Linux-Advocacy Digest #624, Volume #29 Thu, 12 Oct 00 23:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: I think Loki really screwed the guy ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Hotmail has been down for at least 12 hours on the East Coast
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Hotmail has been down for at least 12 hours on the East Coast
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Hotmail has been down for at least 12 hours on the East Coast - Hotmail Message
to Hotmail Members.htm (0/1) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: I'd rather switch than fight. (Jim Broughton)
Re: Hotmail has been down for at least 12 hours on the East Coast - Hotmail Message
to Hotmail Members.htm (1/1) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The Power of the Future!
Re: The Power of the Future!
Re: Legal issues - Re: Linux DVD player! (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: I think Loki really screwed the guy
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 01:43:13 GMT
Problem is Linux people are so used to giving software away that they
haven't fine tuned the distribution process and tracking systems
needed for commercial, pay, software :)
******DUCK**************
claire.
On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 01:15:59 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I don't think what you wrote is right. I went to the site and read the
>article and comments from the link and it looks like a well reasoned, if
>somewhat angry, article. Here's what I learned:
>
> Some guy bought several games in one order from Loki. One of those
>games was a pre-release. Because of this they held up his order for all
>the other products until the pre-release shipped. He complained on their
>news server and canceled the order. A Loki rep promised the issue would
>be solved in a reply on that thread. He ordered again, breaking it up
>into two orders with one containing two pre-release titles, and the
>other a bunch of other games. One of the two pre-release titles got
>held up because the other title hadn't been released and he was stuck in
>the same mess as before. He even offered to pay the extra shipping
>charges.
>
> At this point there were some emails which were posted in comments
>between him and Loki, where instead of offering him the product he
>ordered they offered some subscription service. He got pissed and told
>them to bugger off. A month after that he posted this rant.
>
> I think the most damaging thing against Loki in the whole discussion
>was some Loki representative basically calling him a liar, and then not
>backing their claim up. This is what those posted emails were about.
>Most companies would find a way to solve the problem and fend off a PR
>nightmare rather than piss off a customer. But to call the guy a liar in
>public rather than dealing with it directly? This looks very weird and
>damaging to Lokis credibility. The whole thing is just stupid on their
>part. Some of this is probably miscommunication, but some of it also
>looks plain wrong on Loki's part.
>
> I don't play games in Linux, but I use it and like it. I'll think
>twice about Loki... not so much because of this story, but because of
>that Loki person wrote and other comments below. If any company held up
>an order like this to me I'd tell them to go screw too. Linux is all
>nice and good, but I don't deal with businesses that treat me don't
>deliver product and don't provide customer service. Linux supporters or
>not.
>
>Also, the guy knows how to write. He really slammed Loki hard, and
>apparantly with hard facts.
>
>Douglas Browne
>
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> David M. Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> > Check out this kuro5hin article on Loki... either this guy got
>burned or
>> > he's got a major bug up his *ahem*...
>>
>> I think his *ahem* is indeed, rather clogged with a major bug. Sounds
>like
>> something got screwed up with a distributor that Loki was working
>with, and
>> it was more their fault than Loki's... maybe I'm reading wrong, who
>knows.
>> Needless to say, I can almost guarantee that if I ordered every game
>that a
>> company sells, I'd feel great if I only had problems with one or two
>and if
>> it were a distributors mistake, and not the company itself. Also
>sounds
>> like this guy's being a dumbass, and should have had the patience to
>wait
>> the extra what, 2 days? Obviously if the problem is that his preorder
>was
>> not going to be delivered until after the release, he should have
>waited
>> until it was released (especially after they told him so...) *shrug*
>Oh
>> well.
>>
>> D. Butler
>>
>>
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Hotmail has been down for at least 12 hours on the East Coast
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 01:44:27 GMT
How do I do that?
claire
On 12 Oct 2000 20:27:15 -0500, "Drestin Black"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Yes.. The site comes up with a generic message about it being down and
>> it not being do to my account as well as "All of Hotmail" not being
>> down, only the part I need, my mail. A lawyer must have written that
>> page.
>> It came back up last night though.
>>
>
>I say you are wrong.
>
>Pull the file from your cache and post it to prove it...
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Hotmail has been down for at least 12 hours on the East Coast
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 01:48:43 GMT
Never mind I figured it out:
Read it and weep...........
Help
Message to Hotmail Members
We apologize, but your account is temporarily unavailable. This delay
does not affect the entire site or relate specifically to your
account, but the machine that holds your account information is
temporarily unavailable. We do not expect this delay to last much
longer, so please continue to check our site for your account status.
We will do our best to make your account available as quickly as
possible. We appreciate your support, and sincerely apologize for the
inconvenience.
© 2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Terms of Service
Privacy Statement
On 12 Oct 2000 20:27:15 -0500, "Drestin Black"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Yes.. The site comes up with a generic message about it being down and
>> it not being do to my account as well as "All of Hotmail" not being
>> down, only the part I need, my mail. A lawyer must have written that
>> page.
>> It came back up last night though.
>>
>
>I say you are wrong.
>
>Pull the file from your cache and post it to prove it...
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Hotmail has been down for at least 12 hours on the East Coast - Hotmail
Message to Hotmail Members.htm (0/1)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 01:51:30 GMT
Or if you prefer an attachment (but I don't think it will make it
through the ATT filters)..Here it is as htm file.
claire
On 12 Oct 2000 20:27:15 -0500, "Drestin Black"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Yes.. The site comes up with a generic message about it being down and
>> it not being do to my account as well as "All of Hotmail" not being
>> down, only the part I need, my mail. A lawyer must have written that
>> page.
>> It came back up last night though.
>>
>
>I say you are wrong.
>
>Pull the file from your cache and post it to prove it...
>
>
------------------------------
From: Jim Broughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: I'd rather switch than fight.
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 01:53:22 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> El jue, 12 oct 2000, 2:1 escribió:
> >> If you were to see the simplicity that it used in slackware you
> >> would probably NEVER go back to RH. I admit I like sysV but I
> >> don't like the way readhat uses it.
> >
> >Could you give me a link to some description of the system used in
> >Slackware: I'm interested. I might convert my linux system to that (my
> >system is gatting less like the default RH system as the days go by...)
>
> It was the classic (more or less) BSD init, last time I checked.
> One monster script and some smaller ones for specific purposes, followed by a
> rc.local.
>
> --
> Roberto Alsina
Yes it is the BSD style init system but it uses a few scripts
one system init script and one script for for each USED run level.
They are really well commented too. (makes em bigger but
definatly easier to understand) The run level scripts can and do
run other scripts for special services. SysV is supported but I have
been unable to make the scripts I ripped from my server box function
correctly. Possibly more RH crap in them I have yet to notice.
One of my other complaints on RH was linuxconf. I was NEVER able to
pry that sucker out of the system. So Slackware.
--
Jim Broughton
(The Amiga OS! Now there was an OS)
If Sense were common everyone would have it!
Following Air and Water the third most abundant
thing on the planet is Human Stupidity.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Hotmail has been down for at least 12 hours on the East Coast - Hotmail
Message to Hotmail Members.htm (1/1)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 01:53:17 GMT
looks like it made it.
Now how about an apology Drestin?
claire
On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 01:51:31 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 03:05:35 GMT
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On 10/12/00, 4:47:15 PM, "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> =
wrote regarding Re: The Power of the Future!:
> I worked with IBM's, DECs, Magnuson's, HPs. Got really into it about=20
89 when
> I did my first contract and thought: "Damn! This sure pays well!" :)=20
FYI: I
> never used Windows prior to 3.1 and even then it was just playing=20
around. In
> fact, I didn't get into Windows 95 much when it first came out,=20
crashed too
> much and was slow. All my work was networking offices using either=20
Novell or
> LANtastic. I was mostly programming in the early 90s. Finally scored=20
big on
> an application I sold to F500 company and opened my own and have been =
doing
> mostly upgrades and conversions since. About 80% of what I do is=20
replace
> unix or novell networks with NT networks which is why I guess I'm the =
way I
> am :) MAN, people are SO used to paying huge box for unix boxes and
> UNBELIEVABLE support prices for unix personel that the profits are=20
still
> juicy in this sector. Trying making money on someone who already has=20
NT and
> wants to go to W2K and it's tough - they are already savvy to the fact=
=20
the
> TCO on NT is so low. Funny, I've never seen a NT to Unix migration,=20
not in 7
> years.
Never seen a NT to UNIX migration? Funny, they do happen. =20
W2K migration from NT is slow due to customer fatigue and the high=20
costs associated with deploying unproved software. Gartner et al=20
advised waiting and the customer base is - waiting. =20
BTW There's been a revolt over high Windows prices - enterprise=20
customers refused to pay MS for the privilege of writing over the OEM=20
Windows image with their own configuration. Mid and small sized=20
customers lack the clout so they're paying. =20
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 03:18:04 GMT
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On 10/12/00, 4:37:19 PM, "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> =
wrote regarding Re: The Power of the Future!:
> "joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >
> > > You are the fool and idiot. You cannot prove anything whatsoever. =
Prove
> > > their attempt to migrate at any time. Prove their attempt to migra=
te=20
and
> > > failure at any time. W2K obviously can handle the load because the=
=20
same
> > > number of servers that ran hotmail under BSD are now running a lar=
ger
> load
> > > under W2K (same hardware, better results). And, look for Slowaris =
to=20
be
> > > replaced at hotmail before years end...
> > >
> > > I can prove that BSD was replaced by W2K successfully at Hotmail -=
=20
what
> can
> > > you prove other than your often repeated .sig (and I quote):
> >
> > Oh Please. You could NOT prove what you claim. If you could you=20
wouldn't
> be
> > doing it on USENET.
> Yes I can and why wouldn't I. Everyone knows that hotmail.com is now=20
running
> all their front end web servers on W2K and IIS - check netcraft - go=20
ahead,
> hit it 1000 times in a row. you won't find anything but w2k - the=20
proof is
> right there for EVERYONE to see.
Pardon me? Front end web servers is NOT hotmail. =20
Netcraft isn't going to prove the migration.=20
MS would not let a kook like you near any corporate site and give=20
details on the usenet. =20
> >
> > And What about realiability? MS advocates always pretend Windows is=
=20
as
> > relaible as say an OS like BSD.
> what about reliablity? we don't have to pretend it's being proven as=20
we
> write. There is all of hotmail.com, not a single interruption of=20
service
> (unlike before)=20
That's not how professionals describe OS reliability. One can use=20
redundancy to stop an interruption of service due to an PC class OS=20
crashing. Reliability isn't redundancy.
> whatsoever since it's migration. Now that I'm past the
> problems I had with the first generation of NVIDIA beta drivers for=20
W2K I
> have never had a crash or reboot to deal with.=20
What does one guys story about a video driver mean to an enterprise=20
when they talk about stability? NOTHING.
> None. Period. No one using
> W2K has to pretend - but unix types who can't or won't change and=20
can't or
> won't accept the fact that W2K is not NT3.5 just will never admit the
> truth... sigh... it's sad...
I'm not a UNIX type - I wouldn't confuse criticism of Windows with=20
being pro UNIX - some of MS's harshest critics rely on Windows -=20
that's why they're critical. See the problem for MS is the advocates=20
and little guys living in the MS-NT ecology so overstate windows that=20
MS's customers are growing impatient. I bet most of the CIO's who=20
like windows want the childish hype to stop as much as I do. =20
So. Yeah, W2K isn't NT 3.5. Not being NT 3,5 doesn't mean W2K is a=20
reliable and proven OS. In fact, the comment shows me how little you=20
care about reliability. =20
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Legal issues - Re: Linux DVD player!
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 02:11:26 GMT
In article <8s460j$en3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In fact, the source code to DeCSS was
> > published in full text, in the
> > court records (making the source
> > code itself public domain), but the
> > DVD-CCA claims that it has the right
> > to enforce it's licenses based
> > on the fact that the media being
> > played was licensed, making it illegal
> > to decode the licensed content.
> I'm not a lawyer, but in background of the
> recent CueCat case, whom the
> encrypted media is licensed to?
Anyone who obtains a copy of a copyrighted product
is subject to the terms of the license of that copyright.
Keep in mind that the copyright only covers a specific
expression of a copyright. COPYRIGHTS ARE NOT INTENDED
TO PROTECT IDEAS!
Neither the copyright law, nor the patent law has ever
been intended to protect ideas. A copyright protects a
particular expression of an idea. The idea itself is not
subject to copyright.
This is true regardless of the nature of the idea. Whether the
idea is the plot to a movie, a recipe in a cookbook, or the
principles of a computer, only the specific expression of
these ideas is protected.
A patent protects a specific process or device, not the idea behind
that process or device. In this case, the specific process can be
patented, such as the "recipe" for making a polymer resin, but the
idea of creating plastic through some chemical reaction can't be
patented. Only each specific process for each specific chemical
reaction can be patented.
This has become very interesting in the case of herbal medicine,
where the plants themselves are common, the benifits are known,
and only the process for making a particular type of product
(capsules, tablets, oils...) ***might*** be something that can
be patented.
For many years herbal medicine were ignored by the pharmasutical
companies simply because there was no way to patent and protect
a product that was simply using a trivial process (tea, boiling,
oils, crushing...) to a known herb (Saint John's Wort, Aloe Vera...).
Eventually, a legal structure was put into place which allowed a
company to, in essence, protect the FDA approval itself. Quite simply,
the company would file for a patent on a process used to assure purity
and consistency of product, and the consistent product could then be
evaluated for the FDA.
In most cases, the successful approved, patented process is licensed
to others on very reasonable terms in order to reduce the risk of
a competitor creating a trivially different process (intuitively
derivable) and eleminating the possibility of recovering the R&D
expense.
Microsoft's contention is that, unless intellectual properties are
so completely protected that a total monopoly is available and can
be extended to other products, and even other industries, that
people will stop writing software, writing books, covering the news,
making movies, and even stop all creativity and innovation althogether.
This was, in essence, the driving thought behind the digital millenium
act.
Keep in mind that the same argument was made for controlling and
restricting news content published to the internet. The assumption
was that if people could get news and information via the internet,
for free, that AP Newswire, Dow Jones News Wires, and all of the
major publishers would end up going bankrupt, leaving readers to
the mercy of rumer mongers on usenet.
Of course, the internet quickly learned that no matter how
interesting your web page might be, "Content is king", and
even if you have a good site capable of international commerce,
without links and banners placed across a rather large body of
related content, you really don't get that much traffic.
Very quickly people like Bill Densmore and Steve Outings began
to derive programs to manage and distribute "micropayments" between
advertisers and content producers. Essentially, content producers
would provide links with "referred by" information. Each display
of a link or banner was registered with the system. If the user
clicked the banner, the advertiser would get a "referred by"
indication, and would register the referral with the content.
There were checks and balances to prevent fraud (I won't go into
details here) but essentially, variations of this are used
throughout the internet even today to make sure that content
is funded and that advertizers attract the right kind of traffic.
Keep in mind, that this isn't what companies like Microsfot and AOL
wanted. They wanted total control of the content, who could access
what sites, and they wanted the ability to collect some hefty cash
for every customer whether they were purchasing customers or not.
Today, web advertizing goes for about 5 cents a hit (display), with
extra for referrals. But at one time, Microsoft was telling publishers
and businesses alike that they would have to pay as much as
$4/month/user for each Microsoft user that visited their site
or service. AOL just wanted 85% of all revenue collected from
any AOL user. Either business plan would have killed the internet,
and online publishing. The publisher would have gone bankrupt, the
advertisers wouldn't have been satisfied with the return, and
pretty much everybody would have gone broke (including AOL and/or
Microsoft).
Ironically, the current revenue model was simply an electronic
adaptation of the tools used in the music and motion picture
industry.
You see, if you own a nightclub, and you want to play music, instead of
paying each recording artist directly, organizations such as ASCAP
(American Society of Composers, Arrangers, and Publishers), BMI
(Broadcast Music International), and/or the RIAA (Recording Industry
Artists Association?) can be paid a fixed monthly fee which can be
adjusted appropriately to the type of music being played (top forty
is more expensive than golden oldies), the role in the business
(nightclubs and dance halls pay more than restaurants and elevators).
Finally, the business keeps a "play list". Each performance or play
is logged either electronically or on paper. This list is then used
to determine who should get what portion of the revenue.
Some of the beneficiaries of this program are actually remarkable.
The song "Last Dance" is very profitable (played as the last
dance at nearly every nightclub just before closing).
Most of these business details were worked out on a publisher's
mailing list (online-newspapers) formed initially in 1994 and
still active to this day to help resolve issues such as revenue,
billing, management of talent, circulation building, and other
issues relevant to publishers. A small snippet of these discussions
is available at www.open4success.com/Olnews
Unfortunately, there are forces within the software and recording
industry that are totally resisting this model in - of all things,
the production and electronic distribution of music.
On the one hand, the publishers are fighting to make it as difficult
as possible to obtain content from any but "authorized" sources, are
attempting to shut down sites that make any attempt to interfere with
the distribution process (even when what they are doing is simply
providing links to a legitimate publisher).
On the flip side, you have companies like Napster who encourage record
owners, who have purchased CDs (which are only licensed for personal
use), to publish their content via the internet, with no attempt to
manage the accountability of either the publishers or the performances.
For legal purposes, each time a record is played, this is called a
performance. The record industry licenses retail media for personal
use only. The courts have pretty much accepted that if you want to
play your music at the beach and a couple of friends happen to be
listening, that this is still "fair use". On the other hand, if
you have a party for 50-60 of your "closest friends", and charge them
"$20 a head" and you have someone playing records all night long as
loud as the music at a disco, especially if you have paid a disk
jockey, that this constitutes a "public performance" and is therefore
subject to ASCAP/BMI/RIAA public performance licensing provisions.
This isn't to say that there is no industry. For example, publishers
could easily post content on the internet, in a format that is
copyrighted and licensed such that the player/decoders agree to provide
a "play list" back to the originating site (essentially a referred-by
site). It would then be up to the content provider to manage the
collection of revenue which could then be paid to the content producer.
You would then have the option of either going to the record store
and picking up your copy, going to the chain's online site and
purchasing a "music card" (something like a phone card) for your
player, or visiting sites and advertizers who would give you "music
card credits" for your player (something like frequent flyer miles).
Keep in mind, you would never be aware of the playlist manager unless
you had neither purchased "muzak money" nor collected any "muzak
points".
And this can all be done anonymously (much the way the ad revenue
is done anonymously).
Keep in mind, that the mechanisms were implemented in open source
(Secure HTTP, SSL, Cookies, and hidden variables) with the Mosaic
2.0 web browser. Without them, there could have been no
World Wide Web.
> If the original purchaser, what happens
> if a company purchases a bunch of DVDs
> (thus becoming the licensee) and
> spams them out to a few thousand people,
The original purchaser would be a licensee. Furthermore, they
would be subject to the "public performance" license terms of
the copyright (since they are publishing to "a few thousand people".
> who, therefore, get the media
> as gift--with no license restrictions?
The recipients would be subject to the "private use" license.
Essentially, they would agree to have their player send a record
of each time the recording was played.
Furthermore, the recipients would be restricted from republishing
for "public performance" without obtaining a "public performance"
license.
At some point, if an "agent" wanted to allow recipients of "personal
use" content to publish the content for "public performance" (download
via web sites), it would then be the responsibility of the agent to
broker a deal between the industry (ASCAP, BMI, RIAA) and the
"publisher".
Since the publisher would then be liable for payment of royalties,
the assumption is that the agent would probably want to provide some
sort of mechanism for collecting revenue on behalf of the publisher.
In reality, the agent is actually working out a deal in which
he commits to pay a royalty to the industry (ASCAP, BMI, RIAA),
and rather than putting his own media on a huge server, allows
others to provide the servers (for ego, royalties, services,
whatever). The agent would then be responsible for collecting
the play-lists as well.
It really doesn't matter what the nature of the content is.
Just as web sites must pay royalties to artists in "silicon alley"
when they use copyrighted and licensed clip-art, so too must
they pay royalties to recording artists when they use audio
clips, and motion picture artists when they use video clips.
Again, if the music is background for a narration, the cost will
be less than if it is being offered unaltered in a "pure retail"
environment.
> Of course, the copyright is
> still there, so unauthorized duplication
> is out of question, but I'd guess it
> effectively nullifies any strange provisions
> of the license.
The copyright acts were revised starting in 1976 to provide
the relationship between the copyright and the licensing
of specific rights. Through a combination of international
cooperation and international treaties, these rights and
licenses are generally accepted and enforced world-wide.
And by the way. You may have noticed that if you disable cookies
completely, and refuse to allow hidden variables, that the
page won't display. This is because this is commercially licensed
content which is sponsored by a commercially provided advertisement.
If you disable the means of reporting the display of the ad, and
you disable the means of reporting a user who follows a link,
the publisher will still be liable for the content (his htlog)
but will have been deprived of the revenue (his referral, cookie,
and referred-by bonuses). Margins are already thin, and too many
"free-loaders" creates a HUGE liability very quickly.
> --
> Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Are you sure the back door is locked?
--
Rex Ballard - I/T Architect, MIS Director
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 50 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 8/2/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
