Linux-Advocacy Digest #228, Volume #30 Tue, 14 Nov 00 06:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Jacques Guy)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: Most important computer program in the history of humanity (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? (Shane Phelps)
Re: Lets try serious advocacy/discussion. (Tore Lund)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Giuliano Colla)
Re: The Sixth Sense (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (Steve Mading)
Re: The Sixth Sense (Giuliano Colla)
Re: The Sixth Sense (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (Paul Colquhoun)
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Ayende Rahien")
RE: Linux needs now ... ("Pedro Iglesias")
Re: Same old Linux..Nothing new here... ("Scaramanga")
Re: Most important computer program in the history of humanity (Stephen Cornell)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 09:39:04 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> http://uptime.netcraft.com/hammer/accuracy.html#whichos
> "Additionally, NT4 uptimes cycle back to zero after 49.7 days, and give
> timestamps exactly as if the machine had been rebooted at this precise
> point"
Not to worry, only a clerical mistake. Should be 29.52 days, a lunar
month, but they got pi wrong: 4.1316 instead of 3.1416 (approx), hence
the 49.7 days. Hey, everyone can make mistakes! (How did they get a
49.7-day lunar month from pi = 4.1316? Search me. Probably another
clerical mistake. Or two. Or three. Don't worry. A service pack will fix
it in the more or less distant future, if you live that long)
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 09:45:40 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 2. All of the CGI stuff I was using had to be canned, rebuilt, or
>> replaced
> You'd have to do that if they moved to Solaris on an x86 box as well.
Well that depends, doesn't it? Perl scripts should be able to run
just as good on x86, while compiled cgi's would need a recompile - and
shouldn't need any further changes.
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.ms.windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Most important computer program in the history of humanity
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 09:49:14 GMT
"mmnnoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A Microsoft exec dubs Windows 2000
> "the most important computer program in the history of humanity"
> (http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/nov2000/nf20001113_046.htm)
> Although this strikes me as ridiculous and somewhat offensive, I can't
> think of any other computer programs that really deserve the title, either.
The Enigma WW2 code-cracking effort? How about simulations of
weather, nuclear reactions, mapping of human genomes, automated
accounting, banking etc?
I fail to see one single thing that Win2000 can do, that couldn't also
be done on other systems. What - simplified adminstration is the
greatest achievement of mankind? Give me a break!
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 20:49:38 +1100
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:r2JP5.19743$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:n8HP5.7842$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Huh? The kind of client is irrelevant. The Win2k TS client works on
> NT4,
> > > 9x, 2k, and CE devices. You can use the Citrix client for non-Windows
> > > clients. Yes, that's an extra expense, but then that wasn't what you
> > > originally said.
> >
> > Does the citrix client work against the stock Win2k-server TS server?
>
> Yes, it does.
>
> Microsofts WTS uses a protocol called RDP, while Citrix Metaframe uses ICA.
> Citrix clients understand both RDP and ICA.
Are you sure about that?
I was under the impression (reinforced strongly by Citrix's web site)
that the Citrrix clients only support ICA.
I doubt that Citrix would supply a client that would work with
a competitor's server, even if it does use technology licenced
from Citrix.
I'd like to be proved wrong, of course. A W2K server licence is a lot
cheaper than a W2K Server licence plus a Citrix Metaframe licence :-)
------------------------------
From: Tore Lund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Lets try serious advocacy/discussion.
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 10:58:56 +0100
Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> "Tore Lund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > > Under
> > > > Windows best thing would be install new disk with the software that
> > > > comes with it (partitioning program) and re-install from the image CD
> > > > included with the machine.
> > >
> > > Then it could take weeks to install all your software on top of that.
> >
> > This is completely trivial to do under Windows 95/98 (not sure about
> > Win2K). You have your old disk in C: and a new, formatted disk in D:.
> > Make sure all files are visible in Windows Explorer, then copy and paste
> > everything EXCEPT c:\windows\win386.swp to the new disk. That's it.
> > You can now swap disks, move jumpers and boot again.
> >
> > (Note: This is a VERY brief description for people who understand what
> > they are doing. But it really is that simple...)
>
> And you just ignore all those "can't open" file errors during such a
> copy and hope it isn't anything you need? Anything running or
> open will fail to copy.
Hmmm. There are no such messages so I believe you are wrong here.
But if you know these things, maybe you can tell me why the copy and
paste operation outlined above should behave differently from "cp -a" in
Linux? Conceptually, they should be doing the same thing.
--
Tore Lund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.linux.sucks
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 10:03:41 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft;
> > > >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > >> >As a bonus, it makes this action the default for non-associated
> > files...
> > > >> >which means double clicking on ANY unregistered file type will open it
> > in
> > > >> >notepad instead of bringing up that damned 'which application' box.
> > > >>
> > > >> And perhaps that's not at all what I wanted to do? This isn't a bonus,
> > > >> BTW: it is the only thing your technique does. Unfortunately, it
> > > >> doesn't do what I am describing at all.
> > > >
> > > >You want to add Notepad option for all file types, right?
> > >
> > > No, I wanted to be able to open any file with Notepad, at my option.
> >
> > Okay, here is how you do it.
> > Start>Run> "Regedit"
> > Go to:
> > "HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\*\"
> > if there is a sub key call "shell", go to it, otherwise, create it.
> > In "HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\*\shell", delete any previous attempt to do the
> > notepad.
> > Then create a subkey to "HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\*\shell\" called "notepad"
> > create a subkey to "HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\*\shell\notepad" called "command"
> > Go to "HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\*\shell\notepad\command\" and double click the
> > default value. (called "(Default)" )
> > Enter "C:\Windows\Notepad.exe %1" at the edit string box that would appear.
> >
> > That should bring notepad as alternative for all files on the computer,
> > (right click, and it would appear)
> > If you don't want it this as a default action for unknown file types, go to:
> > "HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\Unknown\shell" and change the default value there
> > "(Default)" to "openas"
> > This should do it.
>
> So when does it begin to get "INTUITIVE" ????
I don't want to turn the knife in the wound, but on my linux
KDE desktop I wanted to make Acrobat Reader the default for
pdf document instead ot the PS reader, add kwrite besides
kedit for C and C++ sources, and have Real Player default
application for stream audio. As I'm too lazy to read
documentation, I just gave a look on how it was done for
other applications, and was able to figure out how to do it.
It worked at first attempt.
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 10:27:30 GMT
Bruce Schuck wrote:
>
> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:QhMP5.19786$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:iDJP5.126087$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Nothing on *nix platform comes even close
> > > > > in the ease of use and the selection of languages.
> > > >
> > > > Huh? On unix if my executable file starts with:
> > > > #!/usr/bin/perl
> > > > it will be executed by perl without the user needing
> > > > to know what interpreter is running. Or it can say:
> > > > #!/bin/sh
> > > > for a shell script, or
> > > > #!/usr/bin/perl -w
> > > > to run with perl but with the warning flag set. How
> > > > do you allow any file to specify it's own interpreter
> > > > and command line flags
> > >
> > > Create a shortcut with any command line flags you want in windows.
> > >
> > > Easy. Intuitive.
> >
> > Every script needs a shortcut? That's bad.
>
> Scripts don't NEED shortcuts.
>
> The shortcut feature is wonderful. It allows the logical grouping of
> executables and scripts and ducments.
>
> >
> > > Set your own icon if you want to make it easier to remember.
> >
> > I don't want icons, I want to connect them with pipes so
> > each one can be used as a component of another.
>
> So what do you do? Type ls at the comand prompt to search for you the script
> you want to run and then type in the name of the script with the command
> line switches every time?
>
> Sounds down right archaic.
>
There's a little more than that in piped commands.
Maybe you should learn something before trying to teach
others. You'd avoid making an ass out of yourself!
> >
> > > Put it on the desktop if you want.
> > > Or in the quick launch toolbar so its always visible.>
> > > In Win2k you can also set the security.
> >
> > Is there something unique here?
>
> Just explaining the wonderful qualities of Win2k.
>
LOL!
> >
> > > And you can distribute it to every user of the machine by dropping it in
> > > the"All Users" folder.
> >
> > Yech - you mean gunk shows up on your desktop whether you want
> > it or not?
>
> No. Usable programs show up for other users when Administrators want it too.
> Great feature. Doesn't Linux have that one? Pity.
>
You should know that Linux is an OS, not a GUI. A number of
Linux GUI's (KDE,GNOME for sure, others I don't know) have
this pretty trivial feature, which is not used by
administrators with their mind to provide users with
administration tools.
> >
> > > With Win2K you can also run it as a different user by checking a flag
> and
> > > specifying the userid and password.
> > >
> > > Powerful stuff.
On linux (just to take the lower Unix side) you may have up
to six users logged in, each one with his own password and
access right, each one with his own virtual terminal
(CTR+ALT+Fx to switch terminals), or physical terminal if
you have some connected. Each user may execute programs or
scripts assigned to him by administrator which have
different rights. It is up to administrator to determine if
for that particular operation the password is required or
not. This is roughly 30 years old, but it doesn't rely on a
"flag", it relies on a quite sophisticated protection
scheme.
> >
> > None of that needs special case handling under unix/linux.
>
> Features. Lots of features in Win2k. Great OS. Much more advanced than
> Linux!
>
That's a great sales argument, for unaware customers. Try to
tell that after sale!
> >
> > > Coming soon to the Windows 9x crowd as Whistler. Linux? Whats a Linux?
> Oh
> > > yeah. That OS for geeks that no one ever used on the desktop.
> >
> > The OS for people who think that a hundred is not a large number of
> > programs. Or maybe a thousand - but I don't want to have to make a
> > shortcut for each one.
>
> How do you list them and find them? ls ? Slow and archaic. How do you group
> them logically by project or function and store them a different way?
>
> Do you have a text file with a thousand script names?
>
> Sounds positively archaic.
A friendly advice. Do not use those sale arguments with
someone which has some working experience. You may find
yourself out of the door without ever knowing why.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[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: 14 Nov 2000 10:26:42 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Don't be so blatantly dishonest.
: I quoted:
: "Internally, all Oracle8i file I/O routines support 64-bit file offsets,
: meaning that there are no 2GB or 4GB file size limitations when it comes to
: data, log, or control files as is the case on some other platforms."
: "some other platforms" have 2GB or 4GB file limitations.
: Linux and Unix would be examples.
Take your own advice - don't be so blatantly dishonest. The 2Gb
limit is *not* built-in to Linux or other Unixes, and it exists
*only* when the CPU is 32-bit, and varies depending on the
filesystem used. (I know it's difficult for a Windows advocate
to understand, but unlike in the Windows world where everything is
one of the FATs or NTFS, in the unix world there are many choices
for filesystem type, and there exist more machine archectures than
just Intel PCs.)
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 10:30:50 GMT
Bruce Schuck wrote:
>
> "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Bruce Schuck wrote:
> > >
> > > "Glitch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The only reasonable tool
> > > > > > > > I've found to deal with remote windows is VNC installed as a
> > > service
> > > > > > > > because you can run the java client in any browser if you
> don't
> > > happen
> > > > > > > > to have the client loaded wherever you are.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > WTS has a browser-based ActiveX control client.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I take it that is the Microsoft's pretense of portability. Just
> > > > > > as warped as usual.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sounds pretty portable to me. Any machine with IE on it can be used
> to
> > > > > administer a Win2K server.
> > > >
> > > > I'm assuming an admin could also use Netscape if he so wished to
> > > > administer a win2k server or is Netscape not included in Microsoft's
> Ten
> > > > Commandments? "Thou shall not have no other browser before IE"
> > >
> > > Why would you want to use a slow buggy piece of crap like Netscape?
> >
> > Because IE is as slow as Netscape,
>
> Much much faster. Really, really snappy.
>
> > slightly more crappy then
> > Netscape, slightly more buggy then Netscape,
>
> Netscape is a joke.
>
Well, MS underwent a big effort to undermine this joke,
blackmailing OEM's and playing other nasty tricks.
Can you tell why?
> > and moreover it
> > is absolutely and intrinsically unsafe. Didn't I LOVE YOU
> > teach anything?
>
> Not to run attachments. A knew that a long time ago. Nothing to do with IE
> though.
You should learn the weak points of what you sell. You may
get the same effect on IE merely using a link!
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 10:32:08 GMT
Bruce Schuck wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Jake Taense wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Giuliano Colla
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Because IE is as slow as Netscape, slightly more crappy then
> > > >Netscape, slightly more buggy then Netscape, and moreover it
> > > >is absolutely and intrinsically unsafe. Didn't I LOVE YOU
> > > >teach anything?
> > >
> > > Wasn't that a virus that took advantage of a problem with OE, not IE?
> > >
> > > I could be wrong.
> >
> > it exploited the same design flaw in both programs.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > But in my experience, Netscape is both slower and buggier than IE in any
> > > version over 4.0 on either side.
> > >
> > > Netscape also routinely crashes on my linux box.
> >
> > better a crash than an ILOVEYOU attack.
>
> Aaron is a Sun "Engineer". He prefers machines that crash.
Then he should select MS powered machines, which crash
without need of hardware problems.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Colquhoun)
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: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 10:51:39 GMT
On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 13:52:59 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
|"Ketil Z Malde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
|news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
|> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|>
|> > The claim that Linux is already "enterprise ready" is at stake.
|>
|> Well, Linux is being used by plenty of enterprises, so it's beyond
|> "enterprise ready".
|
|It is? How so? Please provide examples.
|
|> > You can't have an enterprise-ready application with a faulty and
|> > half-baked file system (ext2).
|>
|> I'm not sure why you think ext2 is half-baked and faulty?
|
|Because it is. There's no redundancy, no jounraling, no protection,
|it's slow, it's poorly designed, it's.... Obviously there are problems
|because there are several other FS' in the works and Linus himself is
|working on ext3.
What sort of demented reasoning is that?
"Windows 2000: Obviously there are problems because there are several
other OS's in the works."
The world has room for alternatives, no one product can be all things to all
people and expect to do all of it well.
|> I've been using it since way back when xiafs was the main competitor,
|> and it's always been a good performer with no more bugs than any other.
|
|Compared with what?
|
|-Chad
|
|
--
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Universal Life Church http://andor.dropbear.id.au/~paulcol
-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-
xenaphobia: The fear of being beaten to a pulp by
a leather-clad, New Zealand woman.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 12:49:36 +0200
"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ur02i$b54$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Chad Myers wrote in message ...
> >
> >Claims were made that somehow because NT isn't shipping, in a box,
> >for PPC, that somehow NT doesn't support it or the technology isn't
> >there.
> >
> >I think any intelligent person (yourself included) would reasonably
> >conclude that NT certainly has the ABILITY and the TECHNOLOGY to
> >run on those platforms, or most any other, it's just that MS doesn't
> >have a financial incentive to do so.
> >
> >I was merely combating the unintelligent claims that somehow because
> >MS isn't shipping them, that NT has lost this ability.
> >
>
> Fair enough - the NT3.51 kernel has the ability to support a small range
of
> CPUs. NT4.0 kernel only ever supported x86 and Alpha, IIRC, while the
NT5.0
> kernel (aka w2k) only supports x86. NT, as it is now, has lost the
ability
> to support non-x86 architectures. I have little doubt that NT5 could be
> made to support these CPUs again if someone were willing to pay for it.
NT4 supports PPC,MIPS,i386,Alpha in the version they shipped.
NT5 had (up until beta3) an alpha version.
It can and it run on other architectures.
------------------------------
From: "Pedro Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Linux needs now ...
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 10:49:11 GMT
> Linux has the same standard directory scheme and configuration files
> location as Unix. Linux also has several universal installation
> methods....rpms, debs, tar.gz, and tar.bz2 packages. Installshield
> <blech> is also coming.
Yes, that's why SuSE put configuration files in a site and Redhat or
Debian on another one. And by installation I meant the process of
installing the OS, the package manager does not mind me since as
a desktop end user I think it would be hidden for him.
> You already have those things. However, what you don't have is that
> 'one' authoritative way that Windows does limit you to. Why does having
> many different ways to do something that allow you to pick your own
> favorite method scare you so much?
Why does having many different ways to do something has to be
always good ? Limitations on the Windows world come more than
all by the non open source style, why having a good standar open
source installation method is a limit to anyone ?
------------------------------
From: "Scaramanga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Same old Linux..Nothing new here...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 10:52:34 +0000
Can't get a mousewheel to work?
Well I'd rather have that than a whole OS that is quite clearly faulty.
Also, what do you expect to achieve by constatntly slating linux? You surely
know that it is a work in progress.
If you *really* dont like something, either download the source code and help
out with fixing it, even submitting a bug report will help. Stop bothering the
people in this newsgroup with it. We clearly don't care.
We are far more concerned with advocating linux to people who need it,
bringing free software in to vital roles, and to poor/developing countries,
and schools. Not to idiots who are just looking for fuel for flaimbait.
--
// Scaramanga
www.geek-ware.co.uk - v0rsprung gEEk tEknEEQ
------------------------------
From: Stephen Cornell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.ms.windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Most important computer program in the history of humanity
Date: 14 Nov 2000 11:08:30 +0000
> "mmnnoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > A Microsoft exec dubs Windows 2000
> > "the most important computer program in the history of humanity"
> > (http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/nov2000/nf20001113_046.htm)
>
> > Although this strikes me as ridiculous and somewhat offensive, I can't
> > think of any other computer programs that really deserve the title, either.
Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The Enigma WW2 code-cracking effort? How about simulations of
> weather, nuclear reactions, mapping of human genomes, automated
> accounting, banking etc?
Naaa...
Emacs!
--
Stephen Cornell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel/fax +44-1223-336644
University of Cambridge, Zoology Department, Downing Street, CAMBRIDGE CB2 3EJ
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
