Linux-Advocacy Digest #903, Volume #29 Sat, 28 Oct 00 21:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux ("Colin R. Day")
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Hullo, Claire, James? Here's another dork for you ("none")
Re: Linux ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Linux ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Oracle say's Microsoft no good! ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Oracle say's Microsoft no good! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Can Linux "cut and paste" ? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Hullo, Claire, James? Here's another dork for you (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Can Linux "cut and paste" ? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Hullo, Claire, James? Here's another dork for you (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Astroturfing ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Astroturfing ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Oracle say's Microsoft no good! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Tuff Competition for LINUX! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why don't I use Linux? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 20:10:28 -0400
Brandon Van Every wrote:
> "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
> > Linux is hardly "roll your own" nowadays.
>
> So you're saying a novice user doesn't have to know anything about
> command lines, /dev/whatever devices, what source code is, the
> functionality and implications of major and minor library releases, how
> to compile, what the different layers of the UNIX/X11 model are, and he
> doesn't ever have to type cryptic commands in ASCII .TXT files to
> configure things and/or make them work? There are nice easy
> dumb-it-down point-n-click GUI interfaces for everything nowadays?
Some distros have pretty much gotten there.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 00:14:13 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:6PIK5.4698$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > (1) There are more Linux web servers than there are NT web servers.
> > Numbers are logically higher.
>
> There is no evidence to support this. Netcraft does not count the number
of
> servers, it only counts the number of hosts. A single server can have
> multiple, even 10's of thousands of hosts.
But there is no reason other than your imagination to suggest that
Linux is so much more robust than the other systems that it would
be used to support an atypically high number of virtual hosts.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "none" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hullo, Claire, James? Here's another dork for you
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 13:17:08 -0800
the fact that linux is different, security issues are addressed ASAP,
alerting users of upgrades and/or to avoid the known security issues.
However at MS, they first go into denial, then, a few days later... "oh we
do have a problem..." well we havent got a patch yet, we'll just wait... a
week later (or even more) ..they issue a patch.
this shows open source, is so much better, most of the time, its an old
package that requires updating..MS dont want to acknowledge that there
product is flawed. But atleast with most Linux distros, they fix the bugs
before it becomes a bigger issue.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I know that. No OS is immune and there will always be somebody who can
> come up with a better mouse, despite state of the art mousetraps.
>
> claire
MS "head in the sand" and its true.
> >If you were to subscribe to BugTraq for a period of time, you would
> >quickly discover that Windows does not have significantly fewer
> >security problems than Linux. To think otherwise is to stick one's
> >head in the sand.
>
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 20:13:38 -0400
Brandon Van Every wrote:
> "Matthias Warkus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
> > You think InstallShield is a *decent* *package* *management* system?
>
> It mostly works. Sometimes uninstalls get funky. But generally
> speaking, installation is idiot proof.
So is rpm.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 20:16:27 -0400
Brandon Van Every wrote:
> "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
> > And which facts should he cognize there?
>
> I'll offer you my world view free of charge. 20% of the world is real.
> You can bang your shins on it. 80% is nonsense we make up between our
> ears. Trying to figure out which is in the 20% and which is in the 80%
> is highly problematic.
I might change that to 20% of the claims about the world are correct.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Oracle say's Microsoft no good!
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 20:16:56 -0400
michelle makitra wrote:
> >
> >
> > By 2005 Microsoft will be displaced by
> > LINUX - THE POWER OF A GNU GENERATION!
>
> LOL. Oh man, do people ever learn?
In your case, not yet.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 00:22:23 GMT
Relax wrote:
> "2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > [x86 fairly slow context switching]
>
> > (another reason why W2K can't make a
> > great server--poor hardware)
>
> >, whereas (again, IIRC) SPARCS are much
> > faster.
>
> Apparently, people testing database speed found otherwise. Currently, the
> fastest 64 CPU, $48M SPARC based computer holds the 9th rank while an Intel
> based computer, for 1/4 of that price, goes more than three times faster.
> Incidentally, Intel based computers running Windows 2000 currently hold the
> top four positions. Even if the benchmark is crap etc etc, CPU context
> switch doesn't seems to have such a dramatic effect on final server
> performances.
This will ensure your private customer data will be stolen and defaced
at WARP SPEED!
Charlie
--
Charlie
By 2005 Microsoft will be displaced by
LINUX - THE POWER OF A GNU GENERATION!
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Oracle say's Microsoft no good!
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 00:28:19 GMT
michelle makitra wrote:
> >
> >
> > By 2005 Microsoft will be displaced by
> > LINUX - THE POWER OF A GNU GENERATION!
>
> LOL. Oh man, do people ever learn?
Microsoft hasn't grown in almost 5 years.
Linux is the ONLY operating system with a
sustained growth rate.
I agree sir. Will people EVER read statistics
and see that a 9 year - steady growth rate
means anything?
--
Charlie
By 2005 Microsoft will be displaced by
LINUX - THE POWER OF A GNU GENERATION!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Can Linux "cut and paste" ?
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 00:43:47 GMT
On Sat, 28 Oct 2000 21:52:13 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Thinking this is a Netscape problem, I use the kde browser and go to
>the same website and try it again.
>
>Same results.
Hmmm...works for me between NS 4.75 and the kedit from KDE2 using the
email form on my website. The Edit->Paste item is greyed out in NS,
but I can highlight in kedit and then click the middle mouse button in
NS and it pastes.
>What am I doing wrong here?
Try making sure that the text is still highlighted in kedit when you
click the middle button in NS. If that isn't the problem, maybe
there's something going on with Javascript.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hullo, Claire, James? Here's another dork for you
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 00:47:11 GMT
Windows is SOOOOO GOOOOD Claire_Lynn that
they stole the whole W2K code base.
It's good to the last byte.
And it makes a wonderful communist operating system.
Charlie
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I know that. No OS is immune and there will always be somebody who can
> come up with a better mouse, despite state of the art mousetraps.
>
> claire
>
> On Sat, 28 Oct 2000 19:43:48 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck) wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 28 Oct 2000 16:51:38 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>You post an entire YEARS worth of security problems with Windows.
> >>
> >>I post ONE WEEKS worth with Linux, and my list is still longer than
> >>yours.
> >
> >If you were to subscribe to BugTraq for a period of time, you would
> >quickly discover that Windows does not have significantly fewer
> >security problems than Linux. To think otherwise is to stick one's
> >head in the sand.
--
Charlie
By 2005 Microsoft will be displaced by
LINUX - THE POWER OF A GNU GENERATION!
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Can Linux "cut and paste" ?
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 00:50:20 GMT
I'm sorry but I thought this FIRST NEW TITLE since
the release of the Microsoft HACK series of bulletins
was a REAL RIB SPLITTER!
Microsoft HACKED!
Wintroll response. "Does Linux CUT and PASTE"?
Charlie
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I write a text article using kedit and I want to cut and paste it
> into a web page currently displayed by Netscape. I highlight the text,
> select copy or cut and then put my mouse over the box displayed by
> Netscape where I want to paste the text. Only problem is the Paste
> selection in the menu is greyed out.
>
> Thinking this is a Netscape problem, I use the kde browser and go to
> the same website and try it again.
>
> Same results.
>
> This works perfectly under Windows on the same site.
>
> What am I doing wrong here?
>
> FWIW I am running SuSE 6.4.
> claire
--
Charlie
By 2005 Microsoft will be displaced by
LINUX - THE POWER OF A GNU GENERATION!
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hullo, Claire, James? Here's another dork for you
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 00:55:18 GMT
none wrote:
> the fact that linux is different, security issues are addressed ASAP,
> alerting users of upgrades and/or to avoid the known security issues.
> However at MS, they first go into denial, then, a few days later... "oh we
> do have a problem..." well we havent got a patch yet, we'll just wait... a
> week later (or even more) ..they issue a patch.
> this shows open source, is so much better, most of the time, its an old
> package that requires updating..MS dont want to acknowledge that there
> product is flawed. But atleast with most Linux distros, they fix the bugs
> before it becomes a bigger issue.
And of course having the W2K source code stolen and in the hands
of Communists and former communists still hasn't TARNISHED
their perfect reputation. You could say they completely got away
with it.
Charlie
>
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I know that. No OS is immune and there will always be somebody who can
> > come up with a better mouse, despite state of the art mousetraps.
> >
> > claire
>
> MS "head in the sand" and its true.
>
> > >If you were to subscribe to BugTraq for a period of time, you would
> > >quickly discover that Windows does not have significantly fewer
> > >security problems than Linux. To think otherwise is to stick one's
> > >head in the sand.
> >
--
Charlie
By 2005 Microsoft will be displaced by
LINUX - THE POWER OF A GNU GENERATION!
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 20:51:15 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
>In article <39fb0810$2$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
>>
>>>In article <39fac6cd$3$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 10/27/00
>>>> at 02:31 PM, chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>>>
>>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>That is because you're an asshole who refuses to understand or consider any
>>>>>>argument you don't want to hear. Your parents really should not breed any
>>>>>>more like you.
>>>>
>>>>>Why, there's a lot of factual information.
>>>>
>>>>>Sore loser. You lose the arguement, so you lash out with insults.
>>>>
>>>>Ah, another asshole arrives. Are you a friend of Jason or just another idiot
>>>>troll?
>>>>
>>>>There is no factual that the cache is the factor that so overwhelmingly
>>>>controls performance and *user productivity* that nothing else matters. This
>>>>is jasons claim. And it is what he ignores, in order to focus on a tiny point
>>>>so he can be the big guy in more then his dreams.
>>
>>>We were talking about hardware and accesses to memory. Ed was dumb enough to
>>>try to claim that OS/2 somehow made these accesses faster. If he could admit
>>>his error
>>>>
>>>>His claim, is like saying tire tread design is the factor that decides how
>>>>fast the operator can actually drive a car in the real world -- and all other
>>>>factors, even when you put them all together, cannot out weigh the effect of
>>>>tread design.
>>>>
>>
>>>We weren't talking about the overall system, this is something you've tried
>>>to add to save face and it isn't working you dishonest asshole.
>>
>>What you mean here is that when in a discussion that you are whining (or think
>>you are), that no one can point out there is a whole forest and not just the
>>one tree you are looking at.
>The discussion wasn't about a whole system. Go to deja.com/usenet and prove
>that it was about more if you think you can.
>>
>>This is why you are an asshole. You can't see the forest from the trees --
>>and you have continued to carry a grudge over it for nearly a year. Face it,
>>you're a petty, whiney, little idiot who can't stand anyone who sees you for
>>what you are. Go home and growup little boy.
>>
>You know Ed, for thinking I'm so immature you sure like to argue with me. We
>were talking about hardware memory access and you interjected with OS/2
>memory management. At least I understood the topic at hand.
Ah. An unplanned admission that in the final analysis is telling us that you
are here trolling, instead of learning and sharing what you know. You ought
to read Peter Drucker on The Importance of Being Fired. Someday it will happen
to you for this kind of bullshit and you need to understand the reason.
>>BTW, I use to do the technical hiring for a very large A/E. I have seen
>>enough of you to understand that you could not be assigned to shovel shit with
>>any confidence, because the instant there was a change in the texture or
>>color, you couldn't be depended on to figure out if it was still shit.
>>
>What is sad is this is your typical response. I'm really sorry Ed and I'm
>sorry for the company that had you working human resources. When you get a
>clue I'm sure we'll all be happy.
Hey your being stupid again, not to mention that you are showing your one
tract, one point pea brain thought process. You show no signs of having any
depth of knowledge. It wasn't human resources. I made the technical
evaluations and the final decision to hire. You would not have made it to a
face-to-face interview with me.
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 20:53:41 -0400
In <8tf6vs$2ps$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 10/28/00
at 06:47 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
>In article <39fb0657$1$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In <8teuj4$rlg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 10/28/00
>> at 04:24 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
>>
>>>Since you feel that you were right Ed, describe the cpu cache on any x86
>>>processor and specifically the caching of the 430VX chipset. The topic at
>>>hand was the 430VX and it's inability to cache more than 64Mb of ram. This
>>>means that everytime an address above 64Mb was used the cpu had to fetch it
>>>from memory as opposed to first hitting the cache, this is a huge performance
>>>hit. This was the topic and no software will make hardware run faster. Bob
>>>was stupid enough to think the setting for OS/2 to use more than 64Mb on some
>>>motherboards was the topic. You decided to add irrelevant information about
>>>os memory management. The discussion was on a purely hardware level. You
>>>and Bob were wrong but being such little people you can't admit that. You
>>>are free to cuss and name call all you want. The opinion of somebody that
>>>was obviously wrong and can't admit that is an opinion that isn't valid in my
>>>eyes.
>>
>>Listen you idiot -- Can you read? I never said software will make hardware run
>>faster. What I said, and which you are obviously are incapable of
>>understanding -- is that this hardware limitation does not matter in terms of
>>real-world productivity.
>>
>>You ***really need to talk with a shrink*** to find out why being right --
>>when in fact you are not right in the context of the larger argument, and you
>>have to continue for years with a grudge over it. Now go find a good shrink
>>and shut up.
>And the original topic was never about that. Who needs the shrink? The
>person unable to admit that they added extraneous information to divert
>attention from the mistake of a fellow OS/2 advocate? So tell me, why bring
>in off topic material to the conversation?
You need the shrink. Your point just doesn't matter except inside your pea
brain. You're entire compliant is that you were winning the argument with
someone, until another party came along and said that your point -- while
technically correct -- just doesn't matter in the real world. You want to
argue for the sake of it, instead of sharing knowledge and learning. You are
trolling. Its really time for you grow up and that starts with shuting up.
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Oracle say's Microsoft no good!
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 02:43:16 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
michelle makitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> By 2005 Microsoft will be displaced by
>> LINUX - THE POWER OF A GNU GENERATION!
>
> LOL. Oh man, do people ever learn?
Laugh all you want. Microsoft have lost the server market. Linux is
making inroads on the desktop. Now that they have been hacked (and not
found for several months!) expect a flood of trojans. Can any IT
security manager now justify using Microsoft s/w in situations that
are mission critical for their company? I think not. They blamed
everyone except themselves for 'ILOVEYOU' . Who are they going to
blame now?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tuff Competition for LINUX!
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 02:03:56 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
snip
>
> So get ready for next week as me and my
> special guest Chad Meyers plans on discussing
> the CHINA 2000 open source model.
Hee hee, I really enjoyed that. Imagine what will happen if
hackers get access to M$ code. They have found enough exploits
without it! How can anyone say they trust M$ s/w now (not that
they could have before). :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 02:15:23 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Otto wrote:
>
>> "Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> : On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 03:35:42 GMT, Chad Myers wrote:
>> :
>> : >But I thought OSS software was supposed to be superior in all regards.
>> : >Shouldn't a reasonable expectation be that it ships on time?
>> :
>> : Not at all. Part of the philosophy is that it ships when it's ready
>> : to ship. It has always been this way. Most reputable software comapnies
>> : also delay releases until software is ready for release.
>>
>> If that is true, then the most reputable software company is Microsoft. I
>> don't recall any of their software, which was not delayed..... :)
>>
>> Otto
>
> And since all the Microsoft W2K OS sources have been stolen from
> a Microsoft Server at Redmond today, we can even call Microsoft
> an OPEN SOURCE COMPANY finally!
Please, stop it. I'm busting a gut over all of this. :-)
Poor Bill. I just read the other day about him crying at
a M$ board meeting over the DoJ case. He must be shitting
his pants now.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 02:33:09 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <8tdjgk$to2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Corporations get very nervous about backports. Users probably won't
> care.
>
>> For that matter, just ship 2.4-pre-something and call it good.
>
> Corporations get REALLY nervous about betas shipped as production.
I normally really enjoy your posts Rex but I think you are wrong
with respect to the 2.4 release. Microsoft releases are always
beta (if not alpha). They just give them an official release name.
We don't want this to happen to Linux. Linus decides when a new
version is released and I hope he never gives in to pressure from
commercial organisations. 2.4.0-beta-x does appear to me to be
very stable but it is Linus' decision when to officially release
it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 02:09:38 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>
> A round of applause for Microsoft's Technological Innovation!
> We're eagerly awaiting Whistler, when the menus and dialog boxes
> will spin before the user's very eyes, a la old 1930's-era movies
> with newspaper headlines!
I think Whistler is about to be released (unofficially). :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why don't I use Linux?
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 02:46:38 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote:
>
> Why haven't I switched from Windows to Linux?
>
> In a word: Software.
>
In 4 words: You are an idiot.
As many people have pointed out there are alternatives available
under Linux for most of what you say you need. You just won't /
aren't able to find them.
Idiot.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
