Linux-Advocacy Digest #173, Volume #30 Sat, 11 Nov 00 03:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (Mike Byrns)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Curtis)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Les Mikesell")
Re: What does KDE do after all (sfcybear)
Re: Another Silent Computer :( ("James")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Konqueror a great web browser ("mmnnoo")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 07:02:12 GMT
Glitch wrote:
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > "Clifford W. Racz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8uhk0h$kk7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In using Windows, there is a downside... like this for example.
> > >
> > > Dealing With OS Decay: Rebuilding Your Windows System from Scratch
> > > http://www.zdnet.com/zdhelp/stories/main/0,5594,2531288,00.html
> > >
> > > I really don't think Linux has this problem, does it?
> >
> > Linux has one big advantage, those who use it knows what they are doing.
> > I've a computer which *still* has the original OEM of win95, I bought it
> > several months after win95 was out. (early 96, I think)
> > It's in a working condition, BTW.
> > It's doing its works (word processing and some emails now & then at the
> > moment, before, it was used as a home computer, which include games,
> > installing & uninstalling all kind of programs, the normal stuff)
> > I don't plan to reinstall windows on it again, in the case of a total
> > failure, it's going to be linux, but I don't expect any problems with it, as
> > it is the most well-behaved computer that I've seen.
> >
> > I don't know how long a linux box would be able to survive if clueless
> > people (with root access) would start fiddling with it.
> >
>
> at least Linux provides the capability for protection. No such
> protection exists under Windows. Any user can delete files, any files.
I'm so sorry. You are wrong. When you compare nix to win you gotta compare lin
to nt4 or w2k. Both have secure journaling file systems. lin does not unless you
are a programmer level user and build reiserfs and edit numerous crypyic config
code to enable it.
------------------------------
From: Curtis <alliem@kas*spam*net.com>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 02:02:36 -0500
Les Mikesell wrote...
> > When you have effectively disabled the ability of certain files being
> > executable via the e-mail clients interface you have created a brick
> > wall. It's you who are proposing erecting a brick wall. :-)
>
> No, I have no problem with letting the user choose to run anything
> he wants, as long as it is really his choice.
When you double click a file in Windows, you've chosen to execute it with
the associated application. Let's get one thing straight. If Outlook
Express actually proceeds to execute the file by merely selecting it
(single click) then that's very bad.
> For example if you
> want to type in the name of your program to run, or drag the
> attachment to a program on the desktop, go ahead. What needs
> to be disabled is the auto-executing something chosen by the
> sender instead.
Well, if a program is auto-executed that's bad. I'm not sure what you
mean by auto-execution though. If you mean that once the message is open
the attachment does it's thing then that's bad. If you mean that the user
deliberately chooses to run the file and the associated application is
started as determined by the extension, then I disagree.
> > .... if the user chooses to executes it or(white line) not execute it
>
> No - the lines should distinguish *what* you are going to execute.
> Dragging the attachment to a program is going over the white line,
> but that is your business if you crash.
I see no difference. I set my file associations so that I don't need to
be dragging and dropping.
> > Concrete wall.
>
> There is a blind drop off a cliff here. It deserves a brick
> wall.
:-) At least you concede that you're the one erecting the wall and not
me. Bad!! You'll make Windows unfriendly to those who are competent and
the ignorant will remain ignorant forever.
> > > First you think the people are too dumb to follow instructions. Now you
> > > think someone can tell them a dozen steps to make a program run and
> > > they will get them all right but not notice that this isn't the way they
> > > usually read their mail.
> >
> > Actually I'm one of those advocating learning and that the problem with
> > all of this lies between chair and keyboard. I've said that many times.
>
> Then you should learn that everything you suggest is very
> system-specific and not generally useful knowlege. It has
> nothing to do with computing in general and is just arbitrary
> associations chosen by one vendor.
How so. Are you speaking only about .vbs files? If so, then we're on the
wrong track. I'm speaking about all file types that may be obtained
through e-mail attachments. Windows associations default to certain apps
depending on what's installed. However, the user pretty much has full
control over file associations via folder options.
I fail to see how my argument is system specific.
> It is like advocating that
> people learn to drive only one peculiar kind of car.
You're misunderstanding me.
> > Please show me where you think I said that people are dumb and I'll
> > clarify for you. I'm not interested in being a part of the 'jumping
> > hoops' team trying to find ways of protecting users who refuse to learn
> > from themselves. I do admit that it's a necessary evil in a corporate
> > environment where one has to give systems to these types of users to use.
> > I however, don't advocate it as how it should be for me or other users
> > willing to learn as they should.
>
> Why don't you advocate systems that don't impose this sort of problem
> on you in the first place?
Because running away from a harsh reality by masking it from users will
not help one bit. Masking this sort of thing from the user is a fix, not
good prevention. Good prevention comes from lifting the veil of ignorance
which I still maintain, is not that difficult a task. If my Dad and
sisters can get it, so can everyone else.
People will always be exchanging files. Having to name the file will
always be necessary. Having to know what type of file it is will also
always be necessary whether it be done through icons or extensions. I
don't see how this can or should be hidden from a user that exchanges e-
mail and attachments.
> It makes no sense to talk about consistency
> in handling file object and email attachments. They are inherently
> different things until you have examined them and blessed them with
> the right to be in the filesystem.
If you don't know what to look for when viewing these files 'unsafe'
files, how are you going to bless them as being safe. Don't you have to
!!learn!! what to look for when viewing them?? Why is that so easy to do
in your books and yet learning a few danger file types is so difficult?
--
ACM.
________________________________________________________
"A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it."
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 07:14:15 GMT
"Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > at least Linux provides the capability for protection. No such
> > protection exists under Windows. Any user can delete files, any files.
>
> I'm so sorry. You are wrong. When you compare nix to win you gotta
compare lin
> to nt4 or w2k. Both have secure journaling file systems.
I thought they only journal the metadata, not the file contents. This has
more to do with the ability to recover after a crash than security,
though. Crashing should be about as likely as a hardware problem
with the drive itself these days though, unless you lose power.
> lin does not unless you
> are a programmer level user and build reiserfs and edit numerous crypyic
config
> code to enable it.
Or you install a current distribution like Mandrake 7.2 and check the box
that
you want to use it...
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What does KDE do after all
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 07:11:03 GMT
Hey, this is NOT the MS world were you stuck with one desktop. If you
don't like KDE, DON'T USE IT! Use one of the other desktops! Geees.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Silent Computer :(
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 09:21:17 +0200
"kosh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8uilij$8c7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Javaduke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Running SuSE 7.0, simply turn off PNP OS in the bios and everything
> > should be sweet, I have my soundcard up and running in now time. This
> > solution should work for most distro's.
> >
> > javaduke
>
>
> Actually I do that with every os now. It seems to make things work better
> under any os.
I really don't think this [BIOS] policy is advisable for a dual boot Win2k /
Linux system - or is it?
> On mandrake 7.1 and above a sblive is detected
> automatically. I am not sure why some people have so many problems. I
> have helped at least a hundred people now install mandrake on their
> systems. I have never seen problems like what claire and others here are
> reporting.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 09:32:10 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:i85P5.18546$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Oh - I thought it was obvious from the badly-wrapped messages I've
> been posting - and of course, the headers, that I am typing this in
> outlook (just happens to be on the machine with the biggest screen
> at home).
I don't usually read headers for fun.
BTW, you are using Outlook Express, a decidely different product from
Outlook, with a different code base.
None the less, the points we argue on are the same in both of them.
> When I click on an attachment, it does nothing resembling
> what the desktop does, nor anything particularly useful for a mailer.
Who said that it's like the desktop?
It invoke a warning, and then you can choose what to do with it.
The way of invoking this warning is similar to the general way the OS
behaves.
> I normally read mail in Netscape, but since it is on an IMAP server
> I can see the same stuff here.
Outlook Express support IMAP.
> Taking a message with some graphs
> of network use as an example, Netscape just displays them inline
> with the message, which is fairly useful.
I just tried that, OE does the same for PNG files.
> In outlook I have to
> double-click, then I get this pop-up warning about how the png is
> going to be harmful which you seem to think is consistent with the
> desktop, I guess.
See above about consistency.
> Then, since I really don't want to splatter png files
> all over my disk I pick open, and it dumps me into Adobe PhotoDeluxe
> which takes a while to load.
Get Acdsee or some other PNG file viewer if you don't want to use OE builtin
ability.
> I didn't want to edit the thing, I just want
> to see it. Remind me why people use this for mail.
You use it, not people.
> > > > The icon of the file tells you.
> > >
> > > I'm icon-challanged.
> >
> > I leave this satement to talk for itself.
>
> Looks like hiroglyphics to me - didn't that go out of style
> a few thousand years ago when they invented the alphabet?
Most people can recognize icons better than text.
> > > What's an extension? .TXT.vbs
> >
> > Again, you show great ignorance here.
> > extention is whatever come after the last dot.
>
> This is very system-specific. Why is the last
> one special? Why should I have to know that?
Because it let you define system wide settings.
Check X, it uses extentions (to a limited degree) too.
> > > > The filename will usually give some indication.
> > >
> > > To whom?
> >
> > The user.
>
> Why do users have to memorize all this stuff. I thought
> windows was supposed to be easy.
Memorize a filename? Why would I want to do that?
File names are unique, that is the whole purpose of them.
File names also serve to identify the file.
> > > > Most people are stupid and/or ignorant. Your point ?
> > >
> > > Is it impossible to fool you?
> >
> > It's impossible to fool me to open a virus from unknown source which
might
> > contain dangerous code.
>
> Why is that, and why is it not true for most other people?
Because I *know* what I'm doing?
Most other people don't.
> > > > Neither does outlook.
> > >
> > > It did, and does, and we know what it causes.
> >
> > See comment above about ignorance.
>
> Most people are ignorant of system-specific details.
> Most systems allow them to remain that way and not
> have their files stolen.
Check the linux standards that just emerged and the reasons behind it.
No other system allows you to easily transfer high level knowledge to
another system, unix, linux, & mac included.
Unix & linux wouldn't even let you transfer some of the knowledge to other
systems of the same type.
> > > > No, outlook only executes something you tell it to.
> > >
> > > No one ever told it to execute visual basic. It did it because
> > > of a choice the sender made.
> >
> > No, it did it because you choose to open the VBS file without viewing it
> > first. *Your* fault.
>
> Opening is the normal thing to do with mail. People should not be
> forced to memorize the difference between every script interpreter
> and photo editor before viewing their mail. Mailers should not
> start a script interpreter just because the sender chose a file
> extension associated with it.
They don't.
They only need to remember very short list of unsafe types.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 09:34:20 +0200
"Glitch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> at least Linux provides the capability for protection. No such
> protection exists under Windows. Any user can delete files, any files.
Windows, in that regard, can allow much tighter control than linux.
Check NTFS first.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 09:37:44 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:jn5P5.18586$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8uipbf$hug$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > > I think it is much more reasonable to recognize hex code than
> > > it is to know what a vbs icon means, but neither one should
> > > be necessary to view your mail.
> >
> > Hex code is more recognizable than a VBS icon?
> > You *really* need to get out more.
> > VBS icon is a blue scroll on a white rectangle with a fold on the upper
> > right corner.
> > Hex is numbers.
> >
> > Joe User will be able to recognize what more easily?
>
> They are equally meaningless to someone who doesn't use
> them. In a building with about 6 computers in every office
> I can't say I've ever seen a VBS icon, or that I want to.
Your problem.
You *choose* to intetionly remain ignorant, that is your own problem.
> > Cop: Is this the virus that ruined that computer?
> > Joe User: Sure it is, it's still wearing that silly blue scroll.
> > Geek User: Sure it is, I recognized because of the 0x343433
>
> You are dreaming - nobody is going to recognize vbs either.
Change a file extention to vbs, you'll see it looks like.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 09:38:48 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:6i5P5.18572$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8uipn7$lsq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > > Those who can't...
> > > > Well, Les suggest a hex editor for exe files.
> > > > I don't know what users Les has to deal with, but I want them.
> > >
> > > Many are c++ developers for a windows product. But the CVS
> > > repository for the source code isn't on a windows box...
> >
> > IOW, about 10x more knowledgable than the average end user of a windows
> box.
> > When you have *that* kind of a userbase, it's easy to forget that *not*
> > everybody can read exe files in hex editors.
> > Also, you probably don't hear complaints about "my taskbar is on the top
> > side of the screen, and I can't work like this" (Only I'm translating it
> to
> > technical terms)
>
> Oh - the other part of the building is full of accountants.... The sales
> people are mostly off in branch offices though, and we have several
> other people who spend all their time keeping the windows boxes
> running.
Do you handle those machines/users in person?
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 07:41:17 GMT
"Curtis" <alliem@kas*spam*net.com> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Les Mikesell wrote...
> > Oh - I thought it was obvious from the badly-wrapped messages I've
> > been posting - and of course, the headers, that I am typing this in
> > outlook (just happens to be on the machine with the biggest screen
> > at home).
>
> But you really are ignorant. That's Outlook *Express* that you're using
> and not MS Outlook. They're two very different applications.
Oh, I did notice the different little picture than on the one at
work that I don't use because it locked up after I tried to
add a 2nd pop account. Am I missing something?
> > Then, since I really don't want to splatter png files
> > all over my disk I pick open, and it dumps me into Adobe PhotoDeluxe
> > which takes a while to load. I didn't want to edit the thing, I just
want
> > to see it. Remind me why people use this for mail.
>
> If you stupidly associate PNG's with Adobe Photodeluxe then what do you
> expect????!!!! Install a basic image viewer and fix up your associations.
Adobe stupidly did it for me, I guess. How are you supposed to deal
with programs that twiddle the associations?
> If I double click a PNG file anywhere, ACDSee opens it. I previously had
> PMView open image files. Paint Shop Pro never does this since *I* set it
> not to do so. It's not the PNG file that determines which application
> opens it, neither does Outlook *Express* do this. Outlook *express* uses
> the application associated with the file in Windows as you made it. This
> whole associations thing only opens another can of worms.
So after you've memorized the associations you are supposed to
worry about, installing any new program can change it while
you aren't looking?
> I just don't know if we can ever make computers idiot proof. They simply
> have got to learn how to use it.
The computer is supposed to work for you, not the other way
around.
> > > > I'm icon-challanged.
> > >
> > > I leave this satement to talk for itself.
> >
> > Looks like hiroglyphics to me - didn't that go out of style
> > a few thousand years ago when they invented the alphabet?
>
> Being difficult are we?
This is an advocacy group after all.
> > This is very system-specific. Why is the last
> > one special? Why should I have to know that?
>
> It's good to know. It gives you more control. It allows you to
> competently take control instead of making the computer control you,
> which is what you seem happy with.
Control is when you pick the application to manipulate any particular
data type yourself. Conceptually, letting a data object pick or provide
its own methods sounds appealing, but it has never matched the way
I do things. I always use a lot of different programs to do different
things to the same file, using the best tool for each job. Having a
particular program associated with a file is only useful if that program
does what I am ready to do this particular time.
> A computer is never really easy to use with any reasonable level of
> competence. I think you know this but are deliberately being difficult.
>
> Windows is EASIER to use than other OS's such as Linux/UNIX.
Only if you start with certain preconceptions. If you learned unix
years before windows existed, the windows approaches often
seem bizarre, especially if you track all the variations in its
short lifespan. The entire unix manual, 3 sections that included
the command line tools including the shell, system calls and
c-library functions fit in a small book. Everything done with
that set of instructions will still work virtually unchanged 20
years later. Of course X added some complexity...
> > Most people are ignorant of system-specific details.
> > Most systems allow them to remain that way and not
> > have their files stolen.
>
> What does that have to do with learning a few file extensions to be
> cautious with when dealing with e-mail attachments?
The thing to be cautious of is the mailer that doesn't handle them
correctly for you.
> > Opening is the normal thing to do with mail. People should not be
> > forced to memorize the difference between every script interpreter
> > and photo editor before viewing their mail.
>
> No-one is saying that and this is really a desperate argument.
No, if you are going to insist that it is the user's responsibility
not to execute anything unsafe, then he must keep track of all
file associations which is a moving target. If I have recently
installed a new program, how do I even know what will happen
with a .txt attachment?
> > Mailers should not
> > start a script interpreter just because the sender chose a file
> > extension associated with it.
>
> Agreed. It should run if and only if the user chooses to do so.
It should only run if the user knows what interpreter is going to
execute and if the mailer assumes that the user knows because of
some obscure name or icon it is almost certainly wrong most of
the time.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 09:44:35 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:AN5P5.18657$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8uipvj$ohk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > >
> > > Rm isn't going to mail your files off to someone who wants to steal
> > > the contents. Outlook has demonstrated this capability again and
> > > again.
> >
> > Details?
>
> The Microsoft source code is the obvious one, but the same
> trick has likely worked everywhere Melissa and ILOVEYOU
> did.
ILOVEU & Melissa didn't mail any of your files to anyone.
Check symnatec.com for further information.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 09:43:29 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:YG5P5.18637$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Curtis" <alliem@kas*spam*net.com> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > > Explain to me how that feature would prevent the joe user from
> infecting
> > > > his system.
> > >
> > > The same way that painting lines down the middle of the road keeps
> > > the cars from running into each other. You don't need a concrete
> > > wall, you need something to point you in the right direction.
> >
> > When you have effectively disabled the ability of certain files being
> > executable via the e-mail clients interface you have created a brick
> > wall. It's you who are proposing erecting a brick wall. :-)
>
> No, I have no problem with letting the user choose to run anything
> he wants, as long as it is really his choice. For example if you
> want to type in the name of your program to run, or drag the
> attachment to a program on the desktop, go ahead. What needs
> to be disabled is the auto-executing something chosen by the
> sender instead.
You click on the file, you get a message asking you what to do.
The sender has *no choice* in the matter.
*You* decide whatever you want to comply with the sender's choice, *not*
outlook.
You don't like the sender's choice, *change* it.
------------------------------
From: "mmnnoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Konqueror a great web browser
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 08:06:53 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Clamchu wrote:
> >
> > Konqueror is the best web browser I have seen. Basically, I am
> > disappointed in the direction Mozilla has taken. It seems to be aimed
> > toward running on every single platform in existence. Then, Konqueror
>
> Yes, that was one of the original goals...
> to have a cross-platform app.
>
> And your point is?
>
<snip>
Obviously his point is that Konqueror is faster, lighter, has better
features,
is less buggy, and was developed more quickly than Mozilla has been
because Mozilla is overengineered in a pointless attempt to
be all things to all people on all platforms.
I think his point is questionable. Mozilla aspires to greatness,
and maybe it will eventually be great. It is easy to wonder why
they couldn't release a fast, light, reliable, reasonably featureful
browser by now, and work on being the first to support new
gee-whiz 'standards' later, but nobody will care in the end if
Mozilla ever reaches adulthood. And the wait will definitely
be worth it if all the 'by the book' software engineering
results in some software components that actually get
reused on other worthwhile projects.
I really hope it succeeds. The lack of a decent web
browser for Linux is an enormous deficiency.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
