk code compiles *down* to C code.
> > >
> > > C/C++ is source if it was written in C++. Machine code is source if the
> > > program is written in machine code. I think it is reasonable to define
> > > source as whatever the author actually wrote.
> >
> > And postscript is source if someone is stupid enough to write in it?
>
> Yep. It's may not be very nice to look at until it is formatted but it's
> still source.
>
> > > > Between compatibility and "everything else", I'll pick everything
> > > else.
> > >
> > > It really depends on what your needs are.
> >
> > My needs are higher than what any Unix can ever provide. Most people's
> > are, they're just unable to do anything about it.
>
> Although you're ideas for an O/S sound very interesting, the fact is
> that many many people use Unix and they are more than happy with it once
> they get to know it a bit better. I find it extremely powerful and
> flexible for my needs!
>
> [snip]
>
> Chris
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 09:37:26 -0300
El mié, 27 sep 2000, T. Max Devlin escribió:
>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>El mié, 27 sep 2000, Richard escribió:
>>>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>>>>So, because AtheOS is more UNIX than a non-UNIX, AtheOS is unix.
>>>
>>>> You have a very poor logical process, for a designer.
>>>
>>>I guess we can add biological evolution to the list of things you don't
>>>seem to know about.
>>
>>Apparently you seem to believe biology applies to operating systems.
>>You are applying magic thought. Usually people outgrow it around
>>age 8.
>
>Unfortunately, I can't agree with you, there, Roberto (though I'll
>mention that much of what you've been saying on this thread seems
>reasonable and valid, if a bit contentiously presented.) Generally,
>even smart people never entirely "outgrow" 'magical thinking'. Even
>great success as an engineer does not provide any immunity.
Well, yeah, just as we don't outgrow our limbic system either. It's just that
we don't follow it everywhere without either forethought or remorse.
>>>> >Anyone who says that corporations cannot "really" be diagnosed as
>>>> >clinical psychopaths because they're not human is like someone saying
>>>> >that BSD cannot "really" be Unix because it wasn't made by Bell Labs.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, applying human psychology to inhumans is rather stupid.
>>>
>>>If it works then there's nothing stupid about it. And applying human
>>>psychology to groups *of* humans makes perfect sense.
>
>No, it doesn't. Applying human psychology to *humans in a group* makes
>perfect sense; applying human psychology to the actions of the group
>itself is anthropomorphization, and is little more than a metaphor.
After all, that's why some people call themselves sociologists.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "J.Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux Deployment Tools
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 14:35:48 +0100
Hi.
I am looking for tools that would help to deploy and manage Linux and
replace M$-Windows. However, I have become rather accustomed to the
deployment and management tools that the M$ world has to offer. Some
examples of what I am looking for for Linux are:
* Automated OS installation on a clean system, possibly in combination with
boot from network.
* Automated hardware detection and installation during the automated OS
install.
* Scheduled and automated application installation, removal, and
configuration.
* wake up from lan.
* Hardware and Software Inventory.
* Centralized user management
It would be nice if there was some kind of integrated deployment toolkit out
there, but I doubt there is. I guess that it will boil down to getting
seperated packages that do *ONE* of these things, and then integrate it all
myself using shell-scripts and such?
All information, tips, or links to web-sites on Linux Deployment and
management in medium to large sites is more than welcome.
Thanks.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
