Linux-Advocacy Digest #640, Volume #29 Fri, 13 Oct 00 19:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: David T. Johnson lies again (Marty)
Re: David T. Johnson lies again (Marty)
Re: A classic example of unfriendly Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Astroturfing (.)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (Shane Phelps)
Re: David T. Johnson lies again (Marty)
Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes) (Marty)
Re: Astroturfing (Michael Vester)
Re: Astroturfing ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: David T. Johnson lies again
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 22:34:06 GMT
"David T. Johnson" wrote:
>
> You continue to repeat the same arguments
How ironic.
> which futilely attempt to characterize my replys to your personal
> attacks and name-calling
Which themselves were replies to your personal attacks on others and
namecalling of others. How ironic.
> as 'harassment and denigration' of OS/2 developers.
I am an OS/2 developer and I've pointed out how your comments are both
harassment and denigrating. You haven't refuted a single one, I'll add.
> You have falsely accused me of harassment and denigration of OS/2
> developers.
Classic pontification.
> For that, you will have to answer.
I already have answered as much as I am required. Even moreso perhaps, as I
have bothered to post another response to you, which was not required.
> Reposting the same arguments in this forum only digs a deeper hole for
> you.
I've cited my evidence which you haven't been able to refute. Looks like
you're the one in the hole.
> And you fail to understand the significance of your claim to be an
> OS/2 developer.
Not at all. I develop software for OS/2. Period.
> I am not contesting that you are an OS/2 developer.
So why have you yet to establish it, referring to me as an "alleged" developer
or some such tone?
> Rather, I am pointing to this claim of yours as increasing the damage
You're erroneously presupposing some "damage" that can be "increased".
> that your false accusation of 'harassment and denigration of OS/2
> developers'
I've already pointed out why your statement is a lie. If I've got something
wrong, feel free to point it out. You haven't done so to date, and instead
have preferred to continually pontificate on the matter.
> has done by adding undeserved credibility to your false accusation.
On what basis do you claim it is "undeserved"? Hard evidence was presented.
It was repeated. Though it is understandably very damaging to your position,
repetition earns it no more credence than it had the first time it was
posted. It was repeated to aid your apparently lacking understanding on the
matter and to encourage you to attempt to refute it, since you feel so
strongly that it is incorrect. One can lead a horse to water...
> I recommend that you confer with competent legal counsel on this
Why bother? Are you interested in wasting your funds on unnecessary legal
fees?
> and refrain from further comments on your false accusation until such
> time.
I'll say what I choose, when I choose. That's what this country is all
about. I told the truth to the best of my knowledge and pointed to facts
underlining said truth. You have merely pontificated to the contrary. Looks
like I was right about you all along.
> Marty wrote:
> >
> > "David T. Johnson" wrote:
> > >
> > > You repeat your arguments to yourself
> >
> > Prove it, if you think you can.
Note: no response.
> > > and incorrectly seem to feel that that gives them weight.
> >
> > What you perceive that I "seem to feel" is irrelevant. Nonetheless, your
> > statement is quite ironic, given that your posting consisted solely of a
> > restatement of your arguments with no supporting evidence for your position.
Note: no response.
> > > You have accused me of harassing and denigrating OS/2 developers.
> >
> > Incorrect. I have accused you of lying, and rightfully so.
Note: no response.
> > > That is completely false (and ridiculous as well for reasons you are not
> > > yet aware of). Glatt accused me of being on a mission to harass and
> > > denigrate OS/2 developers. You have supported his false accusation
> >
> > Incorrect. More evidence of your reading comprehension problems.
Note: no response.
> > > by publicly posting that: 1) you consider yourself to be an OS/2
> > > developer
> >
> > I am not alone in that consideration.
Note: no response.
> > > and 2) My statement denying any harassment and denigration of OS/2
> > > developers is false.
> >
> > I have shown your harassment and denigration of myself by providing a
> > definition of each word and applying it to various quotes of yours which were
> > addressed to (or should I say "at") me.
> >
> > ha·rass (hrs, h-rs)
> > v. tr. ha·rassed, ha·rass·ing, ha·rass·es.
> >
> > 1.To irritate or torment persistently.
> > 2.To wear out; exhaust.
> > 3.To impede and exhaust (an enemy) by repeated attacks or raids.
> >
> > den·i·grate (dn-grt)
> > v. tr. den·i·grat·ed, den·i·grat·ing, den·i·grates.
> >
> > 1.To attack the character or reputation of; speak ill of; defame.
> > 2.To disparage; belittle: The critics have denigrated our efforts.
> >
> > DTJ] I have only called you a 'liar' and a 'hypocrite.'
> >
> > Denigrate: 1
> >
> > DTJ] perhaps you need to reevaluate your surroundings since you fail to
> > impress me as being extraordinarily bright, yourself.
> >
> > Denigrate: 1,2
> > Harass: 1,3
> >
> > DTJ] H-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e.
> >
> > Denigrate: 1
> >
> > DTJ] I doubt that your typical comments can be "dumbed" down any further.
> >
> > Denigrate: 1,2
> > Harass: 1,3
> >
> > DTJ] As for the substance of your comment, it appears to be as garbled
> > and confused as Marty's.
> >
> > Denigrate: 1,2
> > Harass: 1,3
> >
> > DTJ] I am starting to feel like I am being flamed by a gaggle of
> > fifth-graders.
> >
> > Denigrate: 1,2
> >
> > DTJ] I was pointing to Marty's mental confusion.
> >
> > Denigrate: 1,2
> > Harass: 1,3
> >
> > DTJ] The entire thrust of your posts over the last week seems to be
> > personal attacks. I am losing respect for you.
> >
> > Denigrate: 1,2
> >
> > ...
Note: no response.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: David T. Johnson lies again
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 22:35:29 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Marty writes:
>
> >> Marty writes [to David T. Johnson]:
>
> >>> Do you utilize the same (to quote Joe Malloy) "mythical and ineffective
> >>> lawyer" as Tholen?
>
> >> My lawyer is neither mythical nor ineffective, Marty, despite what Joe
> >> Malloy wants you to think.
>
> > Who is your lawyer and what has he done for you?
>
> You and Malloy made the claim, Marty, therefore the burden of proof
> falls on your shoulders.
I asked a question. I made no claim, Dave. You, however, made a claim that
he is neither mythical nor ineffective, and I was asking for some form of
evidence on that matter.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A classic example of unfriendly Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 22:43:40 GMT
On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 22:23:34 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> 1. You didn't address the point.
>
>Your point boiled down to something ridiculous like Linux users need to
>spend hours with emacs to get their firewall going. I gave it about as
>much attention as it deserved. Perhaps too much.
No. My point boiled down to questions that are asked, ad nauseam in
the firewall groups. Maybe you gave your firewall equal consideration.
What was your IP address again ?
>> 2. You use vulgar language to make yourself feel good.
>
>Well, it was just one word. By USENET standards, that's pretty polite.
>But I'll tame it down a little if you can't take it, you ninny.
You're the ninny around here. You have yet to address the point. Is
that too much to ask?
>> 3. Please stop insulting me.
>
>Only when you stop insulting everyone else's intelligence here.
I'm talking about you, not everyone else around here. Do you need help
to make your point? Evidently intelligence does not apply when
debating you because you have yet to make a single solid point. You
aren't even that good at insulting others intelligence
>> 4. Address the topic, if indeed you can.
>
>See #1, above.
And you STILL have not addressed the subject.
Circular reasoning seems to be common around Linux advocates. Must be
all of those GoTo's in the kernel source :)
>> 5. You are doing Linux more harm than you realize. But go ahead and be
>> my guest.
>
>Wait a sec... Does this mean I can continue to insult you? It seems #5
>cannot coexist with #3 on the above list. I'm impressed -- usually it
>takes a big long post in order for the wintrolls show off their
>inability to grasp basic logic. You must be amongst the best and the
>brightest.
You are the one without ANY sense of logic. You still have not
addressed the point of the thread.
If you want to throw insults that's fine, but I suspect it won't be
long before the Linvocates ask you to stop "helping" them.
>> Idiot, that you are.
>
>Whatever. Twit.
You should know...
claire
>-ws
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: 13 Oct 2000 22:45:05 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Prove it..
Dejanews, moron. That is, if you can figure out how to use it.
We've been over this whole thing a dozen times.
=====.
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 21:19:35 +1000
Once again, Steve, she was comparing Oracle on Linux to Oracle on
the big boxes.
Our DBAs have been running Oracle on Linux as a data warehousing
experiment, and it looks quite promising. We're only running on
a single CPU at the moment, so I can't say how well it scales.
I suspect that the suckiness comes in when they're getting into
the higher TPS figures - when you really need a Starfire or similar.
NT doesn't scale at all well, either, in case you haven't noticed.
Compaq has a conflict of interest here, because they're trying to
push server farms of their SMP boxes running NT and SQL Server as
serious competitors to MVS/DB2 or Starfire/Oracle. If they say
that Oracle on Linux is great they run the risk of enterprises
considering Beowulf clusters of commodity servers (possibly from Dell)
as an alternative.
I'm sorry, but I've never heard of anybody in his/her right mind
running Oracle on NT as a serious server. One startup site I know
of was running Oracle on NT a while back, but as far as I know
they have moved to either Linux or Solaris x86 for performance,
reliability and managability.
The Oracle *client* is a different matter. As I thought I said
earlier, despite Larry's professed hate of M$, Oracle treats
Win32 as the tier-1 platform for the touchy-feely GUI tools.
Even Solaris and HP-UX are typically 6 months behind for that
sort of thing. NT actually isn't a bad desktop O/S, and I agree
that at the moment it's more appropriate for most business users
- where rebooting isn't a major disaster!
It has a much larger installed base than most of the Unix variants,
so Oracle GUI tools go there first. The serious players are
Unix shops, but will put up with using NT for GUI development
until the Unix/X version of a product is released. They're
also very unlikely to tolerate NT as a server in any but
the most trivial application.
The Oracle reference in the Compaq quote was something in passing,
and there was no explanation of why it sucks.
I took it in the context of enterprise computing (ie big servers);
you took it in the context of what you perceive as enterprise
computing (ie the end user). It's like the 4 blind men and the
elephant :-)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> You are playing with words and definitions instead of looking at the
> net result.
>
> If I run Oracle under Windows and am happy with it, like millions of
> people seem to be. Then I try it under Linux and is sucks, like that
> article mentioned, the net result is that the Windows version is good
> and the Linux version sucks.
> Port, recompile or complete re-write the end result is the same.
>
> Why do you Linux people have such a hard time facing reality?
> Next I'll be hearing, "Compaq is NOT Linux", despite the Linvocates
> throwing the fact that Compaq seems to be trying to support Linux into
> every argument.
>
> When Oracle was announced for Linux the Linvocates went absolutely
> wild shouting "now we have a major player on board".
>
> Well it looks like this one, has so far turned into a dud and the
> Linux community is strangely silent about it.
>
> claire
>
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 05:16:11 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (Paul Colquhoun) wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 01:40:05 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> >|They also mentioned how much Oracle sucked under Linux which backs up
> >|my point that Linux versions of Windows applications are somewhat
> >|lacking.
> >|
> >|claire
> >
> >
> >Since when is Oracle a *Windows* application?
> >
> >Yes, it has been ported to windows, but the original version
> >was deveolped for Unix (SunOS or Solaris IIRC).
> >
> >I doubt the Linux port was based on the Windows version, when
> >starting with the generic Unix version would have been involved
> >about 1% as much work.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: David T. Johnson lies again
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 22:46:22 GMT
"David T. Johnson" wrote:
>
> Marty wrote:
> >
> > chrisv wrote:
> > >
> > > Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Psst... I am an OS/2 developer.
> > >
> > > It looks to me like you're doing the harassing....
> >
> > Take another look at where this thread started. Then examine threads with the
> > name "Wenham" in the title (or any correspondence between David and Chris
> > Wenham).
>
> You disagree with my opinions about Wenham's comments...
I pointed out your hypocrisy on the matter. Are you still unable/unwilling to
comprehend this simple point?
> > I'm not denying that I am returning the harassment,
>
> You have not been harassed but you are admitting that you are harassing
> me...
Bzzt. I already presented the evidence showing your harassment of me. You
are once again pontificating on the matter. Here's my evidence again, which
you have yet to refute in any form:
ha·rass (hrs, h-rs)
v. tr. ha·rassed, ha·rass·ing, ha·rass·es.
1.To irritate or torment persistently.
2.To wear out; exhaust.
3.To impede and exhaust (an enemy) by repeated attacks or raids.
den·i·grate (dn-grt)
v. tr. den·i·grat·ed, den·i·grat·ing, den·i·grates.
1.To attack the character or reputation of; speak ill of; defame.
2.To disparage; belittle: The critics have denigrated our efforts.
DTJ] I have only called you a 'liar' and a 'hypocrite.'
Denigrate: 1
DTJ] perhaps you need to reevaluate your surroundings since you fail to
impress me as being extraordinarily bright, yourself.
Denigrate: 1,2
Harass: 1,3
DTJ] H-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e.
Denigrate: 1
DTJ] I doubt that your typical comments can be "dumbed" down any further.
Denigrate: 1,2
Harass: 1,3
DTJ] As for the substance of your comment, it appears to be as garbled
and confused as Marty's.
Denigrate: 1,2
Harass: 1,3
DTJ] I am starting to feel like I am being flamed by a gaggle of
fifth-graders.
Denigrate: 1,2
DTJ] I was pointing to Marty's mental confusion.
Denigrate: 1,2
Harass: 1,3
DTJ] The entire thrust of your posts over the last week seems to be
personal attacks. I am losing respect for you.
Denigrate: 1,2
...
> > but I "didn't start the fire". David feels that he should be able to
> > tell us who the good guys and bad guys are and what people should and
> > should not say.
>
> Again, you disagree with my posted opinions about 1) Wenham's pattern of
> posts, 2) the ugly Tholen "insanity" thread, and 3) the large number of
> off-topic posts.
Again you show evidence of a complete failure to comprehend 2 consecutive
sentences I've written in our recent exchanges. I stated no opinion on these
matters. Rather, I've pointed out the hypocrisy inherent in your opinions.
> Rather than "step in" and offer constructive comments with a differing
> opinion,
Like your constructive comments toward Chris Wenham and Aaron R. Kulkis, for
example? Hypocrite.
> you have chosen to make continuous personal attacks and name-calling
How ironic.
> culminating in a false accusation against me of 'harassment of OS/2
> developers.'
Incorrect. I claimed that one of your statements is a lie. You still fail to
comprehend this fact.
> > Unfortunately, he screwed up and started discussions that fell under
> > his own "should not say" category, and that's when I stepped in.
>
> That is your opinion (which I strongly disagree with) and you were and
> are free to express it.
You were free to express valid reasons for your strong disagreement, but
failed to do so.
> But you are not free to falsely accuse me of harassment of 'OS/2
> developers' or of anyone else.
I accused you of lying. And rightfully so. Re-examine the original exchange
before you waste any more time.
> > He also tends to repeat himself in preference to providing evidence to
> > back up anything he says (look for his references to "garbled,
> > illogical", etc.), but that's another issue.
>
> Yes, it is.
One which further establishes your hypocrisy and ability to pontificate.
> > In short, take another look. Take note of who is providing evidence
> > and who is "snipping" the "irrelevant ranting".
>
> Trimming portions of posts in reply is the privelege of the person
> making the reply.
So is failure to provide evidence, empty pontifications, and hypocrisy
according to your book.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes)
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 22:49:53 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Marty writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> David T. Johnson wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marty wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [repetitive comments snipped]
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry David, you lose.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop being a hypocrite and grow up.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Practice what you preach, Marty.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I wasn't the one preaching about off-topic posting while writing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> such postings.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You were the one preaching about "stop being a hypocrite and grow
> >>>>>>>>>>>> up", Marty.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Very good, Dave.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> So why did you bring up "off-topic posting", Marty?
>
> >>>>>>>>> Just staying on topic. Look at the thread topic.
>
> >>>>>>>> I'm looking at what you wrote, Marty.
>
> >>>>>>> Of what relevance is this self-evident remark?
>
> >>>>>> It shows that you brought up "off-topic posting", Marty,
>
> >>>>> Irrelevant, as doing so was an act of staying on topic.
>
> >>>> Exactly how does that statement represent an act of staying on topic,
>
> >>> See the subject line.
>
> >> See what I was talking about, Marty, which deals directly with what
> >> you were talking about.
>
> > On what basis do you make this claim?
>
> MA] Stop being a hypocrite and grow up.
> ]
> DT] Practice what you preach, Marty.
How does that deal with "Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes)"?
> >>>> when the topic was about you practicing what you were preaching with
> >>>> regard to "Stop being a hypocrite and grow up", Marty?
>
> >>> Incorrect. See the subject line.
>
> >> See what you wrote, Marty:
>
> >> MA] Stop being a hypocrite and grow up.
>
> > Note the nature of the hypocrisy to which I was referring and how it deals
> > with the subject line.
>
> Note how you don't practice what you preach, Marty.
I didn't "preach" about off-topic postings, Dave.
> >>>>>> despite the fact that I was suggesting that you practice what you
> >>>>>> preach.
>
> >>>>> You made no such suggestion, Dave.
>
> >>>> Incorrect:
> >>>>
> >>>> DT] Practice what you preach, Marty.
>
> >>> That's not a suggestion, Dave.
>
> >> Yes it is, Marty.
>
> > Consult your grammar school English teacher to verify that your statement was
> > an imperative.
>
> Practice what you preach, Marty.
Unnecessary, as I already knew that the statement in question was an
imperative.
> > Suggestions are given in a passive tone.
>
> Not necessarily, Marty.
Evidence, please.
> >>>> Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Marty?
>
> >>> Not at all.
>
> >> Then why don't you recognize
> >>
> >> DT] Practice what you preach, Marty.
> >>
> >> as a suggestion?
>
> > Because I am correctly identifying it as an imperative.
>
> You're failing to recognize it as a suggestion, Marty.
Because I am correctly identifying it as an imperative.
> >>>>>> Context, Marty.
>
> >>>>> Like the thread topic, for example?
>
> >>>> Are you able to comprehend that?
>
> >>> Obviously.
>
> >> Then why don't you recognize
> >>
> >> MA] Stop being a hypocrite and grow up.
> >>
> >> as the topic?
>
> > Because the topic is "Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes)".
>
> Yet you were talking about someone being a hypocrite, Marty.
Very good Dave. Note the nature of the hypocrisy to which I was referring.
> >>>> You certainly didn't comprehend that I wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> DT] Practice what you preach, Marty.
>
> >>> Incorrect. You simply failed to realize that it was not a suggestion.
>
> >> How ironic, coming from the person who doesn't recognize it as a
> >> suggestion.
>
> > Where is the irony?
>
> DT] coming from the person who doesn't recognize it as a suggestion.
Repeating your statement does not provide demonstration of irony, Dave.
> > I have correctly identified the statement as an imperative.
>
> You failed to recognize it as a suggestion, Marty.
Because I am correctly identifying it as an imperative.
------------------------------
From: Michael Vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 16:48:28 -0700
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
<snip my stuff>
>
> Most of the vocal and insulting Linux advocates don't use their real names
> - are you saying they should be ashamed of themselves too?
>
> --
> Pete Goodwin
> ---
> Coming soon, Kylix, Delphi on Linux.
> My success does not require the destruction of Microsoft.
Like who? Rex Ballard is the greatest Linux advocate there is,
and he is not shy about his identity.
A note to Rex, I appreciate reading your insightful postings
and I have a great deal of respect for your vast computer
knowledge. Your Linux growth rates might be a bit optimistic
but your detailed history of Microsoft's shenanigans is right
on the money. I have been in the IT field for 15 years and I
have watched the great Microsoft snowjob. Also, I have a copy
of "Inside Windows NT", Helen Custer with foreword by David N.
Cutler; published by Microsoft Press, 1992. It verfifies much
of what Rex is posting.
I do not agree with Aaron R. Kulkis' flavour of politics but
I do not doubt his identity. T. Max Devlin identity seems to
be credible too. Most of the the pro Linux posters have
credible identities.
If the Window advocates are using pseudonyms to avoid spam,
maybe they should investgate all the wonderful tools in Linux
you can use to reduce spam. Thank goodness, Outlook is not
the only email solution.
Michael Vester
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verifiable Linux advocate
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 23:05:03 GMT
And collectively have YET to provide one single shred of evidence that
specifically relates to this group..
claire
On 13 Oct 2000 22:45:05 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Prove it..
>
>Dejanews, moron. That is, if you can figure out how to use it.
>
>We've been over this whole thing a dozen times.
>
>
>
>
>-----.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
