Linux-Advocacy Digest #649, Volume #29 Sat, 14 Oct 00 04:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux Out perfoms Windows (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Astroturfing ("ostracus")
Re: The Power of the Future!
Re: Why does Linux have to be such a pain to install? - A speech ("kosh")
Re: Microsoft kicked off the Web! (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: The Power of the Future! (Mike Byrns)
Re: A classic example of unfriendly Linux (Arthur Frain)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Out perfoms Windows
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 06:23:46 GMT
In article <8s0ksu$clv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Many real world benchmarks have already
> been done with regards to Linux and Windows 2000.
>
> Windows 2000 has shown itself to outperform
> Linux is almost every benchmark.
It's worthy to note that most of these benchmarks are between
Windows 2000 and Linux 2.2.xx on SMP servers in configurations
particularly hostile to Linux (quad ethernet cards, quad
processors, playing into the Linux 2.2 single spinlock - a
known problem corrected in the 2.4 kernel). Also, file sizes
and configurations are chosen to exploit NTSF most effeciently,
and applications have been rewritten to exploit Windows 2000
features such as MTS.
Put simply, Windows 2000 is about 30-40% faster than Linux under
such conditions. This makes since, since Windows 2000 is nearly
50% faster than Windows NT (using a different set of benchmarks).
> Even Linux' traditional strong points such as OpenGL performance is
> outclassed by Windows 2000.
Right again. Linux 2.2 and Xfree 3.x are slower than Windows 2000,
especially if you're using any of the SVGA/FrameBuffer drivers.
Of course, Linux 2.4 and Xfree 4.0 are much faster than Linux 2.2 and
Xfree 3.x, nearly 3-4 times faster (depending on which benchmarks
you're using).
Add to that the fact that Linux can now "Cheat" in the Winbench
competition, since Tux runs under the kernel. Just running Tux
on a 2.2 kernel seems to have made Linux 3 times faster than Windows
2000 (in untweaked Winbench tests).
It's highly unlikely that we'll see a formally published benchmark
bake-off between Linux 2.4/Xfree 4.0 any time in the near future.
> I doubt your simple 'for-next' benchmark is
> an accurate indication of the performance differences.
It was amusing. First of all, Windows has software in the GDI that
prevent the screen from scrolling too fast. After all, what's the
point of scrolling 20,000 lines per second when you can only see
25 lines at a time and only 60 frames per second (about 1500
lines/second). When a text display tries to exceed that limit,
it must wait for a vertical sync indicator before the next display.
Sure, X11 doesn't do that, because the assumption is that if you
really wanted to see everything, you would have piped it to "more".
Either you only needed to see the last few lines, or you will stop it
using x-off/x-on controls (ctl-S and space usually work pretty well).
> You didn't even specify what kind of platform you
> are running on!
It wouldn't matter. Linux would dump as fast as the memory allowed,
Windows NT would assure that every character was displayed for at
least 1/60th of a second.
> Even motherboard differences can give an edge in performance.
> A 'real' benchmark needs to be done on the exact same hardware.
> ie... the same box.
Again, this is an indefensible benchmark which merely exploits two
very different and deliberate design choices. It's no more of an
indicator of performance than comparing a formula 1 dragster to a
U-haul truck with a governer that prevents it from exceeding 60 mph.
Each was designed differently, for different purposes.
Quite simply, if you're using gobs of memory for a laptop or desktop
configuration, both will be "fast enough" with even 600 Mhz Durons.
If you're using gobs of memory and multiple processors, each can hold
their own with 200 megabytes/second in bandwidth, limited by the
motherboard backplanes, not the operating systems. Linux 2.2 has a
known bottelneck (not enough spinlocks) which has been resolved in
Linux 2.4 (now capable of supporting some rediculous number of
processors - 32 or 64?). After all, IBM, Sun, and HP were all beating
on it with their S80, E10K, and 9000/X machines (top line engines with
as many as 64 processors per cage).
Also, 2.4 has support for multiple clustering software (TurboLinux et
al) packages, and with MQSeries 5.2 support, can support message
passing clusters as well.
> -Todd
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8s054h$5jh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > HI,
> >
> > If you are a c++ programmer, then try this
If you really wanted to have some fun with benchmarks, try porting the
bytemarks benchmarks to Windows 2000. It might take a bit of
shoe-horning, and probably won't be a legitimate test, but bytemarks
between Linux and other UNIX variants have proven very interesting.
It will be interesting to see if anyone actually does an "official"
benchmark of their database on Linux. I have a feeling that Linux 2.4
with DB/2 would not only blow away the $/TPM mark, but also the
total TPM for machines in that class.
To this day, no one has published an "official" benchmark result
for a combination of political and legal reasons. One "unofficial"
benchmark resulted in an estimate of $3/TPM on the TPC-C benchmark.
I saw the benchmark the hour that it was posted, and it was removed
in less than a day, along with an apology for the broken link,
explaining the position of the TPC benchmarking body. Put simply,
you aren't allowed to post result without the blessings of all parties
involved. And database vendors don't want to alienate the server
vendors, and server vendors don't want to alienate the database vendors.
I would not be surprized if IBM, Sun, and HP all published Linux
numbers in the next year, especially $/TPM numbers.
--
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.
------------------------------
From: "ostracus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 01:32:52 +0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Followups set accordingly]
> Exactly!
>
> Linux sinks like a lead balloon under it's own weight. It's sinking
> faster than the Titanic all on it's own. Sure as hell doesn't need any
> help from me.
>
> claire
>
> "If You Think You Hate Linux Now Wait Till You Try It"
[Holding Claire's feet to fire]
Keeping in mind these statements by you.
[Roberto Teixeira]
>I have to agree with you. A lot of people come to newsgroups and simply
>start saying a lot of things they have no proof of. Usually they simply
>say that "it has been proved over the years" or something like this.
[Claire Lynn]
I realize this and I am proven guilty of making generalizations all the
time. I take my lumps, concede if I have been proven wrong and move
onward.
And
"Suppose "I" said Linux crashes continuously when running on Duron chips
and then did not provide any proof?"
And (driving point home)
"If you can't at least make even a lame attempt at backing up your
statements, it is you who are the Astroturfer."
Now since we can agree on some things. Care to give proof of this "lead
weight" "Faster than the Titanic" effect you mentioned?
--
There was once a young man who, in his youth, professed his desire
become a great writer.
When asked to define "great" he said, "I want to write stuff that
the whole world will read, stuff that people will react to on a
truly emotional level, stuff that will make them scream, cry, howl
in pain and anger!"
He now works for Microsoft, writing error messages.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 07:38:17 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 10/13/00, 6:43:56 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck) wrote regarding=20
Re: The Power of the Future!:
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 06:21:35 GMT, Mike Byrns
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> MS would not let a kook like you near any corporate site and give
> >> details on the usenet.
> >Drestin has been much better behaved in recent posts. Kook is an ad
> >hominem attack on his credibility.
> Yes, it was ad hominem, but "Drestin" has a long history of posting in=
> comp.os.linux.advocacy. He much predates your posting here, so you
> have seen only the most recent "Drestin" posts. A number of long
> timers have a history with "Drestin".
"Ad hominem: Appealing to personal considerations rather than to=20
logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that=20
question their opponents' motives."
I suppose the question is, Is Drestin a factual authority on Hotmail? =20
MS, like any large company, is NOT going to allow someone to post=20
corporate info on a sensitive migration in a public newsgroup so they=20
can banter about Windows and Windows 2000. If that's an Ad hominem=20
attack then it is - to me it's really about credibility of facts and=20
the illogical premise that this guy is going to have detailed=20
information about MS's hotmail architecture and performance AND be=20
allowed to post it on USENET in the format and context that he uses. =20
------------------------------
From: "kosh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why does Linux have to be such a pain to install? - A speech
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 00:38:25 +0600
In article <8s8kh3$rc7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I've been reading all these messages around the internet about how
> easily people have been setting up their Linux distributions. I'm here
> to tell you that it is in fact, not easy at all to setup a Linux
> distribution onto an older machine. I'm a software developer in real
> life, and have been pushing my company to support more and more open
> source solutions. I don't know why I've been doing this now, because I
> have tried over the last two months to get my RedHat 6.2 distribution
> setup on my older Compaq 133mHz machine. It took me several tries to
> get it running, and a little personal help from a linux guru. After
> that, I could never get the damn thing to talk to the internet. Why? I
> don't know why, I have a 3C509B-TPO card, I guess I have to do more than
> disable the PNP etc, blah, blah, blah. I have a Linksys firewall in
> which it can talk to, but it refuses. I'm wondering why I don't just
> set up another windows os on that machine. It's easy, and it works.
> But, I HATE WINDOWS!! I own RedHat stock, I'm pushing for open source
> solutions, but admit it!!! Linux is NOT ready for primetime as far as a
> personal computer, desktop solution. Save the figures about Apache on
> the web, and SendMail, I'm talking about a home computer desktop
> solution!!
>
Try Mandrake 7.1 or the soon to be released 7.2 Although I think the
largest problem might be the fact that it is a compaq machine. I have had
more problems with compaqs then almost any other machine with the
exception of acer and packerd bell. The boxes are very proprietary and in
general not very well made. OTOH their server models are nice and work
very well. It is just their desktop machines that bite. Mandrake is
overtaking redhat in sales for a reason. It is an easier to install and
use distribution.
I am starting to get tired of redhat. I have had people install it the
complain to me how linux is not easy to use and they installed redhat and
it proved that. However I have been able to get most to give it a second
chance and try mandrake and they changed their opinions. For what you
want you should just wait a few weeks for 7.2 and install that or install
7.1 and upgrade later. I have been using mandrake for a while now and am
very pleased with it as a dist. It does a good job with security and
stability. Also some of the packages from the next release are very nice
.
My system is pretty bleading edge right now I have been keeping my system
updated against cooker and it is still not breaking.
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft kicked off the Web!
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 07:02:58 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Microsoft has such a small grip on the WEB you could functionally
> declare their bid for the market over.
>
> I think they just keep it open to say they have one.
Two things happening here. Microsoft is getting a smaller and smaller
share of the server market (but still growing slightly), but they are
targeting strategic servers, such as the front-end web server.
> Linux kicked Microsoft's butt in 1999 on server sales in general.
Actually, between Linux and BSD (FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD), these
two pretty much dominated the market. Sun's Solaris got the bulk of
the Big Ticket Revenue, and IBM and HP were behind Microsoft. Of
course, this year, both HP and IBM are offering Linux on everything
from their micro-laptops to their top-line mainframes.
Linux on S/390, seems to already have a market.
> This year proves to be little different.
>
> When it comes to WEB serving or just general office file serving,
> Microsoft is disappearing from the scene.
Many companies are switching their existing NT servers over
to Windows 2000, simply because they need the extra speed
and capacity. Even then, most of them are switching very slowly
since applications need to be redesigned to exploit the Windows 2000
features (and the market doesn't seem to be there).
Meanwhile, many customers are asking for UNIX flavors. It's
easier to put an older UNIX version on a Solaris or AIX box
and front-end it with Linux/Apache than it is to develop
custom software for Windows NT server. Many companies are
even beginning to offer BSD and Linux versions of their vertical
market packages. This will be good news to many doctors, lawyers,
and farmers who switched to Windows or Windows NT in the 1990s and
are ready to go back to web-enabled UNIX systems.
> The boxed server software is still there for sale, but companies
> are just not buying it anymore.
Ironically, Microsoft has been killing it's own market. They
created checks that now make it impossible to develop server
software on workstation editions. This makes Windows 2000 very
unpopular with consultants who must to either get access to
their own server or actually fly to the client location and
fight for time on the server console.
Meanwhile back at the ranch, Linux is making it very easy
to develop, not only for other Linux systems, but for other
UNIX systems as well.
It's actually interesting how quickly people make the transition
from Windows NT/2000 to Linux to Solaris or AIX (no experience
observing the transition with HP_UX yet).
> I wonder how much workstation Linux will get in 2000.
An interesting new metric has popped up. As you may have
read in other "Linux Browser market" surveys, Linux has often
been undercounted because it uses signatures that aren't easily
distinguished as Linux. Recently, as more people are using squid
to cache proxy requests, squid is suddenly showing up (it's signature
is CGI) at about 2.5% Given other known phenomenon, such as ipchains
(makes dozens of linux systems look like one), and "IP counting"
(assumes that each IP address has only one browser or browser type),
that cuts the market estimate to about 1/4 to 1/2 the actual count,
Linux could have anywhere between 5% and 10% of the market. It looks
like growth is still strong, with many companies still reporting
year-over-year growth of 250-270%.
Given an estimated 350 million web users, this would put Linux at
anywhere between 17 and 40 million. Given that this is only a
count of web browsers, and would not include Linux browsers
directly connected to the web, Linux systems that are dual-booted
to run Windows when browsing, or Linux systems that share memory using
VMWare or Wine, it's very likely that there could be as many as 50
million Linux users, with an additional 50 million likely to arrive
within the next 7-9 months.
> That's Microsoft's final frontier!
Microsoft is by no means dead in the water. On the other hand,
they only sold 1/2 million copies/day in their first week. That's
about 1/2 the sales volume of either Windows 95 or Windows 98.
Given the softer demand for Windows ME, OEMs and Retailers will
need something else to "jazz up the market". Sure, some companies
will upgrade workstations to Windows 2000, but there's no hurry
(and many reasons to stick with NT).
Meanwhile, Linux now comes to the forefront as the "great hope" of
something "new and different" to get the market excited. It's quite
likely that Linux will give the consumer something interesting,
something to play with, to want, to buy. Maybe they'll still keep
their Windows 95/98/NT boxes, but they'll want to try Linux too.
The only question left is "who will be the first"?
> Charlie
--
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.
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 07:17:46 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> On 10/13/00, 6:43:56 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck) wrote regarding
> Re: The Power of the Future!:
>
> > On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 06:21:35 GMT, Mike Byrns
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > >> MS would not let a kook like you near any corporate site and give
> > >> details on the usenet.
>
> > >Drestin has been much better behaved in recent posts. Kook is an ad
> > >hominem attack on his credibility.
>
> > Yes, it was ad hominem, but "Drestin" has a long history of posting in
> > comp.os.linux.advocacy. He much predates your posting here, so you
> > have seen only the most recent "Drestin" posts. A number of long
> > timers have a history with "Drestin".
>
> "Ad hominem: Appealing to personal considerations rather than to
> logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that
> question their opponents' motives."
You called him a kook. It indicates you felt personal enough to call names
in order to question his logic or reason. BTW where did you get that
definition? I like it :-) Is is available online for reference? BTW, given
your superior position on this by virtue of my admission that I value your
definition, I expect to lose the ad hominem point.
> I suppose the question is, Is Drestin a factual authority on Hotmail?
I doubt it too :-) But I do know a few things about his work and I can
vouch (if his testimony can be trusted) that he understands UNIX to Windows
migrations. In fact it is his work by his own admission.
> MS, like any large company, is NOT going to allow someone to post
> corporate info on a sensitive migration in a public newsgroup so they
> can banter about Windows and Windows 2000.
But it's not so hard to get a tidbit or two of insider info from Microsoft
employees venting on IRC here and there :-) After all it's a free country.
Heh. So maybe he can't quote it but I've seen it too.
> If that's an Ad hominem
> attack then it is - to me it's really about credibility of facts and
> the illogical premise that this guy is going to have detailed
> information about MS's hotmail architecture and performance AND be
> allowed to post it on USENET in the format and context that he uses.
And maybe you'll have to prove that Microsoft is NOT running any kinda UNIX
behind the DMZ :-) Moot point. Consider pride? :-)
MS wants to lose nix as soon as it can. Why would it not? Some nix
advocate will find that chink in the wall and prove that they are still
using nix? Nah, because they as I do, really think that Windows is better
than any nix when "all" things are considered.
BTW, please don't save your only "real" statement for the end of the post.
We've all seen that fatigue strategy. Say what you mean and don't cloud it.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 00:48:05 -0700
From: Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A classic example of unfriendly Linux
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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 ?
I'll address your "point" (pointless as it is) first:
Using SuSE Linux in any of the distributions running the
2.2 kernel (which goes back quite a while - 2 years?),
setting up ipchains requires that you read the manual
section devoted to this and edit (IIRC) 2 scripts -
one to turn on ip forwarding (one parameter), and one
to configure packet filtering (4 parameters, I believe).
This takes *at most* 5 minutes. I've done this three
times over the last few years (once on, once off, and
once more on again recently) - a total investment of
15 minutes. My description may not be entirely correct,
as I don't do this often enough to have the whole
thing memorized. There are also some nice GUI tools
(like gfcc) for tuning packet filtering.
What is time-consuming about ip masquerading is that
Win98SE is incapable of retaining the necessary setup
information to make either networking or ip forwarding
possible - the one Win98SE machine (my daughter's) we
have continually detects a second network interface card
on reboot which makes networking non-functional on that
Win98SE machine. The fix requires deleting both NIC's
and letting Win98SE re-detect the one and only NIC that's
really there, and then reconfiguring the gateway. This
process (assuming no crashes) takes about 30 minutes
given the reboots (one very lengthy) required. Sometimes
Win98SE bluescreens during the process, which means you
have to start over from scratch, meaning it can take
almost an hour. We go through this every time the
machine crashes (which can be several times a week) -
we don't power down so we can avoid having to do this
several times daily).
Doesn't really seem to be too important how fancy
your ip forwarding software is if the underlying
OS is incapable of functioning over a network. Is
this something you think the average Win98SE user
should be capable of diagnosing and repairing
repeatedly? (This problem has existed for us
from the first time the computer was used - before
any non-MS software was installed)
The last time it happened, Win98SE also reported the
registry was corrupted and ran a registry restore tool
(similar to scandisk at boot). Just as an aside, I think
it's interesting that MS now provides an automatic tool
for fixing the registry, even though Windows advocates
claim it never gets corrupted. Seems about the same as
the W2K tool for handling 'dll hell" (which Windows
advocates claim never existed), or the claim that NT
never crashes but W2K is 13 times more stable (even
though Bill himself says stability is never a reason
to upgrade).
You're basically comparing a functioning, reliable OS
(Linux) to a piece of crap (Win98SE). It seems largely
irrelevant how easy it is to configure something that
isn't capable of functioning in the first place.
> >> 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?
I have addressed your "point", so I'm sure you won't
object now when I point out that you have in the past
posted things which were crude and downright pornographic,
as well as extremely homophobic. Pot:Kettle:Black.
> >> 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
Another pot:kettle:black - you have admittedly been
trolling this newsgroup for several years under a
variety of names, and have repeatedly invented cute
little names for Linux advocates to accomplish your
only apparent goal of ridiculing Linux advocates
on this ng.
IMHO you have forfeited any claim to be treated with
any kind of respect at all, as you have repeatedly
failed to treat people here with any modicum of respect.
And now you add hypocrisy to the list.
> >> 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 :)
I have addressed the "subject", which, as far as I can
see is not a subject at all. OTOH, this is no different
than the usual uninformed crap you've been posting for
several years and doesn't deserve much response beyond
insults directed at you.
The simple fact is that the biggest problem with ip
masquerading under Linux is getting Windows based
machines to function in a networked environment -
any networked environment.
> >> 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.
Anybody who feels the need to insult, ridicule, direct
profanity at you, or kill file you if they choose has
my unqualified support. You've earned that kind of
treatment, and worked hard over several years to accomplish
that.
A good place to start would be for you to post a sincere
apology to everyone on this ng.
Arthur
(who thinks you've migrated from uninformed twit to
sanctimonious asshole).
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
