Linux-Advocacy Digest #456, Volume #30 Sun, 26 Nov 00 23:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: C++ -- Our Industry... (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("PLZI")
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The Sixth Sense (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: C++ -- Our Industry... (kiwiunixman)
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Whistler review. (spicerun)
Re: Whistler review. (kiwiunixman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: C++ -- Our Industry...
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 02:16:42 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
mlw wrote:
>Charlie Ebert wrote:
>> Windows has made it's fair share of EXPERTS in the fields
>> of wasting money and pissing people off.
>>
>> Anybody who spends time developing applications for VB
>> is an idiot. Hell! The whole crappy Microsoft shitbag
>> will be gone! Vanished in just 5 years!
>>
>
>It won't be gone in 5 years, but the issue is longevity. VB stuff
>written now, will not function in 5 years. It will require a rewrite.
>
>C/C++ code written today may need to be recompiled, but C/C++ are
>standards.
>
>We are in a disposable economy. Years of people's lives wasted on silly
>things is OK if you can make a profit.
They had NO DESIGN! When asked how did you develop
this crap for the last 3 years the answer was
we assigned everybody a loose idea of the project
in peices and had them spend 1.5 years writing it,
then they FITTED the peices together for the other
1.5 years.
>> But there are a TON of NITWITS out there my friend
>> who will spend millions proving they are assholes.
>
>I have yet to see a real product made with VB. I have seem lots of
>prototypes that have wow-ed management, to just fall flat when a
>productization push was made.
>
>
>--
>http://www.mohawksoft.com
Management could not accept the notion of delaying
the project for another year so all these peices
could be fitted together properly and tested.
We found this all out when the last VB crudster
resigned 2 weeks ago. They all left in the
span of 3 months.
And this final paragraph is ironic as hell!
wow-ed by prototypes then fell flat on their faces
when management forced shipment.
This is EXACTLY what happened.
And customer confidence in the product went to
ZERO! And the product was shut completely off.
A dismal and expensive failure as management felt
they KNEW BETTER than the more experienced software
developers. They felt the certifications were the
real key, the aspect they had 6 months to 2 years
experience with VB was the real key!
The REAL KEY was you have to have experience with
developing projects from the ground up. It has
nothing to do with instrumentalities. It's the
experience in designing a project then bring it
forth from the ground up as a team.
They weren't even a team. VB people don't work
that way. Their most serious projects always
seem to revolve around some limited web site.
Even more shocking! The team they hired managed
to spend almost twice the money during a 3 year
time period as the in-house mainframe department
did with all their purchases and needs.
I disagree with you about 5 years. Microsoft
will be gone in 5 years because of cost.
That and subscription based crap will turn
customer incentive away from Microsoft and
toward Linux.
And I'm certain of this.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "PLZI" <[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: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 02:28:24 GMT
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:DseU5.25033$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "PLZI" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9G8U5.91$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > I am NOT saying that MS is Doing the Right Thing when not giving the
> > intricasies of these services - but I fully understand why they do not
> give
> > them. I can come up with tens of examples, where the protocol is open,
but
> > the service which uses the protocol is prorietary.
>
> Then why do they keep up the deceptive pretense that they use
> standard protocols and can interoperate correctly with anything else?
> They don't and can't as long as they use proprietary protocols and
> should be forced to say that in their advertising and literature.
Now, what did you misunderstand from the above? The protocol is open. Take a
rudimentary example, say TCP/IP. Now if I implement a service, which talks
with this open standard protocol, but does things which are proprietary, does
this make the TCP/IP suddenly proprietary? Or does this somehow suddenly make
the TCP/IP useless?
So. CIFS is open, standardized protocol. Some of the services, which move
data on CIFS are not. To continue this discussion, I should really take some
time to check the protocol definition. Or maybe I should really check the
samba.org, and cross-check what they have to say about the spec, before
continuing debate about what can and can not be done with the published spec.
- PLZI
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 02:54:45 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> And a similar situation happened at one of my clients. They had an NT box
> sitting in a network closet for 2 years acting as a time-clock system. One
> day someone goes into the closet and discovers the box, and nobody could
> figure out what it was for, since the people that had installed it had left
> the company a year earlier. So they just shut it down. 10 minutes later,
> they started getting calls from HR about not having access to the time
> tracking server.
>
> The thing ran for 2 years without anyone noticing.
NT isn't inherently unstable, I think. It is just susceptible to
problems arising from interactions in DLLs, and isn't good at
protecting its OS data structures from the resultant screwups.
So, you can work hard and get an NT OS running well, and, the less
stuff running on it, the better. But beware adding a new component.
The fine-tuning will have to start again.
Our project would crash after about three days. We used Performance
Monitor and found all the leaks (one, I think, was due to a bug in one
function in the Win32 API, so we just worked around that one).
Now our code runs indefinitely, as far as we know.
On the other hand, we have observed that bugs in our code or in
the Borland C++ Builder compiler can bring down the whole
development machine. You'd think the partitioning of processes
would be a little more hermetic.
Funk's example indicates that the time-clock authors were thorough
and careful. Of course, the doofusses who shut the server down
without looking at the process list and asking questions
should be sacked [and I have just the defensive line to do it
to 'em!]
Chris
--
Now why don't y'all juss leave this
poor ol' cuntry bawh alone?
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 02:57:02 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 25 Nov 2000 23:11:36
> > [...remarking on W2K compatibility, I believe...]
> > >There are all too many application that are written by lazy/idiot
> > >programmers which assume 95/98/ME and full access to the registery.
> > >There are ways to make them work, but I usually dump those that force me
> to
> > >mess around with the registery security settings.
> >
> > And I'll bet it never occurs to you to blame Microsoft for all that time
> > you have to spend sorting this out.
>
> Huh? That's like blaming the Linux kernel developers for Linux applications
> that assume you're running as root.
On the other hand, Microsoft makes big noise about how
intuitive and simple its OS is compared to others.
--
Now why don't y'all juss leave this
poor ol' cuntry bawh alone?
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 03:03:32 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Ahh.. then that explains why I had so much trouble with Manrake 7.2 on this
> older P200.
>
> I couldn't get the video to come up with the correct drivers (Hercules
> Dynamite 128/Video or the tseng ET6000 driver). It just gave a very cryptic
> message about my settings and said "try some different settings". When I
> tried the SVGA driver, it at least gave me video, but it was corrupted.
> This same system worked fine with Mandrake 7.1 (the difference being XFree86
> 4.0.1 in 7.2 and 3.3.x in 7.1). I guess that means Linux and Xfree86 are a
> piece of crap.
>
> (Note: I don't believe that, since I understand that bugs happen. Max,
> however, does not.)
Again, though, after Microsoft's months of testing, beta testing, and
compatibility testing, you'd expect their system to work with almost
no bugs.
Perhaps XFree86 4 never got into the hands of a tester with your particular
video hardware.
Or, perhaps your installation somehow screwed up an XFree86 setting.
I had that problem on my laptop. I just bowed to the magic,
and installed RH 6.0, then upgraded to RH 7, and it all worked fine.
Deplorable, but understandable. It means I need to hang onto that
6.0 disk until my laptop falls out of use.
Anyway, it wouldn't surprise me to find that T. Max has had myriads
of problems with Windozzzzzzzzz OS's, and is now forever soured on
them. They get me angry pretty regularly.
Chris
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 03:06:25 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:PXdU5.25022$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8vratq$5edhe$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > >
> > > > Maybe you forget that the only viable alternative to Windows exists
> only
> > > > because it escapes the normal market rules, being a free product, and
> > > > therefore it is, for a certain amount, protected against monopoly.
> > >
> > > Mac, Os/2 are viable alternatives and they follow normal market rules.
> >
> > What major vendor could have sold you an Intel based PC in 1996
> > without paying for a copy of windows?
>
> What version of Mac could run on an Intel based PC?
We could get into the wide world of emulators on this one.
Some people used to run a Mac OS on their Atari STs.
Anyway, Les's question spoke to the anti-trust issues, while your
question speaks to Apple's hardware strategy.
--
Now why don't y'all juss leave this
poor ol' cuntry bawh alone?
------------------------------
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: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 05:05:24 +0200
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 25 Nov 2000
23:11:36
> > > [...remarking on W2K compatibility, I believe...]
> > > >There are all too many application that are written by lazy/idiot
> > > >programmers which assume 95/98/ME and full access to the registery.
> > > >There are ways to make them work, but I usually dump those that force
me
> > to
> > > >mess around with the registery security settings.
> > >
> > > And I'll bet it never occurs to you to blame Microsoft for all that
time
> > > you have to spend sorting this out.
> >
> > Huh? That's like blaming the Linux kernel developers for Linux
applications
> > that assume you're running as root.
>
> On the other hand, Microsoft makes big noise about how
> intuitive and simple its OS is compared to others.
What does the cow has to do with the eagle?
You are confusing totally different subjects here, are you even aware of
that?
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 03:10:49 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> >
> > My windows version of Netscape 6 (release) has never run. It always
> > crashes with a DLL error message. Based on experience with other
> > programs under windows, I interpret this as a windows problem, not
> > something Netscape-specific.
>
> How can it be a windows problem?
> If Netscape crashes, it's Netscape problem.
Not necessarily. I wrote an app that worked fine, sent it to a customer,
who complained that it crashed when he moved the mouse over a toolbar.
I felt bad, until I discovered that Visual C++ had updated COMCTRL32.DLL
on my machine. I sent him my version (who knows if I violated some
MSFT law?), and that fixed his problem... a Windows problem. There have
been other similar examples of broken DLLs, if I recall. How wuz I supposed
to know that all my clients had to install IE 4 for my code to work.
Yeeeesh!
> And, for what it worth, MS didn't release anything lately that can break
> Netscape, so this arguement is pointless.
And how do you know that, my friend? Does Netscape not use any Windows
DLL's?
Chris
--
Now why don't y'all juss leave this
poor ol' cuntry bawh alone?
------------------------------
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: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 05:10:56 +0200
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:PXdU5.25022$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:8vratq$5edhe$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Maybe you forget that the only viable alternative to Windows
exists
> > only
> > > > > because it escapes the normal market rules, being a free product,
and
> > > > > therefore it is, for a certain amount, protected against monopoly.
> > > >
> > > > Mac, Os/2 are viable alternatives and they follow normal market
rules.
> > >
> > > What major vendor could have sold you an Intel based PC in 1996
> > > without paying for a copy of windows?
> >
> > What version of Mac could run on an Intel based PC?
>
> We could get into the wide world of emulators on this one.
> Some people used to run a Mac OS on their Atari STs.
>
> Anyway, Les's question spoke to the anti-trust issues, while your
> question speaks to Apple's hardware strategy.
No, he claimed that you can't buy a intel based PC in 1996 without paying to
MS.
(I bought computers then, I didn't go to the OEMs, I didn't pay anything to
MS for this)
If the major vendor is such an important issue, then create a
goverment-owned vendor to buy proccessors from intel and sell computers.
I don't think that Intel, at any point, would refuse to sell its processors
to anyone.
I pointed out that even if this is true, then you could still go with Mac.
The wording was wrong, though.
However, even if you exclude x86, you still get Linux on alpha, Mac on PPC,
Sun on Sparc, and so on.
Plenty of choices.
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: C++ -- Our Industry...
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 03:10:11 GMT
When I was learning programming, VB was a bitch to program with, I much
rather use C as not only it is logical but also portable (can virtually
use the same code on UNIX as you would on Windows). One example of
logical is when you insert the result of a equation into a sentence, VB
it is a bitch, in C, no probs, eg:
cout << "The total number of chicken in the world is" << number << endl;
sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet :)
kiwiunixman
Charlie Ebert wrote:
> After having been thru the C++ thread I started, I got
> real mad!!!
>
> I wasn't mad at anybody I debated with. It caused me to
> think about the entire development process here...
>
> It happened when I started viewing job ad's from other
> towns. In my area, Cobol and the mainframe are predominate
> with a smattering of VB jobs and web jobs here and there.
>
> If you take a look at east and west coast newpapers
> you find more C++ jobs there. I'd have to say they
> are about tied with VB and Cobol in quantity of ad's.
>
> What made me really mad wasn't that other area's had
> the C++ jobs. It was the bullshit which was being
> spouted off here in my local area by local developers!
>
> We're modern, join us doing VB! VB is bullshit!
> You might have a debate about the usefullness of C++
> but VB is definitely bullshit!
>
> The VB developers claim to be industry models for
> contemporary software development. The future is
> VB! This is their rallying cry.
>
> So some dumbass company comes up with a few VB apps
> to run on the internet and all of a sudden they've
> become industry leaders!
>
> That just makes me sick. Doesn't it you?
>
> The point is how can you be an industry LEADER if
> your just another class clown FOLLOWER! Every company
> of small size is doing some VB development.
>
> And VB sucks. It's not even a language. It will
> never be forced to meet some standards committee.
> There are no standards for VB as it's a Microsoft
> ONLY show!
>
> I pity the dumb bastard who writes VB. I really do.
> They don't know what being an industry leader is
> all about! You don't be an industry leader by
> following Microsoft around. Since when does following
> Microsoft around like a lost puppy dog qualify you
> as being an industry leader????
>
> The term "INDUSTRY LEADER" is just as interesting
> as the term "SOFTWARE ENGINEER". But it's much
> more vague and meaningless when they use it in
> conjunction with the words "VISUAL BASIC".
>
> I can respect a person who codes in C or C++ or
> even the many COBOL's out there. I can respect
> a person who writes in JAVA. I can respect a
> person who writes in ADA. I think these people,
> not inclusive, are our "INDUSTRY LEADERS".
>
> I have NEVER FELT that the title of "INDUSTRY LEADER"
> should go to any company with any product being
> produced by Visual Basic because there are
> 10's of thousands of them all doing the same thing.
>
> Where is the leadership of the industry in pushing
> a set of tools 10,000 other companies have around
> a palet and writing a little sloppy code behind them.
>
> It's almost hideous to consider that VB is currently
> the #1 choice development tool for Windows users.
>
> Saying that using "Visual Basic" at your company makes
> US an "INDUSTRY LEADER" is very much akin to saying,
> "I'M A LEADER IN THE FIGHT FOR THE ENVIRONMENT" for using
> recycled toilet paper to whipe!!!! Point being, "VISUAL
> BASIC" is as much of a computer language in reality as
> "recycled toilet paper" exists on store shelves.
>
> It's functionally as funny as reading all those ad's from
> the early 90's where people were trying to hire FOX PRO
> PROGRAMMERS. I actually did a job for an attorney firm
> who was using FOX PRO during those days. One of the
> attorney's was a neighbor of ours and I asked him
> after he did the job, why didn't you just run an ad
> looking for somebody who might know something about
> FOX PRO instead of demanding they have FOX PRO experience!
> The answer was they only wanted somebody with FOX PRO experience.
> Then I asked him, why did you want me to come over and help you?
> I fixed your problem and I don't have any FOX PRO experience!
> The answer was, I knew you worked on mainframes and I trusted
> you to try and fix it and you did. Then I asked again,
> why did you run an AD looking for people with FOX PRO experience?
> Were you expecting a large number of people from the area to
> come forth with their experience and fill this job?
> I never got a good answer from the guy, Attorney's are great
> at not answering questions.
>
> Microsoft has it's own little world of shit out there.
> It's a shame that idiots nationwide are spending
> millions of the shareholders money chasing loonacy.
>
> Bottom line! If the area of software expertise you
> are investigating is not supported across multiple
> platforms, then quit investigating it. You've hit
> a NON-ARTFORM!
>
> Everybody looks at Microsoft as if they were FORD motor
> company! Well, last year I had a pinto and now I'm
> going for that big diesel duelie over there!
>
> NO! You can't just start up your own high tech
> company just because you bought a bunch of Microsoft
> shit! Sorry! It don't work that way!
>
> I'll say something else which might make you mad
> but it would be true. The typical WEB "engineer" you
> get out of your local ISP with limited VB experience
> is not your PRIME CANDIDATE to be project lead on
> your next greatest adventure. Yet this is happening
> EVERYWHERE.
>
> In my company, we just cancelled a 6 million dollar project
> and set the company back several years as the VB development
> crew they hired didn't develop software for a living.
> 3 years and 6 million down the drain. The customer complaints
> were so severe they had little choice.
>
> This was MY company! The company I work for!
>
> This is what is wrong with Microsoft! They give
> you the DREAM and leave it up to you to see if you
> can finish it. It's just not he same structured
> philosophy we had comming from mainframe land.
>
> What I'm trying to say here is if your reading this
> and your thinking of starting up a Microsoft shop
> with VB being your core enterprise tool, then THINK AGAIN!
> Who are you going to hire to man the guns colonel!
>
> Funny how they require 6 years of COBOL experience before
> you can even be CONSIDERED for a job in my company YET,
> if you know VB your word is just great with them.
>
> THIS IS WHAT IS FUCKING WRONG PEOPLE!
> DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING HERE!
>
> IT'S FUCKING WRONG PEOPLE!
>
> Charlie
------------------------------
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: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 05:14:29 +0200
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > My windows version of Netscape 6 (release) has never run. It always
> > > crashes with a DLL error message. Based on experience with other
> > > programs under windows, I interpret this as a windows problem, not
> > > something Netscape-specific.
> >
> > How can it be a windows problem?
> > If Netscape crashes, it's Netscape problem.
>
> Not necessarily. I wrote an app that worked fine, sent it to a customer,
> who complained that it crashed when he moved the mouse over a toolbar.
> I felt bad, until I discovered that Visual C++ had updated COMCTRL32.DLL
> on my machine. I sent him my version (who knows if I violated some
> MSFT law?), and that fixed his problem... a Windows problem. There have
> been other similar examples of broken DLLs, if I recall. How wuz I
supposed
> to know that all my clients had to install IE 4 for my code to work.
> Yeeeesh!
No, that is *not* windows problem.
That is *your* problem.
You application used updated DLL, which you didn't bother to check.
If you'd an *older* version of COMCTRL32.DLL, they you'd a case, but not
when it's an updated version.
> > And, for what it worth, MS didn't release anything lately that can break
> > Netscape, so this arguement is pointless.
>
> And how do you know that, my friend? Does Netscape not use any Windows
> DLL's?
If it run on windows, it use windows API.
A common anti-ms arguement is that it change the API without bothering to
tell anybody and thus breaking competitor's applications.
------------------------------
From: spicerun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 03:21:31 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
> I've finally gotten whistler (pro, 2296, beta 1), and I'm *liking* it.
I DON'T CARE!!!
I will still continue to run my Linux System which has performed for me better
than anything MS has ever done.
<EOM>
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 03:25:36 GMT
I too have had a look at Whistler, and I seems to be developing pretty
good, however, I am not particulary worried about Whistler as I am
getting a Ultra Sparc 5 400Mhz next year (around January). Hopefully
Microsoft will keep to its promises, rather than make a half-ass effort
so that they can get it out the door. Also, I am a little worried about
what the hardware requirements will be as Windows 2000 Pro, IMHO is mega
bloatware, in that, what Windows does vs. it's size can not be justified.
kiwiunixman
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
