Linux-Advocacy Digest #392, Volume #30 Fri, 24 Nov 00 06:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: Best used box to purchase for linux system (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job? (mitch)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Linux for nitwits ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Tom Wilson")
Re: New to Linux, and I am not satisfied. ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Stuart Fox)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Tom Wilson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 07:56:06 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Don't you need an extra branch-if or something? This *could* wreak
>> havoc on deeply pipelined architectures (most, these days). And it's
> pipeline would get flushed ONCE every 4294967296 (2^32) clock ticks.
> BIIIIIIIIIIIIIG freaking deal.
Assuming the branch predictor predicts the branch is taken. Which I
guess most of them do these days.
>> anyway an extra instruction.
The branch-conditional would need to be decoded and the condition
checked, but that is probably not a big deal either. I agree, and
would rather have a larger counter than save a few nanoseconds.
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 08:04:10 GMT
Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> rpm -Uvh wine*.rpm
>> This assumes you use a distribution that supports RPM, not all do.
And that you've located and downloaded the rpm.
> The other major choice is deb. Just get the deb package and
> install. It is easy.
Easy? Just:
apt-get install wine
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Best used box to purchase for linux system
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 08:10:06 GMT
Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Oh and if anyone else reads this, is there a good 3D/OpenGL FAQ for
> Linux?
What for? The DRI User's Guide is a good document for understanding
how 3D acceleration is supposed to work under XFree86 v4 with DRI.
Use e.g. www.google.com to find it.
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mitch)
Subject: Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 09:45:05 GMT
On Fri, 24 Nov 2000 03:49:05 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> Mate, it has nothing to do with being open-minded or not. It`s all
>> about the applications - nothing more, nothing less.
>
>Right - and KDE has KOffice as an alternative to MS Word. If you don't
>bitch, you'll never get what you want. Besides, I'm talking about Microsoft,
>not IBM. Where did I mention IBM in my above discussion?
>
I just used IBM as an example to make my point, as I am forced to use
their operating system in my job, much like you may be forced to use
MS OSen if you ever gain employment.
>> I have to use OS2 some of the time here, because our main business
>> tool is an IBM app. Do I bitch about it? Yes. Do I blame IBM? No.
>
>Why not? That's what this forum is for. Again, I'm not talking about IBM;
>I'm talking about MS vs. unix.
>
See above. I was making a point, not trying to change the subject.
>> Get a life, because there is no chance of you ever getting a job.
>
>Really? That's nice. I'm not Mr. Open Minded like you, I don't love every
>single operating system. I intend to make my life as Microsoft free as I
>possibly can. My wish is that there would be a lot less Microsoft in the
>world, because Linux can do everything Windows can do, and can do it better
>and more cheaply! For example, KDE and GNOME are prime examples that you can
>make unix as user-friendly as Windows, and can provide the same kind of
>applications on a more stable platform.
>
>This forum is for advocating Linux, and that's exactly what I'm doing: I'm
>wishing for a lot less MS! Sure, I'm willing to do a little Windows
>programming on the job. But, don't expect me to run the crap (that's right,
>it's crap) on my machine at home.
>
1. An operating system is just that - a piece of software to "operate
the system". It`s not a religion.
2. Applications are written to be used on one or more operating
systems. If you need the app, you have to use the OS/OSen it was
written for. I use Cubase, therefor I need to run MACOS or Windows.
As I already have a PC, Windows is what I use.
3. Advocating Linux on its own merits is admirable, and, given
linux's positive attributes, isn`t exactly difficult. Advocating it
by religiously spouting negative nonsense about MS products is not
going to make you look very intelligent, unless you back up your
statements with facts and intelligently constructed critiscisms.
I don`t love every operating system - I just use them. I have no
crazy emotional attachments to any of them. I need to use certain
pieces of software to achieve my goals, and if I have to run them on
Windows, so be it. Yes it *occasionally* crashes, but most apps these
days have auto backups, so it really isn`t that much of a deal. Linux
may be stable, but many of the applications which run on it most
certainly are not. I will not be forced to use a banana to knock a
nail into a piece of wood, just because I have a strange hatred for
hammers. That would be absurd. And so it goes...
If linux supported every application I am required to run - yes, I
would probably use it. This is not likely to happen for a long time,
so I run all my software on Windows. Is this really so bad? No, it
is not. It is linux users like yourself who give the other, sensible
users, a bad name.
--
Smileys are nothing but conceptual wheelchair ramps for the humor impaired.
- Geoff Miller
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 09:47:41 GMT
"Jan Purwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> PS: You've been screening this shit since the eighties. Have you caught
> anybody yet?
> They cannot they got stuck with MS-windows that does not work long enought
to
> make a trace!!
> Jan
Plausable explaination.
Actually, I think this crap has been going on long before Windows. Back in
the distant RIME-NET and FIDO days, we started noticing longer than usual
response times when certain words were used. (A totaly pointless discussion
involving homemade fireworks and the like) Some folks caught on and started
peppering messages with "spooky" phrases to see what happened. From a
statistical standpoint, it proved inconclusive. But, I'm paranoid and choose
to believe the worst!
--
Tom Wilson
>
>
> Tom Wilson wrote:
>
> > "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Bob Germer wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 11/19/2000 at 08:58 PM,
> > > > "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > > >
> > > > > So, NT could not possibly 'beat' any system.
> > > >
> > > > Typical lies from a MS whore. No MS operating system has EVER been
> > stable
> > > > from the stolen DOS1 to everything available today. For stability,
look
> > to
> > > > IBM, Novell, and Unix.
> > > >
> > > > Only assholes run MS operating systems.
> > > > ---------
> > > > Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 14
> > > > MR/2 Ice 2.21 Registration Number 67
> > > > Aut Pax, Aut Bellum - Motto of Clan Gunn Translated: Peace or War
> > > > --------
> > >
> > > Be careful... OS/2 was a big jewel in the eyes of Bill Gates for
> > > quite awhile, until Windows 3.0 came out and did well. OS/2 could
> > > have been an MS OS!
> > >
> >
> > Actually, it was supposed to be the other way around... Bill,
essentially
> > took the code and ran. To his credit, and I say this grudgingly, Windows
> > turned out better than OS/2. At least early on.
> >
> > Amazing but true department: OS/2 was meant to be the OS for the IBM-AT.
> > Talk about missing deadlines!
> >
> > --
> > Tom Wilson
> >
> > Linux User
> > Windows NT User
> > Windows 95/98 User
> >
> > For our CARNIVOROUS FBI friends:
> >
> > Kill Gore, Kill Bush, Free McVeigh, Turner Diaries, Oswald, Long Live
> > Saddam, Bomb, Ammonium Nitrate, Revolution, Guns, Nuke Florida,
Anthrax,
> > Samples, The Alien at Roswell, Kennedy, Ransom, Demands, The Drop,
and
> > Hoffa got loose again!
> >
> > PS: You've been screening this shit since the eighties. Have you caught
> > anybody yet?
>
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux for nitwits
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 09:47:35 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> You must be a real idiot then because at least where I live the cable
> company comes and sets the entire thing up. Unfortunately they haven't
> reached my street yet and if you happen to mention Linux, they will
> not come at all.
>
You mean, YOUR cable guys will actually come to your house, link your
systems via the parallel ports and set up a box for you?!?
Wow!
I mean, OUR cable guys can't even crimp cable ends properly!
I'm both impressed and envious!
(Yeeesh!)
Tom Wilson
>
>
> claire
>
>
> On Tue, 21 Nov 2000 18:37:49 -0500, "Clifford W. Racz"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> First, I too am a Linux nitwit, but unfortunately
> >> your solution to install Linux on your laptop is
> >> already supported by Windows 9x. "Direct Cable
> >> Connection" uses the parallel port to directly
> >> connect computers together in Windows, thereby
> >> allowing the same procedure to work in Windows as
> >> it did in Linux.
> >
> >A "direct cable connection" is the biggest PITA I have ever dealt with
wrt
> >Windows. I have yet to get 1 to work. I would rather use Linux than
rely
> >on that.
> >
> >
> >
>
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 09:47:38 GMT
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Byrns wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >> Chris,
> >>
> >> The only reason why Xfce could cause X to lock is when you start a
> >> console based program from the panel. You should add "term" in front of
> >> your command to start a terminal to run your application.
> >>
> >> Recent version of Xfce (ie version > 3.5.1, latest being 3.6.1) feature
> >> a workarround for that problem (that is also present in other guis
since
> >> not specific to Xfce).
> >>
> >> In any case the reboot was not necessary, pressing ctl+alt+backspace
> >> would have killed the X server and returns to the console.
> >>
> >> It proves that MS-Windows has succeeded in something, at least : People
> >> think that all OS are as weak as MS-Windows (all flavors, NT included),
> >> I mean, an application (X in this case) that crashes not necessarily
> >> means the whole computer needs to be restarted.
> >
> >Two words: "User experience". When X crashes and takes all the X apps
with
> >it or locks up so you have to press ctrl+alt+backspace the user
experience
> >is virtually identical to when Windows 9x does the same thing -- all work
is
> >lost and the user needs to start over. It's particularly troublesome
that
> >ctrl+alt+backspace is so conceptually similar to ctrl+alt+del.
> >
>
> My user experience of trying to get Win98SE to shut-down after some
> application problem (usually Word or Outlook) is that it can take hours.
>
> On the occasions when I get bored of waiting for it to shut down and issue
> a reset, then on start-up, I get a message saying that I should have shut
> down the machine properly.
>
> On my linux machine, if X does need to be shutdown, then c-a-backspace
> will do it, and XDM will automatically restart it immediately. Within
> a handful of seconds the login-prompt banner is up again.
>
> That's the difference in user experience which I have. Amongst my work
> colleagues, the inability of Win98SE to shut down is near legendary.
Sounds like a bassackwards Microsoft attempt at improving their uptime
statistics.<g>
--
Tom Wilson
A Computer Programmer who wishes he'd chosen another vocation.
>
> Mark
>
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New to Linux, and I am not satisfied.
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 09:47:36 GMT
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Brian Langenberger
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on 20 Nov 2000 21:04:24 GMT
> <8vc3ko$sa5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Dan Hinojosa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> ><copy & paste woes snipped>
> >
> >: Thanks you crazy bunch of penguins.
> >
> >Try highlighting with the left mouse button and pasting with
> >the middle mouse button. No extra keystrokes necessary.
> >It should work practically everywhere in X.
> >
>
> If you don't have a three-button mouse, you may have to configure
> X to emulate 3 mouse buttons, and depress both buttons
> simultaneously in order to paste.
>
> (Guess who gave us the two-button mouse?
> M - I - C ..... R - O - S .... O - O - F - F - T ... :-) )
>
Well, at least they were one button ahead Apple...
--
Tom Wilson
A Computer Programmer who wishes he'd chosen another vocation.
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- with apologies to Michael Eisner
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 09:47:39 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8vht5a$4mtbe$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> > My user experience of trying to get Win98SE to shut-down after some
> > application problem (usually Word or Outlook) is that it can take hours.
> >
> > On the occasions when I get bored of waiting for it to shut down and
issue
> > a reset, then on start-up, I get a message saying that I should have
shut
> > down the machine properly.
> >
> > On my linux machine, if X does need to be shutdown, then c-a-backspace
> > will do it, and XDM will automatically restart it immediately. Within
> > a handful of seconds the login-prompt banner is up again.
> >
> > That's the difference in user experience which I have. Amongst my work
> > colleagues, the inability of Win98SE to shut down is near legendary.
>
> Press shift when you click the OK button on the shut down screen, this
would
> give you quick shutdown.
> BTW, ctrl+alt+backspace doesn't restart X, it terminate it, and then start
> it, there is quite a difference here.
The point is, the entire OS doesn't go down in flames as a consequence of
the GUI crashing... Sure, you lose whatever it might have been you were
working on, but core processes other systems on your net might be using
don't have to be interrupted by the recovery. Plus, you don't have to deal
with the corrupted file system and registry nonsense.
--
Tom Wilson
A Computer Programmer who wishes he'd chosen another vocation.
------------------------------
From: Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 10:06:23 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 22 Nov 2000 14:06:08
> GMT;
> >
> >What standard are you referring to?
>
> RFC 1213, and its descendants, though in this aspect it is still
> unsuperceded. Pointedly, 1.3.6.1.2.1.1.3.0 provides the value of the
> sysUpTime timeticks, a 32 bit counter representing hundredths of a
> second since the initialization of the management subsystem. HTH.
>
Thanks, that does help. Given your involvement with SNMP it's
unsurprising you could point this out. However, I do have a question.
Would Netcraft be performing a standard SNMP query on the web servers?
My guess would be not, and that SNMP traffic would be blocked at the
firewall. Unless I'm misreading the RFC, that would preclude this RFC
from applying?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 12:31:17 +0200
"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:%OqT5.2513$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The point is, the entire OS doesn't go down in flames as a consequence of
> the GUI crashing... Sure, you lose whatever it might have been you were
> working on, but core processes other systems on your net might be using
> don't have to be interrupted by the recovery. Plus, you don't have to deal
> with the corrupted file system and registry nonsense.
Actually, you do.
My ext2 partition gone in flames when there was a power outage.
The registery can take quite a bit of garbage in it, and there are many
tools to fix it.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 12:34:10 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 23 Nov 2000 06:31:48
> +0200;
> >
> >"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >> Man, I thought for a second (in a later reply to your post -- I read
these
> >> things chronologically backward) that you were talking about
programming
> >> /languages/, in which case I was gonna flame ya.
> >
> >AFAIK, the only language which I use for programming which isn't
supported
> >by linux is VB, and KBasic should solve this problem, to some (probably
> >limited) extent.
> >
> >> Seriously, Microsoft seems to have some decent support for languages,
> >> in the sense that many are supported, including ones with big
> >> character sets. Is Microsoft the best at this? Who knows?
> >> They do certainly have the most money to put into "non-essentials".
> >
> >I know that some Japanese fonts (in unicode) wieght more than 50MB.
> >But I've to disagree very strongly about the "non-essentials" part of
your
> >post. Just saying this proves that you probably never had to dealt with
> >language differences.
> >The majority of the people in the world don't speak english, or
> >speak/read/write it very poorly.
> >Without translating software to other languages, a *lot* of people would
be
> >stuck without any way to access the computer.
> >And you call *that* "non-essentials"???
>
> And so now suddenly you're suggesting that others should give a shit
> about languages they don't use, even though you just said previously
> that you see no reason to do that yourself.
They shouldn't, they give shit about what *they* are using.
Got that?
> Of *course* Microsoft supports as many languages as they possibly can.
> When you're trying to ensure that nobody who uses a computer can avoid
> using your product, its worth putting quite a bit of (non-efficient,
> from a competitive free market production standpoint) investment in
> removing any excuses they may have for avoiding it.
Nonesense.
MS translate much of its products to many other languages, because there is
*profit* in it.
Most people in the world *don't* know english, therefor, they need an OS in
their own language, and they'll pay for it.
Take a look at what happened when Iceland wanted windows in their own
language, btw.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 12:35:50 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 23 Nov 2000 03:44:12
> >Why *should* I care about language that I'm neither using nor likely to
use.
>
> Because you want others to care about languages that they neither use
> nor are likely to use, but that you use. Get it? Its called being
> civilized.
I don't want them to care, *I* care.
Linux just can't supply my needs, period.
That was the point that started this arguement.
> >Linux has *bad* support for the launguages that *I* need. I don't give a
> >horse's ass for those that I don't need
> >Guess who has the best support for those languages that I *do* need?
>
> Monopoly crapware, of course. Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever,
> but you're too dumb to know it.
You know, it's exactly this kind of statements that make you look like an
idiot.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 12:36:39 +0200
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:HHiT5.10167$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8vk112$4pche$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > All of this reminds me of an old win95 bug (may also be in 98 and
NT/2k):-
> >
> > Place any file on the desktop then rename this file to use all 255
> available
> > characters (win9x supports 255 char filenames so I would expect them to
> > work reliably). Then try to delete the file (or do anything with file
from
> > any
> > application). This causes a GPF error in whatever application tried to
> > access the file. Another case of MS incompetance.
>
> Oh, of course. Bugs don't exist in anyone elses code. Right?
Not in mine, I call them spiders. :-)
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 11:08:12 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8vlggu$4tt57$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:%OqT5.2513$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> > The point is, the entire OS doesn't go down in flames as a consequence
of
> > the GUI crashing... Sure, you lose whatever it might have been you were
> > working on, but core processes other systems on your net might be using
> > don't have to be interrupted by the recovery. Plus, you don't have to
deal
> > with the corrupted file system and registry nonsense.
>
> Actually, you do.
> My ext2 partition gone in flames when there was a power outage.
> The registery can take quite a bit of garbage in it, and there are many
> tools to fix it.
I was refering to BSOD-style crashes. There isn't an OS/FS in existance that
isn't vulnerable to power outages (God bless our battery backups!). As for
the registry issue, there certainly are tools to fix most problems. I take
issue (NT4.0) with the frequency of registry related problems. Particularly
those where severe fragmentation comes into play. I think MS could have done
a far better job by taking the dedicated partition approach. It'd be a lot
safer kept from the OS's file system.
--
--
Tom Wilson
A Computer Programmer who wishes he'd chosen another vocation.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
