Linux-Advocacy Digest #791, Volume #29 Sat, 21 Oct 00 18:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Run for the hills! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Starting a Linux program in schools (Bill Vermillion)
Re: who's WHINING dipshit! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Pros and Cons of MS Windows Dominated World? ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: who's WHINING dipshit! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Win 2k Rocks!!!! Linux? It's days are numbered on my system. (Jakub Burgis)
Re: Obscurity != security (Was: Pros and Cons of MS Windows Dominated World? ("Bruce
Schuck")
Re: who's WHINING dipshit! ("JS/PL")
Re: Linux security? It's been a busy week. ("Les Mikesell")
Re: who's WHINING dipshit! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
He yttrx...Tell me again about RAS and PSSP....... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Under pressure (Mig)
Re: Pros and Cons of MS Windows Dominated World? ("Les Mikesell")
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! ("JS/PL")
Re: linux questions ("drschwartz")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Run for the hills!
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 20:41:16 GMT
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Erik Funkenbusch) wrote in
> <_T3I5.2345$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >I've owned a TiVo for about 3 months. They've been here in the states
> >for a good 6-9 months.
> >
> >It's really a cool device and it's pretty stable, though the hardware
> >seems to be a bit flaky. I've had to restart it about 3 times (or once
> >a month or so) because the modem stops responding and I notice that it
> >seems to get slower the longer it's on.
> >
> >But all in all, it's a good device. I've even hacked in a new 80GB hard
> >disk to give 127 hours of recording time.
> >
> >As for your busy signals, they probably don't have enough local lines
> >for you.
>
> Sadly I returned it and got a refund. Two reasons: colour kept fading in
> and out, and sound kept clipping. They fixed one fault (a green line at
the
> top) but could only suggest swapping the box for the other two. The local
> store had ran out, so that was that.
Did you change connections after powering up? It seems to only
adjust it's auto-power control on the cable input once as you
power on, so you can see those symptoms if you trade inputs
without a power cycle afterwards. But, if they saw the same
thing after you returned it, the problem must have been something
else.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 20:45:10 GMT
"Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Tony Tribelli wrote:
>
>
> > >
> > > The industry standards and real OS's were around long before DOS for
> > > OC's. IBM had a couple and UNIX was around.
> >
> > Microsoft offered a Unix, XENIX, and users stuck to DOS despite
Microsoft's
> > advocacy for XENIX.
>
> Of course, trying to run UNIX on such computers as were used for
> XENIX would be like trying to drive a Lamborghini in rush-hour
> traffic.
Yes, the most popular in it's day was a Radio Shack box that, if you
powered up the components in the wrong order, was fairly likely
to erase it's disk drives.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,comp.os.linux.redhat
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Vermillion)
Subject: Re: Starting a Linux program in schools
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 20:23:08 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Oct 2000 13:49:17 GMT, John Newsom wrote:
>>I am trying to get a linux/unix administration program started in one
>>of our high schools. Our vocational education program director is
>>unsure of the need. He has done some searching and found very few
>>Linux jobs posted. One of his contacts indicates that Linux represents
>>only 1% of the IT/IS market.
>The point that he's missed completely ( which is unsurprising given
>that he's not a techie ) is that Linux is part of a much larger
>picture.
>In particular, Linux is one of the many UNIX-like operating
>systems on the market. Someone who is proficient in Linux is also
>fairly proficient in BSD and Solaris. You need to point out that
>the skills learned in this program will be broadly applicable.
>Emphasise that it is a *UNIX* administration program, not just a
>Linux program.
There's enough differences in some Linux distributions that being
proficient in one won't neccesarily mean you'd be proficient in
other OS'es, or even other variants of Linux. If you learn the
concepts of hierarchy, everything's a file, etc., you will be ok,
but I surely wish Linux would stop inventing it's own names for
processes that have been in the Unix world for awhile under
different [and the original] naming conventions.
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: who's WHINING dipshit!
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 20:59:28 GMT
"JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Hey JS, tell me how I can get Windows to recognize all partitions on my
> hard
> > drive. I know I can get Linux to recognize the memory it missed with a
> > single line of text.
>
> Windows 2000 doesn't require that extra step. It's capable of operating
the
> basic system all by itself.
>
> >
> > Please tell me how to get Windows to recognize the 5 gigabytes it keeps
> > missing on this 8 gig drive.
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
>
>
> That's a tall order when no information is supplied besides "Windows" and
8
> gig drive.
Don't know about that situation but try installing Windows 2000 in an
all-scsi system with drives bigger than 8 gigs. The largest partition it
will
allow is about 8 gigs, even on the 2nd drive.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Pros and Cons of MS Windows Dominated World?
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 14:02:52 -0700
"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:rykI5.1770$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:sU9I5.113233$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8sr6i8$f1s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > A monopoly is when you have all of them.
> > >
> > > Wrong. For all of you who have flunked Econ-101, you're a monopoly
when
> > > you have such an overwhelming share of the market that you can
> > > effectively excercise control over the marketshare you don't have.
> >
> > If you knew anything about the history of computing you would realize
that
> > Microsoft gained it's market by the stupidity of other companies, not by
> > anything close to a monopoly.
>
> You're saying this in the wrong newsgroup, Bruce. Pretty much everybody
> here, Linvocates *and* Winvocates, knows that IBM handed Bill Gates the
DOS
> monopoly. Until that happened, Microsoft was just another software house.
>
> This is recorded history, Bruce.
>
> > IBM had it's chance. So did Apple. They both blew it. So did many
others.
> > Gates hung in there, made some good choices (and many bad ones), and
kept
> > trying to make his products better.
>
> Because he DID have a monopoly, Gates let DOS just sit there for 4 years,
> just selling the same old code over and over, not improving a thing.
>From this Timeline, please tell us what 4 years DOS did not improve or
Microsoft was not working on Windows or OS/2?:
http://www.worldowindows.com/wintime.html
> This
> is also recorded history. Microsoft didn't lift a corporate finger to
> improve DOS until they actually did have some competition in that are
(DRI).
Bullshit.
>
> > > That's monopoly power. You don't have to have 100% of the market, you
> > > just have to have such a preponderance of the market that what few
> > > competitors exist must either follow your lead or die. That was the
> > > case with Standard Oil, IBM, AT&T, and now Microsoft.
> >
> > Standard Oil and AT&T were monoplies.
> >
> > IBM and Microsoft are not.
>
> You were under the impression that in order to be a monopoly, a company
had
> to have 100% of the market. That was as of what, yesterday afternoon?
And
> since then learned enough about economics and law that you are able to
state
> that most of the world is wrong about Microsoft being a monopoly?
>
> Wow, you must study really hard.
Microsft will win on appeal just like IBM did. It's a done deal.
>
> >
> > Microsoft has competitors for every product they make.
> >
>
> Where are the IBM Windows and Sun Windows and even Red Hat Windows
operating
> systems? You know, Microsoft's competitors in the Windows market.
Thats one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Thats kind of like
accusing Ford of having an Explorer monopoly because GM or Toyota doesn't
make Ford Explorers.
Duuhhh. What a moron you are.
Windows is an Operating System sold by Microsoft.
Linux is an OS sold by 45 or more different companies and they compete with
Windows to be the OS on a PC.
IBM makes other OS's like OS/2 and AIX.
And the Apple OS is OS 9 and maybe someday OS X.
And Sun has an OS that competes with Windows called Solaris.
And Novell has Netware.
etc etc.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: who's WHINING dipshit!
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 21:10:11 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I went crazy with a similar problem.
>
> I have a USR V.Everything Courier internal (non Winmodem).
>
> The default was setup as a link to /dev/modem which would not work.
>
> I was getting the dreaded ppp timed out error.
>
> /dev/cuax did not work either.
>
> I had to change it to /dev/ttsyx (I believe that's correct) to get it
> to work.
>
> Works perfectly under Windows as well as under DOS using QuickLink or
> Procomm.
That's been documented for a long time (but note that it is really the
device
major/minor number that control it, not the names that happen to be
pointing there). Once upon a time the device connected to the /dev/cu*
names did not require carrier detect to be up for open() to complete so
you could chat with the dialer with programs written before the posix
ioctl()'s to control serial ports were standardized. The /dev/tty* devices
had the normal unix semantics of waiting for CD so programs waiting
for inbound calls would block in open() till a call arrived. However,
the posix standards for opening without waiting and ioctls to establish
the desired behaviour have long been accepted and the backwards
compatibility of the cua* devices was dropped to avoid prolonging the
confusion about how serial ports are supposed to work.
In other words, the problem you describe should have been avoided
by never using the cua device in the first place.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Jakub Burgis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win 2k Rocks!!!! Linux? It's days are numbered on my system.
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 22:07:46 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said something like...
<snip>
> And you know the best part?
>
> I didn't have to read one page of instructions and I've never had to
> open the manuals for any of the programs I use, except for my digital
> audio programs which are very complex.
>
> And again, I have never used any variation of NT before.
>
> With Linux, I spend more time reading poorly written documentation and
> less time using my programs all to achieve a second rate end result.
I really love it when people make such superb attempts to troll
others.... Win2000 works for you - so use it. End of story.
--
Jakub Burgis
hingleton*at*freeuk*dot*com
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.security.misc
Subject: Re: Obscurity != security (Was: Pros and Cons of MS Windows Dominated World?
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 14:22:21 -0700
"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2000 08:46:50 -0700,
> Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Bruce Schuck wrote in message ...
> >> >
> >
> >> >See #2. Open source means the source code is available for all hackers
to
> >> >peruse. Scary.
>
> Plonk!! You know *nothing* about security.
>
> You don't need source code to find security holes. You just use a
> sophisticated scanning tool and probe a test machine for buffer
> overflows.
>
> Without source code, you can't fix holes, and the vendor can deny the
> bug even exists.
>
> What you are preaching is known as "security thru obscurity", which
> nearly every security expert on the planet has regarded as
> fallacy. From the preface of Bruce Schneier's "Applied Cryptography" -
> http://www.counterpane.com/ac2preface.html
>
> "If I take a letter, lock it in a safe, hide the safe somewhere in New
> York, and then tell you to read the letter, that's not
> security. That's obscurity. On the other hand, if I take a letter and
> lock it in a safe, and then give you the safe along with the design
> specifications of the safe and a hundred identical safes with their
> combinations so that you and the world's best safecrackers can study
> the locking mechanism--and you still can't open the safe and read the
> letter, that's security."
>
> You need to learn that.
>
> >> Open source means that people can find the flaws, and either fix them
or
> >> tell people about them so that others fix the flaws. The majority of
> >> "security announcements" for open source products are fixes for
potential
> >> holes that are found and patched long before anyone has found a way to
> >> exploit them.
> >
> >Wrong. In fact CERT is changing it's announcement policy because people
> >aren't fixing the problems.
> >The script kiddies still love Linux and Unix.
>
> No, you're wrong. CERT is not a statistic. They merely provide
> information. It's up to admins to use that information. With
> Linux/Unix, more information is availabe because it's open, which
> ultimately results in more secure software.
>
> Here is a statistic:
>
> http://www.attrition.org/mirror/attrition/os-graphs.html
>
> NT gets cracked more than anything. And with most of those NT machines
> NOBODY KNOWS HOW THEY WERE CRACKED!!!. THAT'S REALLY SCARY!!!!
The latest graphs, for August 00, shows Linux is now in the lead in Web site
defacements:
http://www.attrition.org/mirror/attrition/os-graphs.html#OSTOT2
The moving averages show Linux's defacements accelerating while NT is
dropping.
http://www.attrition.org/mirror/attrition/os-graphs.html#SPECIAL
Linux is now the in the lead!!!!! ... in defacements.
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: who's WHINING dipshit!
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 17:21:23 -0400
Reply-To: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2000 06:13:14 GMT, Mike Byrns wrote:
> >
> >
> >2:1 wrote:
> >
> >> > And to top it off I believe X makes you log off and back on just to
change
> >> > the screen resolution. Windows doesn't.
> >>
> >> Well, you believe completely wrong.
> >> crtl+alt+'+'
> >> Switches to the next enables resolution.
> >> ctrl+alt+'-'
> >> switches to the previousle enabled resolution
> >>
> >> So to top it all, unless you're adding a driver that can't be compiled
> >> as a kernel module, you have to reboot. And that'r rare.
> >
> >How about one that uses a different X server?
>
> I don't understand your point. All X servers that require kernel support
> that I've seen are available as modules. And there are only a very few
> X servers that require kernel modules.
>
> >Please show that switching to any of the the most optimized drivers for
all
> >the most current cards do not need a reboot in Mandrake 7.2b3. I'll test
it
> >for you.
>
> Well I don't have Mandrake but I don't see how it should require a reboot.
>
> Shut down the X server, unload any kernel modules it uses, install the
> new X server, load any kernel modules it uses, start the new X server.
Here's what was said:
"And to top it off I believe X makes you log off and back on just to change
the screen resolution. Windows doesn't."
Which it does
http://proof.dynip.com/res_proof.gif
Windows 2000 just changes the resolution on the fly, with programs open
leaving your current productivity un-interrupted. No logging off and back on
just to get higher resolution, and it does
it all without a hitch. Win2k also will change the resolution back after 15
seconds should the new resolution somehow not allow the person to verify a
readable screen after the change has been made. It's just plain slick. :-)
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux security? It's been a busy week.
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 21:31:17 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> http://www.linuxsecurity.com/vuln-newsletter.html
> >>
> >>
> >> Better get going Linonuts.
> >> It's going to be a busy week.
> >>
> >> claire
> >
> >Perhaps you want to deal with this one before looking for linux problems:
> >
>
>http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0%2C1199%2CNAV47_STO52573_NLTam%2C00
.html
> >
> > Old news.
Yes, to the hackers that have been exploiting it. Not to the
customers with internet-exposed machines that received
no notification about the problem.
> The patch was released in August and it pales in comparison to all of
> the vulnerabilities released in just the last week for Linux.
>
> claire
If the problem was known in August, why did I only find out about it this
week and why was it posted to Bugtraq last Tuesday? This is the problem
with closed, proprietary programs. Some people knew about this, and
might have been exploiting it all that time.
None of the Linux vulnerabilities you mentioned (which weren't just
Linux, by the way...) had any internet exposure on my machines, nor
any reason to think others know about them for any length of time before
the report was made public.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: who's WHINING dipshit!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 21:38:22 GMT
Ok.
I think I understand the theory, but....
why does Mandrake as well as RedHat use a /dev/modem sym link that
does not work well?
Sometimes it would work fine, others it wouldn't.
The /dev/ttsyx worked every time for me though.
Kppp also installs it that way, and at least on my system it didn't
work. Got the old ppp daemon died message (timeout set to 60 seconds).
I had to keep selecting different devices in the pull down until I
found one that worked ok.
I only tried /dev/cuax on a whim to see if it worked.
The solution was to use /dev/ttsyx.
On Sat, 21 Oct 2000 21:10:11 GMT, "Les Mikesell"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> I went crazy with a similar problem.
>>
>> I have a USR V.Everything Courier internal (non Winmodem).
>>
>> The default was setup as a link to /dev/modem which would not work.
>>
>> I was getting the dreaded ppp timed out error.
>>
>> /dev/cuax did not work either.
>>
>> I had to change it to /dev/ttsyx (I believe that's correct) to get it
>> to work.
>>
>> Works perfectly under Windows as well as under DOS using QuickLink or
>> Procomm.
>
>That's been documented for a long time (but note that it is really the
>device
>major/minor number that control it, not the names that happen to be
>pointing there). Once upon a time the device connected to the /dev/cu*
>names did not require carrier detect to be up for open() to complete so
>you could chat with the dialer with programs written before the posix
>ioctl()'s to control serial ports were standardized. The /dev/tty* devices
>had the normal unix semantics of waiting for CD so programs waiting
>for inbound calls would block in open() till a call arrived. However,
>the posix standards for opening without waiting and ioctls to establish
>the desired behaviour have long been accepted and the backwards
>compatibility of the cua* devices was dropped to avoid prolonging the
>confusion about how serial ports are supposed to work.
>
>In other words, the problem you describe should have been avoided
>by never using the cua device in the first place.
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: He yttrx...Tell me again about RAS and PSSP.......
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 21:40:43 GMT
I'm still waiting, and I don't intend to let you off the hook until
you have once again been exposed as a liar.
claire
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Under pressure
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 23:44:13 +0200
It seems Micros~1 is under pressure. They have this add on CT.
http://www.koehntopp.de/kris/msad.jpg
Translation " an open operating system does not only have advantages" -
well they claim Linux mutates .
With this add they validate the advantages of Linux as a serious competitor
that threatens them.
Cheers and have fun
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Pros and Cons of MS Windows Dominated World?
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 21:49:29 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:d%9I5.10466$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> MS, through hard work, trial and error, and savvy business practices,
> enventually beat them at their own game and won the favor of paying
> customers.
It is really no use making such claims now that the facts have been
revealed by the trial.
> MS, on the other hand, refuses to fall prey to the same fate as
> their predecessors and revels in the challenge of competition
> and sees fit to improve and innovate.
DOS 4.0 was the best example of the MS response to competition.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 17:52:21 -0400
Reply-To: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:U7nI5.10566$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Truckasaurus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8spa52$snk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <55CH5.13009$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > What I stated about Linux not being able to detect RAM properly is a
> > > simple
> > > > fact, check it.
> > >
> > > Maybe on your planet, Chad. But here on earth, Linux has always
> > > detected my RAM just right. And my partitions have also been detected
> > > right, not like Windows 95, which once detected my Linux partition as
> > > being an "audio CD"...
> >
> > It has never detected my RAM just right. 66mb is all it shows. Why?
> > I take that back - I don't care why.
>
> Linux doesn't 'detect' RAM, it uses the value supplied by the motherboard
> bios.
Then why does the BIOS post test, BIOS configuration screen,, Win98, WinMe
and Win2k all report the correct amount on my system (224mb), yet the
Mandrake installer and operating system get it wrong (66mb)?
------------------------------
From: "drschwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: linux questions
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 15:04:14 -0700
what do you mean 'The bit advantage to developing on Linux is that you can
run what you
write for your device, on your desktop.'? Also, how small is small?
Thanks in advance,
David
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
