Linux-Advocacy Digest #371, Volume #29 Sat, 30 Sep 00 17:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS (Matthias Warkus)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS ("Ingemar Lundin")
Re: How low can they go...? ("JS/PL")
Re: GPL & freedom (Tim Tyler)
Re: GPL & freedom (Tim Tyler)
Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time? (all)
Re: Linux in government ("mmnnoo")
Re: SE is simply unstable!!! ("Laurence Trister")
RealPlayer - The Alternative to OSS ("mmnnoo")
Re: Why I hate Windows... ("James Stutts")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 15:17:51 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Said Mike Byrns in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >> >[...]The anti-trust case came about for the reasons that
>> >> >Jackson's conviction did -- Microsoft refused to play ball with the bureaucrats
>> >> >and pay their lunch ticket like McNealy, Ellison and Case did.
>> >>
>> >> Please be specific. What "lunch ticket" have these men, or the
>> >> corporations they represent, paid; when, and how much?
>> >
>> >Campaign contributions
>>
>> Neither the judiciary nor the prosecuting attorneys have campaigns to
>> contribute to.
>
>Sigh. The attorneys are hired by the executive branch, and the
>President certainly has them. The judges are appointed by the President
>(at the Fedral level), and a certain level of back scratching exists in
>order to become a judge who becomes a presidential nomination.
Sigh. Neither the judiciary nor the prosecuting attorneys have
campaigns to contribute to. Your presumption that nobody ever does the
job they were elected or hired for, but only maneuver for political
gain, is noted, and discarded as preposterous.
>If not, why do both candidates make such a big deal over the Supreme
>Court niminations? If the law is crystal clear, and the adjudication of
>it simple, then it ought to make zero difference which candidate makes
>the appointments.
You're right; it should. And, generally, it does. Jackson, you'll
recall, is thought to be rather conservative, and the determination of
which way a Supreme Court Justice decides doesn't seem entirely related
to whether they are a Republican or a Democrat. This, of course, is why
everyone makes a big deal over Supreme Court nominations. I never said
that the law was crystal clear, merely consistent, nor that adjudication
was simple, merely accurate, in most cases. The reason it isn't a 'zero
difference' who gets appointed is because the Supreme Court, more than
every other court, is tasked with determining how to *clarify* the law;
the laws themselves don't really change arbitrarily at all. Otherwise,
it wouldn't matter what the statutes say at all; it would merely be the
decision of a judge whether monopolization exists, or whether it is made
illegal by the Sherman Act.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 17:35:12 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Thu, 28 Sep 2000 19:25:18 GMT...
...and Daniel Berger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Like the command line? Beos has a Bash shell.
Does it run all the other tools, too?
> Can you say 64 bit OS? Ok, so *some* flavors of Unix are there, too.
Linux is there, for example.
> Can you say pervasive multi-threading? I thought you could.
I don't quite understand why BeOS uses threads that massively. On a
system where spawning processes is easy, threads don't make much
sense. Under VMS/Windows, you must use threads for performance reasons
because spawning processes is very expensive. But elsewhere?
BTW: Is BeOS POSIX-compliant?
> Think Linux is just as stable? Then try this: start linux -- turn off
> PC without init 0. Possibly repeat one or two more times. Watch linux
> crash.
How is this supposed to make Linux crash? I honestly don't get it. It
will give me a fsck on the next reboot, which sucks, but what else
should happen?
> Of course, BeOS does have the only audio app that I know of that can
> play .mp3 files backwards.
Oh really. Then you don't know many "audio apps". Try Alsaplayer. It
does any speed you want, forwards and backwards. On Linux.
> Network / multi-user support? Oh, all right. I can't win here. We'll
> see what happens in BeOS 6. At least I can say that BeOS
> was "prepared" for such an enhancement.
This is the killer argument that makes BeOS worthless IMHO. A
single-user operating system in 2000!
mawa
--
Level 3 - Network Layer
User has a major package that may make it to the distros in the
future, or submits major context diffs for obscure kernel problems.
-- Cliff Pratt
------------------------------
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: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 15:25:09 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>> >Then in your world, business is a crime. All business plans are geared
>> >toward market cornering. Some work better than others.
>>
>> You are entirely wrong; not even merely mistaken. All business plans
>> which are geared towards 'cornering the market' are illegal. There are
>> many business plans which are not geared towards that, but simply geared
>> towards increasing sales.
>
>You must never have worked around marketing people. Your naivete in
>this area shows.
Unfortunately, it is having to have worked around marketing people which
makes it necessary for me to point out that trying to corner the market
is illegal; many of them don't know it. As such, their marketing
strategies are often quite unsuccessful, as they require use of market
power, rather than simply producing a superior product at the lowest
cost. Those that are successful, of course, are generally criminal,
though only a very small number of them are sufficiently clear attempts
to monopolize that they are indicted and convicted.
>> >Do you honestly trust the DOJ more than MS? When was the last time that
>> >MS sent black clad, masked soldiers to kick down a door? When was the
>> >last time they shot a woman holding a baby?
>>
>> You seem to be mistaking the DoJ with every paranoid fear you might have
>> about the government. Seriously, does the fact that they are 'black
>> clad, masked' soldiers have anything to do with the issue, or is it
>> merely an attempt to emotionally manipulate the reader? I think its
>> obvious that 'shooting a woman holding a baby' is pure hyperbole, in
>> this context. I trust the law more than I trust capitalists, yes. The
>> law is geared towards justice, capitalists are driven by greed. One is
>> a higher ideal supported by society, the other is a base desire
>> motivated by purely selfish interests.
>
>I don't trust the DOJ for much of anything. I trust capitalists more
>than I trust the government. Capitalists don't have the power to off
>their enemies.
No, they only have the power and the desire to destroy their enemies,
since their enemies are competing businesses, not people.
>We need law to ensure that they don't (see 19th century
>America or modern day Russia), but
>at this point in time, it's my belief that the sphere of government
>influence has grown too large. Once could argue that it was too small
>circa 1900; I think it's too large today.
If there's one area where consideration of limitation of government is
appropriate, this sure as hell isn't it. The power and influence (and
increased desire and will to establish 'market dominance', rather than
simple 'competitive ability') of corporations has grown quite
exponentially; much faster and greater, in fact, than the 'sphere' of
government. I think part of the reason you're confused on this issue is
that in the latter part of the century, the federal government became
prominently more powerful, where previously the state governments were
the ones with the ability to control the populace by invoking powers
which had grown 'too large'. "States rights" is still an issue, and
certainly always should be, as it is part of the mechanism we use to
ensure a free citizenry which is not subservient nor subordinate to any
government. But circa 1900, there were still 'state laws' which
effectively turned many many people into second-class citizens, many of
which survived even into the latter half of the century.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 15:30:30 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
>> >Identifying the complaining party to you was not necessary.
>>
>> Apparently, the fact that you are posting anonymously may have informed
>> their decision to not pursue the matter, following my response.
>
>They did pursue the matter, they sent you your first and only warning.
They sent a form email, as I've said, and then dropped the matter. I
continued to post on the matter; you obviously didn't follow up, or they
didn't, but either way it was because there was no issue but the
dishonest rantings of an anonymous troll.
>>Said
>> response, BTW, included a statement of my own intentions to involve
>> lawyers and courts should they presume to have the right to deny me
>> service in accordance with our contract based on the anonymous
>> statements of a dishonest person.
>
>ISP's are not under any obligation to provide login access to their network
>to anyone asking.
No, but they are obligated to provide the service which I have
contracted with them for.
>It's a priviledge for you to use the service, not a right.
Its a right; a legal transaction has occurred, and they are not at
liberty to rescind their service outside of the contractual agreements.
>Don't start rolling out the lies again.
>
>A portion (rule 4 & 6) of YOUR particular ISP agreement is as follows:
>
>4. Nothing But Net and its services may only be used for lawful and legal
>purposes. Transmission of any material in violation of any US or state law
>is prohibited. This prohibition includes but is not limited to copyrighted
>material, threatening or obscene material, or material protected by trade
>secret. You agree to indemnify and hold Nothing But Net from any claims and
>expenses.
Now all you have to do is show that I did anything in violation of US or
state law, and *then* you can start ranting about having my service cut
off.
>6. Nothing But Net has the right to suspend or delete your account at any
>given time.
This is one of those "wait until the lawyers see it" clauses. You can
be sure it will be considered meaningless by any judge.
>You broke state and maybe federal laws. You are lucky to even have access to
>the internet because of it.
You are quite incorrect, on many levels.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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+MacOS = BeOS
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 19:36:38 GMT
"Matthias Warkus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It was the Thu, 28 Sep 2000 19:25:18 GMT...
> ...and Daniel Berger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Like the command line? Beos has a Bash shell.
>
> Does it run all the other tools, too?
>
> > Can you say 64 bit OS? Ok, so *some* flavors of Unix are there, too.
>
> Linux is there, for example.
>
> > Can you say pervasive multi-threading? I thought you could.
>
> I don't quite understand why BeOS uses threads that massively. On a
> system where spawning processes is easy, threads don't make much
> sense. Under VMS/Windows, you must use threads for performance reasons
> because spawning processes is very expensive. But elsewhere?
>
> BTW: Is BeOS POSIX-compliant?
>
> > Think Linux is just as stable? Then try this: start linux -- turn off
> > PC without init 0. Possibly repeat one or two more times. Watch linux
> > crash.
>
> How is this supposed to make Linux crash? I honestly don't get it. It
> will give me a fsck on the next reboot, which sucks, but what else
> should happen?
try that on windows 2000 NOTHING will happen ;)
no fsck no scandisk just a good 'ol fashion bootup!
as it supposed to be!
/IL
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[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: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 15:44:26 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
> >> >Identifying the complaining party to you was not necessary.
> >>
> >> Apparently, the fact that you are posting anonymously may have informed
> >> their decision to not pursue the matter, following my response.
> >
> >They did pursue the matter, they sent you your first and only warning.
>
> They sent a form email, as I've said, and then dropped the matter. I
> continued to post on the matter; you obviously didn't follow up, or they
> didn't, but either way it was because there was no issue but the
> dishonest rantings of an anonymous troll.
This is a form letter??
<paste>
To: T. Max Devlin:
Recently we received a complaint from another
user stating that threatening statements were
posted from your account on several newsgroups.
If it happens again, your account will be terminated.
Please take this email warning seriously. As it
stands now, the person making the complaint
could take legal action against you if he decides
to go that route.
Also please note that newsgroup postings
are archived, and that anything posted by
you can be found by legal authorities, future
employers, and anyone else who wants to check
into your personal history.
Tech Support
NBN.net
279-6535
</paste>
What is "form" about it? The sig line?
> Its a right; a legal transaction has occurred, and they are not at
> liberty to rescind their service outside of the contractual agreements.
Give it up, no one is OBLIGATED to do business with anyone else.
There are very limited reasons one cannot refuse service. Mainly
race...religion...
>
> >Don't start rolling out the lies again.
> >
> >A portion (rule 4 & 6) of YOUR particular ISP agreement is as follows:
> >
> >4. Nothing But Net and its services may only be used for lawful and legal
> >purposes. Transmission of any material in violation of any US or state
law
> >is prohibited. This prohibition includes but is not limited to
copyrighted
> >material, threatening or obscene material, or material protected by trade
> >secret. You agree to indemnify and hold Nothing But Net from any claims
and
> >expenses.
>
> Now all you have to do is show that I did anything in violation of US or
> state law, and *then* you can start ranting about having my service cut
> off.
>
> >6. Nothing But Net has the right to suspend or delete your account at any
> >given time.
>
> This is one of those "wait until the lawyers see it" clauses. You can
> be sure it will be considered meaningless by any judge.
Any honest lawyer would take your hundred bucks and say it aint worth it,
you'll lose.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 20:00:22 GMT
In comp.lang.java.advocacy Zenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Public domain isn't the answer either. I urge you to read the BSD license.
Here's what the FSF has to say about the BSD license:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html
--
__________ http://alife.co.uk/ http://mandala.co.uk/
|im |yler [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hex.org.uk/ http://atoms.org.uk/
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 20:06:37 GMT
In comp.lang.java.advocacy Zenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Check out the BSD license. The real movement for real free software
: has been around longer then the FSF and the GPL.
Here's a nice article about BSD/GNU licenses:
http://www.linux.com/news/articles.phtml?aid=7125
--
__________ http://alife.co.uk/ http://mandala.co.uk/
|im |yler [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hex.org.uk/ http://atoms.org.uk/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (all)
Crossposted-To: alt.windows98
Subject: Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time?
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 20:28:59 GMT
(1) Microsoft has a free REGCLEAN to clean your system.
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q164/5/29.asp
(2) Do Start-> Run -> MSINFO32 <-o not 0 as in zero
(3) If this does not work... Eschaton Tech has a simple and final
solution. Service techs need not revisit their customers after
applying this program.
Send email [EMAIL PROTECTED] your response and You get a free
program for you to evaluate.
see www.escathon.com for further info
On Sat, 30 Sep 2000 18:01:52 GMT, "George" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I don't doubt that you are correct, and I can agree if there is a hardware
>problem. But if an OS doesn't protect against software problems, it isn't a
>very good OS...
>
>Blaming the problems that 98 has on software and hardware problems is only
>hindering any solutions to the problem that everyone knows exists...
------------------------------
From: "mmnnoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux in government
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 20:28:09 GMT
Roberto Selbach Teixeira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>>>> "nerdjohn" == nerdjohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
<snip>
> Here in Brazil, the government of the state of Rio Grande do Sul
> started a campaign and managed to pass a law enforcing the use of free
> software wherever possible in state institutions. Also, they are
> campaigning to encourage private companies to use free software and,
> in the case of software companies, to _develop_ free software through
> tax reductions, etc...
>
> Procergs, the state technology department, is developing free software
> under the GPL (they send the software to the Free Software Foundation
> to be analysed for possible GPL infractions).
>
> I hope more governments follow ;)
>
> regards,
> -- Roberto.
As a US citizen (and there is no country I would rather live in) I am a
little
jealous that your government is doing such a sensible thing. What bothers
me more is that I have to doubt whether such laws could be passed in the
US. I am beginning to think that the only US citizens who care enough to
influence specific policies are those who stand to reap direct financial
benefits.
------------------------------
From: "Laurence Trister" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.windows98
Subject: Re: SE is simply unstable!!!
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 21:45:06 +0100
Hi George
It may be a strange question,but what is your screen resolution(when IE5
crashes)?
Laurence
"George" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:nIpB5.4060$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I don't know about Linux, I have never tried it.
> I'm a very small business and really don't need anything other than
> something that will run my simple Quick Books business program, an Email
> program, and a web browser. W98 did a fairly good job, but had problems.
SE
> crashes 5 times more than 98 did. When I use Netscape rather than IE, I
have
> considerably less crashes unless I crank up an MS application such as MS
> Word .
>
> The bottom line is that SE is simply unstable. I don't care what anyone
says
> in it's defense. When you can't run a simple home based business program
on
> a OS without it constantly crashing, there is something wrong.
>
> When I first purchased my new Dell Inspiration 7500 series lap top, the
only
> software it had other than Norton AntiVirus, which I immediately removed
> without even once using it, was MS software. Even before I installed
> QuickBooks 6, the system locked up while I was using IE5.
>
> If Linux or someone else had an affordable OS for the general public and
> "could market it," I'm sure that I'm not the only one who's business they
> would have.
>
> I agree totally that if an OS can't run well written software
"particularly
> it's own," it isn't a very good OS...
> --
> George
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> "Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Blacknight) wrote in
> > <lq1B5.3924$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > >Yes you are correct. Windows 98 doesn't NEED TSR's any more but alot of
> > >computers have then loaded regardless.b Maybe the term I was looking
for
> > >was backgroup applications. Anyway the more programs you have running
on
> > >start up increases the probably of a crash. Anyway what I was getting
at
> > >is that people need to realize that the majority of time there is a
> > >crash it doesn't have anything to do with the OS.
> >
> > What you're saying then is that you shouldn't run too many applications
on
> > Windows 98 SE in case they crash it? Isn't that the whole point of using
a
> > computer?!?
> >
> > Our Linux Advocate friends here would say that Windows 98 SE can't be a
> > very good operating system if it can't hack it running a few
applications
> > in the background (something Linux does very well).
> >
> > --
> > Pete Goodwin
> > ---
> > Coming soon, Kylix, Delphi on Linux.
> > My success does not require the destruction of Microsoft.
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: "mmnnoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RealPlayer - The Alternative to OSS
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 20:52:58 GMT
Now that I have a better Internet connection I thought
I'd give RealPlayer a chance and see if it worked any
better. Unfortunately this required that I navigate the
Real website and installation process. What a nightmare!
Click after click after click... no I don't want this crap,
I don't want that crap, and why do you need my email
address? Just finding the link to the $0 version was awfully
difficult... navigating page after page of graphical garbage
just to find the one lilttle unadorned hyperlink to the $0 player.
($0 meaning "free-beer").
Good grief, just leave me alone. I don't want to be influenced
or sold on anything right now, I just want a piece of software!
------------------------------
From: "James Stutts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 15:49:23 -0500
"Chris Sherlock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> James Stutts wrote:
> >
> > "D. Spider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [snip]
>
> > > And the DOS (renamed "Win9x" then renamed "WinME") line is less
> > > commercial than the NT line?
> >
> > Sure it is. It costs quite a bit less than NT. You do get what you pay
> > for.
>
> I pay hardly anything for Linux and I have an *extremely* stable O/S! I
> guess that *I* got what I paid for.
If the application support you need is available for Linux, then great for
you. If I need a stable
OS to run a commercial engineering package on, the cost-effective choice is
NT (currently). OS
prices are FAR lower than application prices, at least in my industry.
When the applications
that I need move to Linux (or far better: FreeBSD) I'll switch. It's all
about the applications.
If you think NT is somehow expensive, I suggest you look at commercial Unix
prices.
JCS
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
