Linux-Advocacy Digest #822, Volume #29 Sun, 22 Oct 00 23:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! ("Otto")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! ("Otto")
Re: $1,000 per copy for Windows. ("mmnnoo")
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! (.)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux "Family Edition" ("mmnnoo")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 22:33:41 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Weevil in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Weevil in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >Actually, it *has* been clearly defined as illegal in a case involving
>> >Kodak. It is not the act of combining the two products that is the
>problem,
>> >since one product might depend completely on the other. (Film is useless
>> >without a camera, Windows was useless without DOS). It's actually a
>> >combination of a number of facts that make it illegal. Crucial here are
>A)
>> >Microsoft had monopoly power in at least one of the markets, and B) DR
>DOS
>> >did not compete with Windows.
>>
>> Yes, I agree with you for the most part. But whether the Kodak
>> precedent applies does reflect somewhat on your previously chosen
>> characterization. It wasn't the facts which didn't support the claim of
>> illegality, but your description of why/how they were illegal. Sorry
>> for being a bit pedantic, but I am concerned about that fine
>> hair-splitting, as it is used by MS defenders to claim doom-and-gloom
>> results of the application of law, so I wanted to be clear about it.
>>
>> On that note, one small nit to pick on your current comments. To be
>> considered illegal tying, Microsoft merely needs to have *market power*
>> in one of the markets. The amount of market power necessary is not
>> clearly defined, as Judge Jackson noted, but is certainly less "monopoly
>> power". Since Jackson had already determined that MS had monopoly power
>> in PC OSes, he considered that they must, logically, have sufficient
>> market power.
>
>Actually, I don't remember if it was the Kodak case that was applied in this
>instance. I remember reading about Kodak being used as a precedent, and it
>was the only legal citation I could remember by name. I don't think it was
>the Kodak case Funkenbutch quoted though. I seem to recall it having
>something to do with camera and film and Kodak having monopoly (or possibly
>"market", as you say) power in one or the other, and being sure that their
>camera only worked with their film, not with any competitors' film, even
>though film doesn't compete with cameras.
To be honest, Weevil, unless you've distinct knowledge to the contrary,
I'd guess that you are probably mis-remembering an imaginary
illustration of tying and the Kodak case cited by MS II and Judge
Jackson, which is the controlling precedent, currently, for tying cases.
Along with Jefferson Parish, which was when a hospital in Louisiana
tried to bundle anesthesiology (spell-checker, save me!) services with
hospital fees for surgery. Their defense was that the equipment and
billing and such was the same, so it was efficiency which drove them to
combine the services. (In reality, it appears that it was the
anesthesiologists which had "leverage" with the hospital that wanted to
lock out competition.) The Supreme Court found that since customers
wanted them to be separate services, they were. Kodak was similar, but
you can see why the difference necessitated Supreme Court review; the
market wanted spare parts as a product, independent of support contracts
as a service.
>Or something like that. After Funkenbutch challenged it and demanded
>precise legal citation, I did a cursory search at google and came up with
>nothing. So I might be wrong about which case applied to which violation.
>I didn't expect (though I obviously should have) someone to start acting
>like a lawyer and expecting me to do legal research, or I would have been a
>lot more careful about citations.
I frankly suck at legal research myself. The few sparse links I have to
the most recent decisions and laws are rather spotty, particularly when
it comes to the last fifty years of routine anti-trust litigation.
Just in case you'd like to bother (its quite fascinating stuff, all of
it), here's a short list of my primary links:
http://www.ripon.edu/Faculty/bowenj/antitrust/INTRO.htm
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20001002/pl/scotus_playstation_1.html
http://uscode.house.gov/title_17.htm
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/foia/divisionmanual/ch2.htm
http://www.econ.umn.edu/~matheson/antitrust.html
http://www.urich.edu/~jolt/v1i1/liberman.html
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_index.htm
http://www.opensource.org/halloween/
http://www.brillscontent.com/features/bill_0998.html
http://www.drdos.com/fullstory/factstat.html
http://www.ddj.com/articles/1993/9309/9309d/9309d.htm#0272_000e
http://www.drdos.com/fullstory/dsprgmnt.html
http://m2.aol.com/machcu/mspquotes.html
http://www4.bluemountain.com/home/ImportantNotice.html?020399
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199806/97-5343a.txt
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f4400/4469.htm
>Anyway, whether it was in the Kodak case or some other case, I am 99.9%
>certain a legal precedent had already been set which made it illegal for
>Microsoft to deliberately make Windows incompatible with DR DOS. Microsoft
>was also aware they were contemplating an illegal act, as is shown by their
>email.
>
>But you already know all this. :)
Yes, but you still say it well. The point I have to add is that the
resultant consent decree is what, ironically, prevented Microsoft from
getting a "slap on the wrist" in the way of having to unbundle IE and
continue to dominate. The fact that the "Chicago" consent decree, the
ultimate extension of the strategy the emails you cite outline, embodied
in legal fibbery, was toilet paper is why the DoJ pressed anti-trust
charges. While failure in the contempt case might have meant
un-bundling, failure in the anti-trust case, once the spotlights were
focused, will mean an OS/Apps split.
>> "In a sense, you lock cloners out of the WIN4 market, but we only
>> benefit from this if you increase the price of WIN4 to
>> be that of WIN3 + DOS. Otherwise, we've destroyed the DOS market under
>> WIN4, revenue-wise, so this is a phyrric
>> victory."
>>
>> Gordon Letwin, March 8, 1991
>> http://www.drdos.com/fullstory/factstat.html
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 22:40:14 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Weevil in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Weevil in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> [...]
>> >> No, Barett was suggesting and talking about a method to make Windows
>work
>> >> better with DOS, and in so doing make Windows "bound" to DOS.
>> >
>> >Good grief. You're either illiterate or utterly dishonest.
>>
>> Well, we did, in fact, already know this, Weevil. In all fairness,
>> opening up a response with an ad hominem attack is not good form, though
>> I can scarcely fault you for pointing out the obvious. Still, I think
>> you'll see that removing this vitriol only enhances your argument:
>
>In this case, I really am not concerned with showing "good form."
>Funkenbutch is a shill, and an unusually dishonest one at that.
Well, they're generally all dishonest, so far as I can see.
>And by the
>way, calling him that does not constitute and ad hominem attack in this
>particular instance (though it was ad hominem in the article you replied
>to).
Yes, I was quite well aware of that.
>Also, it would be impossible to enhance this argument. There *is* no
>argument. You can't enhance the truth.
But you are, indeed, begging the question when you say so. What is the
truth is always arguable, I'm afraid and glad to say.
>> >The only evidence Caldera didn't have was a videotape of the programmers
>> >actually typing in the code, complete with dramatic zooms in on the code,
>> >while Silverberg, Ballmer, and Gates stood in the background, cackling
>and
>> >sticking voodoo pins in a shrink-wrapped box of DR DOS. And even with
>that,
>> >I suspect you'd still try to defend them somehow.
>>
>> Show me the law that says its illegal to cackle and stick voodoo pins in
>> your competitor's package? :-)
>
>LOL!
I knew you'd find that amusing. I'm still chuckling. Aren't we silly?
But then again, I always laugh when I read the words "Show me the law
that says...." I just can't help it. :-)
>Why does a request like that seem out of place in a Linvocate's article but
>not in a Winvocate's?
Well, I think maybe you're becoming jaded, because it does seem out of
place in a Winvocates; that's my point. It is out of place in anybody's
article. Its just the Winvocates who don't recognize that.
>> >Caldera had more than enough evidence to prove their case. That's why
>> >Microsoft settled out of court for such a huge amount.
>> >
>> >And no, I have no proof that it was really a huge amount. But it was.
>>
>> I am willing to bet that it was at least two billion dollars, and I'm
>> quite sure that the $275 million figure being batted around is a red
>> herring purposefully "leaked" by Microsoft.
>
>I suspect you're right. Microsoft paid a *bundle* to avoid what might have
>happened.
>
>And you know what? I will never forgive Caldera for taking the bribe.
Nor will I. Obviously, they refuse to allow the strength of Ray
Noorda's conviction to stand in the way of making money. For that, I
will never buy one of their products if I can avoid it. It will do no
good, but its all I can do.
I think it was Gandhi who said "Know that what you do is meaningless.
And know that it is important that you do it anyway."
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 22:41:19 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >
>> >"Tired O'Shills" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Simon, you continue to meet my expectations. Shill.
>> >
>> >Nyah nyah ne nyah nyahhh.
>> >
>> >Oh Joe, you make me laugh so.
>> >
>> >Simon
>> >
>>
>> My god, man. Have some dignity.
>
>No thanks; it gives me gas.
>
>Mr. Brownell is amusing.
I'm sure Joe Brownell is as amused to see you "out" him as I am. Why
don't you stray over the line of civility in some other groups for a
while, "Simon".
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 02:42:38 GMT
"JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: That's quite odd because the combined statistics of all web sites (566,000
: of them) using thecounter.com's counter shows Linux OS users to be about
: "0%" out of 458,991,203 combined visitors last month. Hmm...
:
: September 2000
: 1. Win 98 303539944 (66%)
: 2. Win 95 76819732 (16%)
: 3. Win NT 34527360 (7%)
: 4. Win 2000 15454715 (3%)
: 5. Unknown 12760235 (2%)
: 6. Mac 9667128 (2%)
: 7. WebTV 3114516 (0%)
: 8. Linux 1373239 (0%)
: 9. Unix 888184 (0%)
: 10. Win 3.x 755419 (0%)
: 11. OS/2 64124 (0%)
: 12. Amiga 26607 (0%)
:
: And note that numbers of Linux users are actually DOWN 11% from July 2000
: even though total visitors are up by 9.5% (43 million).
:
: Now lets look at July 2000 502,483,035
:
: 1. Win 98 318538810 (63%)
: 2. Win 95 101594073 (20%)
: 3. Win NT 41047771 (8%)
: 4. Win 2000 11423496 (2%)
: 5. Unknown 11038874 (2%)
: 6. Mac 10700310 (2%)
: 7. WebTV 4098814 (0%)
: 8. Linux 1543963 (0%)
: 9. Unix 1214391 (0%)
: 10. Win 3.x 1168735 (0%)
: 11. OS/2 79389 (0%)
: 12. Amiga 34409 (0%)
:
: http://www.thecounter.com/stats/
Wow, Linux actually passed Win 3.x!! Although not because Linux is growing
so fast, more likely because Win 3.x machines are dropping. It seems that
WebTV is more popular than Linux....
Otto
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 19:40:10 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Well, remote terminals may have been (depending on your definition of
> "remote"), but internetworking certainly does not predate Unix, though
> it does predate when Unix had internetworking.
My apologies. Yep; it predates when UNIX had it. Unix would not appear to
have had TCP/IP until 1980; internetworking certainly existed before then.
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 19:42:19 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I'm sure Joe Brownell is as amused to see you "out" him as I am. Why
> don't you stray over the line of civility in some other groups for a
> while, "Simon".
Well, "Max", my name really is "Simon", and frankly I'm amused to see him
call me a "shill".
Not to mention posting under his pseudonym and his real name with the same
email addresses is kind of stupid.
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 02:52:02 GMT
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: Otto wrote:
:
: > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: >
: > : > Linux does detect the memory correctly, although it uses only the
first
: > 64
: > : > MB of it until you change some configuration files. Chad might've
meant
: > : > that. The only distro I've seen which detects and uses all of the
memory
: > was
: > : > Caldera 2.4.
: > : > As for the "audio CD" part.... nah, no comment.
: > : >
: > : > Otto
: > :
: > : That would be a totally incorrect answer also.
: > : IN-FACT, it's totally full of shit.
: > :
: > : I just wanted to clear that up with you.
: >
: > Really? The following is a quote straight from the Linux
BootPrompt-HowTo
: > manual:
: >
: > "The original BIOS call defined in the PC specification that returns the
: > amount of installed memory was only designed to be able to report up to
: > 64MB. Linux uses this BIOS call at boot to determine how much memory is
: > installed. If you have more than 64MB of RAM installed, you can use this
: > boot argument to tell Linux how much memory you have. The usage of this
: > argument mem= parameter."
: >
: > Any question shit head?
:
: No it doesn't meat head!
Useless stuff snipped...
: Notice on the line above, we are using 128 mb of memory.
:
: Okay!
:
: Case closed.
:
: So you can pull your head out of your asshole now.
: The Kernel nor Lilo use bios for anything. They haven't for
: a very long, long time.
All depends on the hardware being used for a long long time, not to mention
the Linux distro what you're actually using. That should have been clear
from my original posting.
:
: I think I've had sex since then. It's been that long.
Satisfying yourself doesn't really constitutes as sex, that's only the beta
version :).
Otto
------------------------------
From: "mmnnoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: $1,000 per copy for Windows.
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 02:54:30 GMT
It would be interesting to learn more about the background of this study.
What's your guess on its origin? Have you read it? It's almost insane.
It's kind of weird to think that Microsoft might actually see it this way,
as the irreplaceable, sovereign savior of the computing world.
I'm crossposting this to comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy because it
might be more on-topic there.
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:hAvI5.2862$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Where is your evidence that this study was paid for by Microsoft?
>
> Or is your thinking that anything pro-MS must have been paid for by them?
>
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Here's a paid study which claims the cost of
> > a Windows OS would be over $1,000 per
> > copy post the breakup of Microsoft.
> >
> >
> > http://www.actonline.org/pubs/remedies3.pdf
> >
> >
> > Seems like I've said this before!
> >
> > http://24.94.254.33/Linux/intro.html
> >
> > Humm.
> >
> > I must be nostradomus!
> >
> > Charlie
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: 23 Oct 2000 02:58:53 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Actually I've been looking at it for an hour, and I'm still not sure
> what you are trying to say and how your "facts" prove your point.
Maybe the same guy who wrote a half dozen of your posts for
you yesterday can help you out.
=====.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 23:01:29 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Well, remote terminals may have been (depending on your definition of
>> "remote"), but internetworking certainly does not predate Unix, though
>> it does predate when Unix had internetworking.
>
>My apologies. Yep; it predates when UNIX had it.
Of course it does.
>Unix would not appear to
>have had TCP/IP until 1980; internetworking certainly existed before then.
Actually, putting it like that is somewhat debatable. Simple existence
of TCP/IP is not really what makes it internetworking, as I've
mentioned, in a way. It is a crucial component, of course, but could be
replaced with any other suitable alternative, if necessary.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 23:03:48 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> I'm sure Joe Brownell is as amused to see you "out" him as I am. Why
>> don't you stray over the line of civility in some other groups for a
>> while, "Simon".
>
>Well, "Max", my name really is "Simon", and frankly I'm amused to see him
>call me a "shill".
>
>Not to mention posting under his pseudonym and his real name with the same
>email addresses is kind of stupid.
Only if your intent is to deceive. Its certainly preferable to actual
anonymity, isn't it? Aside from making it difficult to know what to use
as a casual reference, "Tired O'Shills" sounds more like he's trying to
communicate, in a whimsical way, that he's sick of people like you, who
show a complete lack of intellectual integrity.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "mmnnoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux "Family Edition"
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 03:07:08 GMT
I've already seen that webpage into in at least 3 other postings in
different newsgroups. I wonder how many pageviews it gets in
a week. It would be kind of fun to see analogous pages assembled
for some non us countries to see what their most derided stereotypes
are like.
"Sponge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I just got this great idea to boost the sales of Linux. What if they
released a
> distribution called Linux "Family Edition" like Norton and other companies
have
> done?
>
> It would certainly make Linux seem more attractive to a casual buyer.
>
> I have even found the perfect family for them to put on the cover of the
box!
>
> http://www.firstworld.net/~smcdonal/trailerpark.html
<snip>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
