Linux-Advocacy Digest #849, Volume #29 Tue, 24 Oct 00 22:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Gallup site down, Call Microsoft support (lyttlec)
Re: Linux Beats NT! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: ReiserFS (Charlie Ebert)
Re: KDE2.0 released! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux IS an operating system, Windows 9x and ME are not, here is (mlw)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (Bob Hauck)
Re: back-up for linux workstation.. (Bob Hauck)
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! (Bob Hauck)
Re: Win 2k Rocks!!!! Linux? It's days are numbered on my system.
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Linux IS an operating system, Windows 9x and ME are not, here is (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Win 2k Rocks!!!! Linux? It's days are numbered on my system. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux IS an operating system, Windows 9x and ME are not, here is (mlw)
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! ("Chad Myers")
Re: $1,000 per copy for Windows. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: $1,000 per copy for Windows. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! ("Chad Myers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Gallup site down, Call Microsoft support
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 01:37:57 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, lyttlec
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Tue, 24 Oct 2000 00:18:47 GMT
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Nigel Feltham wrote:
> >>
> >> > Build under gcc on linux gave me the expected results. VC++ under
> >> >windows 95 gave me the *runtime* failure message of "Program
> >> >C:\...\testaloc.exe Invalid allocation size: 4294967295 bytes." So I
> >> >guess Windows can't recover from memory allocation errors (suprise!).
> >>
> >> What is the result under NT and Win2K or even win98 and winme - maybe it's
> >> been fixed since 1995 (unlikely but you never know) - also what does it do
> >> on a 1995 vintage linux (pre 2.0 kernel probably in those days)?
> >I tried it under NT. Same results. I also found that it would claim to
> >successfully allocate 469,762,048 bytes of memory on a system with 128M
> >ram. It takes a while and every thing hangs until it is done. This led
> >me into finding lots of new (for me) ways to crash NT :)
>
> Two questions.
>
> [1] How big is the paging file?
> [2] Is it dynamically resizable? If so, how much free disk space?
>
> In Windows NT, for better or for worse, the paging file (NT's
> name for the swap, and yes, it is a file: C:\PAGEFILE.SYS on
> most systems), can be set to be static or dynamic in size.
>
> You can imagine what that can do to disk fragmentation. :-)
>
> In Linux, one has to work at fragmenting a disk; swap either has
> to be dedicated to a partition, or the file created beforehand
> and "signed" prior to use using commands like:
>
> dd if=/dev/zero of=/usr/tmp/swap1 bs=1024 count=1024
> mkswap /usr/tmp/swap1
> swapon /usr/tmp/swap1
>
> (this creates a 1MB swap file and enables it).
>
> I don't know the maximum number of swap partitions allowed on a system.
> I suspect 15. :-)
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
It was paging, but not only to the local hd. I don't understand why, but
it pages over the network. You can imagine how slow it is. Kick off the
program and nothing happens for 3-5 minutes before it returns success
and a truly fragmented hd. In the mean time it lookes like your system
is locked up. If you kill it locally, it leaves something running on the
network that causes problems elsewhere. Afterwards all the windows leave
droppings everytime moved or resized and eventually the system crashes.
We managed to mess up the mail server while playing around, and trash
some files on a remote drive. I understand this problem has been fixed
in the latest version of VC++, but it shouldn't have been possible in
the first place.
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Beats NT!
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 01:42:58 GMT
Jeff Hall wrote:
> Drestin Black wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Of course, Attrition.org very intentionally combines NT with W2K so as to
> > make it look like nothing has changed - when in fact if they were charting
> > W2K seperately it would have THE lowest number of defacements of ALL OSes
> > they track. But, they wouldn't do that, no... <sarcasm>that would make it
> > look like <gasp> W2K is secure!</sarcasm>
> >
>
> Yeah, the problem is, the two or three sites using W2K can't keep it up long
> enough for anyone to deface them.
> Besides, when it does happen, you'd say it was just a (l)user problem anyway.
I have to agree.
Microsoft Web servers account for less than 10% of the worlds web servers.
Apache is 6 times their size in useage.
We are also not accounting for EASE of HACKNESS here.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ReiserFS
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 01:44:13 GMT
Marc Bonanova wrote:
> Why the Hell ...
>
> ... a) does the kernel include Reiser nowadays ?
Linus says as of 2.4.1 it will.
>
>
> ... b) doesn't each distro include the possibility of installing
> or upgrading over a Reiser filesystem ?
It's already in Mandrake and Suse. Don't know about anybody else.
Dont' know why Debian didn't include it.
There is a new EXT2 file system which was supposed to surpass
Reiser also comming out.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE2.0 released!
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 01:45:41 GMT
sfcybear wrote:
> And looking good! Another advantage for the opensource incramental
> upgreads! Despite the fact that the Linux2.4 kernel is not ready, I have
> upgraded the windows manager. With MS, I just can not do that!
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Oh yeah!
KDE 2.0, Linux 2.4 and Xfree 4.0 already out.
I can't wait for my Christmas present!
FreeBSD speedo's --- LOOK OUT FOR ME!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux IS an operating system, Windows 9x and ME are not, here is
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 21:48:06 -0400
Goldhammer wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Windows 9x "DOS/Windows" is not an OS. Windows NT/2K are vastly
> > different and are operating systems. Oddly enough, Win32 on NT is not
> > the actual operating system, it is an emulation layer on top of the NT
> > operating system. Which many experts claim is based on VMS. (and I
> > agree)
>
> I find it very interesting to note how you phrased your
> final comments here:
>
> "...NT... Which many experts claim is based on VMS. (and I
> agree)"
>
> This is very interesting because it reveals that even
> for such a knowledgeable, experienced, and well-spoken individual
> such as yourself, the issue of NT's relationship to VMS still
> (apparently) amounts to some kind of belief or gut opinion.
> If indeed this was a known, provable fact, then you would not just
> claim to agree with the "experts", but you would simply
> state the claim as a fact.
[snipped]
> PS. You're one of the guys I follow regularly on
> usenet, and I would much appreciate some technical
> elaboration on your part regarding this NT/VMS issue.
*Flattery is is usually very effective*
OK, I admit I was being a bit dodgy on the VMS NT thing, but that was
because I was attempting to focus on DOS/Windows vs Linux, and didn't
want to debate two different subjects in an active thread. Seeming as
this thread is sort of dying out:
The guys over at http://www.sysinternals.com/ did a multipart article in
(I think) Windows magazine explaining why Windows NT was "ready for the
Enterprise" The basis for their conclusion was striking similarities
between the design of NT and that of VMS.
Give it a read: (This link worked when I posted this message)
http://www.win2000mag.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=4494
I have worked on VMS myself, and agree with you, the user interface is
totally different, but that is to be expected because you are using an
emulated shell over the actual NT OS.
I have had some very limited exposure to low level VMS, and am an NT
kernel developer. While reading some of the NT DDK stuff, it had
occurred to more more than once that, just as MS did before with QDOS,
they did about the same thing with VMS.
(Leaving actual OS innovations to a whopping zero)
Also, while I can't use this as a "fact" I do have a friend who worked
at Apollo, who claims to know some of the DEC VMS guys that went over to
Microsoft, and claims that they told him that that they had seen their
own comments, from the VMS code, in the NT code. Hearsay, I know, and I
wouldn't believe this from an NG either, but I it is just one more clue.
There are lots of urban legends out there about it, but space aliens did
not write VMS and NT. The sysinternals guys, however, are very
knowledgeable, and when compared to the likes of Andrew Schulman, I
would tend to put a higher value on their opinions.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 01:43:51 GMT
On 23 Oct 2000 20:29:16 -0500, Relax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>No no, I didn't reverse anything.
I misread your post. Sorry.
>This has nothing to do with hardware display drivers of printer drivers. One
>notable difference is that on NT/2000, that graphical subsystem is partially
>in kernel space for performance reasons.
Well, that one notable difference is a fairly important one, I would
think.
>> Anyway, the client machine, where the program runs, does not need any
>> display hardware or drivers at all, only the X libraries
>
>Same here. But the graphical subsystem is still required, X lib or Gdi32
It is not the same. Out of the box, NT cannot run in console mode.
Unix can, even while running GUI apps that display remotely.
>Exactly the same with Terminal Server, just many times faster. (This last
>point will be hard to prove here. I hope you get a chance to check it out
>yourself)
Well, not exactly the same since some of the GDI runs in kernel mode on
NT, as you just said up above there.
Many times faster? Color me skeptical. I would hope, though, that it
is at least _somewhat_ faster, given that they've had 20 years to
improve on how X does it.
I'm also skeptical that all Windows apps will work perfectly fine with
TS, given that many of them seem to have troubles with even simple add
ons like multiple desktop managers and things like XFeel that change
the focus policy.
>The entire documentation is online for you to check at
Thanks, but I have actual work to do that doesn't involve learning the
innards of Win32.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: back-up for linux workstation..
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 01:43:52 GMT
On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 14:35:06 -0500, Rajendra Jadhav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I wanted to know what type of backing-up system can I use for my Linux
>workstation..like can I use a cd writer..or a jazz drive..or something like
>that.
Yes.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 01:43:54 GMT
On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 13:19:33 GMT, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In all fairness to Chad, Linux does not detect RAM correctly on certain
>> computers.
I don't feel any need to be fair to Chad.
>Certain? How about the majority.
It detects the 96 MB in the kid's computer. It detects the 128 MB in
the machine at work. It detects the 256 MB in the web server I help
with, it detects the 256 MB in another computer I have access to. It
detects the 48 MB in this laptop and the 64 MB in my home desktop.
In fact, since kernel 2.2 came out I don't have any computers where the
memory isn't detected right. I understand there are still some that
don't work right, but it sure doesn't seem to be the majority.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Win 2k Rocks!!!! Linux? It's days are numbered on my system.
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 01:48:13 GMT
On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 16:57:59 -0700, Bob B. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You and MS deserve each other, troll.
>Could you please remind me again which line of my post mentioned MS ?
>
You're still a stupid troll.
<plonk>
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 01:51:40 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:IXfJ5.15976$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > What I stated about Linux not being able to detect RAM properly is a
simple
> > > fact, check it.
The fact is that your bios is broken. I have installed on dozens of
motherboard/bios combinations with up to a gig of RAM and
none have missed yet.
> Ask several frequent posters of your own COLA group, they admitted it
> earlier that Linux uses a broken BIOS call that only returns the
> first 64MB of RAM. Their words, not mine. If you don't believe them,
> well...
You don't have to ask anyone - just look at
/usr/src/linux/arch/i386/boot/setup.S
and you will see the 3 different ways that it checks.
> Really? I've installed Linux now on about 8 or 9 different, unique
> systems. I've used RH 6, 6.1 and now 6.2 and, with none of those
> versions, and on none of those machines did it every once detect
> the ram correctly. These systems ranged from Pentium 233's, to PII's
> to PIII 850's.
You must be extremely unlucky at being able to select standard
hardware. Try a stock Intel motherboard. Or check your
motherboard vendor's web site for a bios update.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux IS an operating system, Windows 9x and ME are not, here is
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 01:52:38 GMT
Goldhammer wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Windows 9x "DOS/Windows" is not an OS. Windows NT/2K are vastly
> > different and are operating systems. Oddly enough, Win32 on NT is not
> > the actual operating system, it is an emulation layer on top of the NT
> > operating system. Which many experts claim is based on VMS. (and I
> > agree)
>
> I find it very interesting to note how you phrased your
> final comments here:
>
> "...NT... Which many experts claim is based on VMS. (and I
> agree)"
>
Yeah, yeah, yeah. And it was CPM's fault then!
They based CPM on VMS!
How diabolical!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win 2k Rocks!!!! Linux? It's days are numbered on my system.
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 01:55:29 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 20:46:17 GMT, "Marc Bonanova" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > As a home desktop environment, Windows 2000 is even worse than
> >Linux compared to Windows 98, and I can prove it to you whenever
> >you want.
>
> One word:
>
> "Quicken"
>
> claire
You know they have Quicken for Linux now.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux IS an operating system, Windows 9x and ME are not, here is
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 22:01:36 -0400
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> Goldhammer wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Windows 9x "DOS/Windows" is not an OS. Windows NT/2K are vastly
> > > different and are operating systems. Oddly enough, Win32 on NT is not
> > > the actual operating system, it is an emulation layer on top of the NT
> > > operating system. Which many experts claim is based on VMS. (and I
> > > agree)
> >
> > I find it very interesting to note how you phrased your
> > final comments here:
> >
> > "...NT... Which many experts claim is based on VMS. (and I
> > agree)"
> >
>
> Yeah, yeah, yeah. And it was CPM's fault then!
> They based CPM on VMS!
Actually CP/M shared some utility program names, like "pip" "peripheral
interchange program" if memory serves. Probably just because the
developers used VMS to write the beast, and the program names and
operation would be familiar, but uther than that, CP/M has very little,
if any, similarity to VMS.
I did, in fact, have both a Kaypro and a Visual 1050 CP/M machines.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 00:46:18 GMT
"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:MdoJ5.7779$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:XYfJ5.15977$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Shannon Hendrix" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8t2458$15a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <WGgI5.32396$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > Otto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > This is not true. Sigh...
> > >
> > > The problem is that when Linux is being loaded, a check was made,
> > > basically a BIOS call for memory (can't remember which one), and it
> > > often returned 64M at the most. If you knew you had 128MB of RAM then
> > > you added a boot parameter to Linux to tell it how much RAM you had
> > > since your BIOS/motherboard combination couldn't get it right.
> > >
> > > This is a PC/BIOS bug, not a Linux bug.
> >
> > No, it's a linux bug. Windows detected it just fine. In fact, I've
> > installed BeOS on a couple of my systems and BeOS detected it just
> > fine as well.
> >
> > It's most certainly a Linux bug, or rather, like everything else
> > in linux, a major design flaw.
> >
> > -Chad
>
> Whatever it is, adding a line of text to a Linux startup file fixes
> everything.
Ah, is that how you achieve a fraction of the compatability that
Windows benefits from? Adding lines to text files? This is a no brainer,
the kernel should detect the RAM. No more excuses, no more BIOS blathering,
other OSen detect it successfully, why can't Linux?
> What line do I add to any Windows startup file to enable it to recognize and
> use all of my hard drive?
Are you referring to the fact that Windows can't detect ext2 partitions?
Linux can't detect NTFS partitions let alone mount them without experimental
drivers and even then, good luck. There are also experimental drivers for
ext2 on Windows, but again... good luck.
Or are you referring to the fact that older Windows can't detect the space
on drives larger than 8.4GB? This was Pre-SP4 NT 4.0. I'll have you know
that until recently, Linux couldn't detect this either. It was mainly a
huge leap in HD technology that left most OSen in the dust and patches
were hurriedly released.
> If your disgust with Linux over the RAM issue is
> sincere, you must be ready to return Windows for a refund over the hard
> drive issue, eh?
> I take it your a dedicated BeOS man?
Nah, just farted around with it when BeOS 5 personal came out. The argument
was that there was some MS conspiracy that MS forced hardware vendors
into putting in proprietary BIOS calls to detect the total RAM, which
is a big pile of crap. The fact that BeOS detected it as well proves
this asinine theory wrong.
BeOS 5 couldn't even set up basic VGA video. It defaulted to 640x480x2
in software mode which was horrendous as you can imagine.
MS must be doing something magical because it can always seem to manage
to detect the basic layout of the hardware and find a hard disk, find
a video adapter, find all the RAM, etc. I've never seen a Windows95 or
later on a system NOT be able to establish at LEAST 640x480x8. However,
I've seen BeOS and X flop and flail on basic video hardware (like a
Chips and Technologies 65555 chipset which is a pretty basic commodity
chipset and widely available on many low-end laptops) and not be able
to et 640x480 but rather set up something completely unusable like
320x240.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: $1,000 per copy for Windows.
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 21:20:55 -0500
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Well why?
> > >
> > > Microsoft OS's almost double in price with every version they
> > > put out. W3k is $350 a throw in most places.
> >
> > What are you talking about? Windows 2000 is the next version of Windows
NT
> > 4. If you had any sense, you'd notice that Windows 2000's price is
> > identical to that of Windows NT 4.
>
> Bullshit!
>
> Windows NT 4.0 was $189 at Comp USA.
> Windows 2000 is $350 almost!
Look at the MSRP. And I think you'll find the $189 version is the upgrade.
> Pull your head out of your ass man!
You're the one that seems to not know what he's talking about.
BTW, street price on Win2k Pro is $299
http://www.compusa.com/products/products.asp?prodzip=&srch_type=catg2&catego
ry_id=16
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: $1,000 per copy for Windows.
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 21:22:11 -0500
"Goldhammer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:0kqJ5.56887$N%>
>What are you talking about?
> >Windows 2000 is the next version of
> >Windows NT 4.
>
>
> Really? Is that how we are to imagine
> it? Then it shouldn't be a problem
> replacing some servers on an NT
> network with Win2K. I should expect
> seamless integration, right?
>
> Let me know how it turns out.
Many companies have done just that. Hell, Microsoft runs it's entire
microsoft.com domain on Windows 2000.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 00:49:19 GMT
"Michael Marion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > Certain? How about the majority.
>
> That's crap. I've installed linux on 5 different models (and 3 different
> brands) of laptops, as well as on systems totalling about 20 different
> motherboard brands/models/BIOS brands etc with >64Meg of RAM... and I have
> _never_ run into that "sees 64Meg only" problem. We're talking boxes with
> P5s, PIIs, K6s, Athlons, etc.
So I guess this mix of 8 or 9 systems I have (Compaq, generic laptops,
misc Dell systems, and a Gateway 2000) not to mention several of my friends'
(who actually assisted me originally in getting the mem= deal in the lilo.conf)
are miracles or something?
Either you're lying, or extremely lucky. I'm referring to Red Hat Linux
6.0 - 6.2
-Chad
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
