Linux-Advocacy Digest #475, Volume #30 Mon, 27 Nov 00 19:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: Whistler review. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Whistler review. (Curtis)
Re: The Sixth Sense (.)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Giuliano Colla)
Re: wahoo! I'm running now (Steve Mading)
Re: wahoo! I'm running now (Steve Mading)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (.)
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Ayende Rahien")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 01:31:27 +0200
"Bennetts family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:zmBU5.22$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8vthhl$5kru8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Bennetts family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:gPlU5.54$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Fair enough.
> >
> > Thanks for the understanding, some people seem to be unable to
understand
> > that you can't test the system for anything more than look & feel in a
> short
> > time.
>
> No, I just agree that you don't test beta's for stability. Release
> Candidates and tests, by all means, but not alphas and early betas. Don't
> make stupid assumptions.
I don't make assumestions, several people attacked me for not evaluting the
system other than on look and feel.
I agrees that Beta1 is not good place to evalute system for stability
(although, so far my impression[1] is that whistler is as stable as you can
expect a NT)
> > > So's mine, running 98SE and Mandrake 7.0, funnily enough.
> >
> > Any idea why?
>
> Because I understand nerdboxen well enough to know that, unless I do
> something stupid like leaving a bootable CD in the drive between restarts,
I
> doesn't do anything except pause for about 1/2 a second during the boot.
The Whistler CD was in the CD-ROM, and it's a bootable one.
That is why I thought it's strange.
> > During the install? Of course it tells me what it's doing.
> > I especially liked the way the MS ads during setup repeated themselves.
>
> ROTFL! It tells you how great Windows is, and then the install crashes.
No.
A> Whistler has yet to crash on me. I'm missing the blue screen so much that
I'll install the screen saver.
B> No windows install has crashed on me in the last six months or so. It was
a win2k pro, IIRC, and the reason was bad RAM chip, removing the chip
removed the problem and the install went smoothly.
C> I was being ironic. It's quite fun reading those messages, especially for
the win 9x line. It makes you wonder whatever who wrote them lives on the
same planet. 2000 & Whistler aren't as bad in this regard, though. 2000
actually convinced me that those messages aren't outright lies. Whistler
amused me by repeating the same 5 or 6 adds throughout the install.
> > During install, I don't *think* you can install 3rd party drivers, but
I'm
> > not sure.
> > But why would I've to endure 304 reboots anyway?
> > Install all drivers, reboot, it works.
>
> No, install one driver, forced into a reboot, install the other 5 drivers
> with associated reboots. Install apps (even f***ing Acrobat Reader needs a
> reboot), upgrade Internet Exploiter...
No, why would you install one driver and then reboot?
Install one driver, say no when it asks you to reboot, install another
dirver, continue doing so until you run out of drivers.
Then reboot.
This work on win98.
I'm not sure if it would work on 2000, although I see no reason why it
shouldn't.
I never had to test it as I make sure that the computers that I install 2k
on are HCLed.
> > > Try linux, it tells you every damn thing, which makes debugging easy,
> and
> > > gives you real feedback on what parts of the startup are taking most
> time,
> > > and what daemons are loading.
> >
> > So can windows.
>
> Sorry, it can't.
No, you never bothered to find out how to make windows tell you how to do
it.
Windows will quite willingly gives you a list of what it does while booting.
> > > ROTFL!!! Ahh yes, at this stage, it is safe to say whistler != secure.
> > Just
> > > what we need for servers.
> >
> > Just a nitpick, but the version I'm runnning is a workstation, not
server.
>
> In this day and age where PCs are spending more and more time on the
> Internet, and more cases where people share the same computer, security is
a
> necessity at all levels.
I *agree*.
And I've expressed my displeasure about it already.
It's a Beta 1, so I think it will get fixed in the following releases.
My comment was about the server part, and that I've not tested it, so I
can't tell you what it is like on the server version.
At this point, as you said, Whistler isn't a very secure system by default,
and the permissions on the file system are much laxier than the one on 2k.
> > > Just what we all need when we are trying to get *work* done.
> >
> > Yeah, I know. But you can turn it off.
>
> It should come off unless you turn it on. Like the paperclip (die! die!
> die!). People need to get stuff done without being distracted by a series
of
> animations.
What is your problem with the paperclip? Right click > Hide
It takes about five seconds to turn adnimations & the pretty feeling.
Display>Themes>Classic>Ok
If it irritates you, change it.
The defaults need to appeals to the tastes of much wider crowd.
> > > Animations...ouch...slow...I just want to logon, dagnammit, not watch
a
> > damn
> > > Flash animation.
> >
> > Then turn the animation off.
>
> No, it should come off.
Why?
It's a good way to make sure that the newbies would know what to do.
And, as you are probably aware, the defaults are to suttisfy the largest
number of people.
This is true for MS as well as any other application or OS.
> > > Not showing anything ala Unix etc is a security measure, noone looking
> > over
> > > your shoulder or somehow getting onto a VT can suss the length of it.
> And
> > > anyway, if you make a mistake, whatever sort of blobs are there, you
> need
> > to
> > > retype it from scratch anyway.
> >
> > I know, but it prevent people from getting any sort of feedback about
> > whatever their typing is being sent to the computer.
> > Which is the whole reason you've password fields in the first place.
>
> You don't have the faintest idea about even basic security. What about
> keypad doorlocks? They don't give feedback like that. You don't need it.
I know this, and I agrees that this is a very good security measure, but
windows is supposed to cater to much larger (and largely more ignorant) user
base. (this is likely to change in the next five years, due to china's
decision, I wonder when we will first hear "one billion chiense can't go
wrong" sentense.)
But you don't know the kind of users that windows has to deal with.
If I take a 9x user and gives him this, he would think that the OS froze and
reboot.
I've seen it happen! Twice!
I would've prevented the second time but I was too busy laughing.
> > > Doesn't Win+L work any more?
> >
> > Yep, it does. Just checked.
> > I never thought of trying it
>
> That's the crux. You don't think.
No, this is logoff, which isn't what I wanted.
I assumed that logoff would still mean logoff, and so I didn't check this.
I needed "switch user", but <win>+L apperantely work as "switch user" in
Whistler.
> > > Look for IE6 to be in it. With a better print preview as it's
highlight.
> >
> > Yeah, there isn't much that they can change, can they?
> > At least on the outside, which was what I was commenting about.
> > They could revert to IE 5 on Mac standards, and put in some more
standards
> > support.
>
> No, the only things M$ can do with Exploiter is make it standards
compliant,
> and fix the pig ugly default toolbar settings. And that print preview...
What about the print preview?
And how would you suggest to fix the "pig ungly default toolbar settings."
(btw, have you seen MSN browsers? I've only seen screenshots, but it looks
like the designers thought very hard about the term pretty and none at all
about the term usable. {To counter the obvious retort, Whistler is very
usable by what I've seen so far} )
About the standards, I fully agrees with you.
That was the reason I mentioned IE 5 on Mac, it's the most standard
complaint browser.
(I've not checked netscape 6, though, I'm going to very soon, test it on
whistler, see whatever it works. I also haven't checked the WaSP site, to
see what they've to say about netscape 6, so this info might be slightly
outdated)
> > > Good to see focus on the things that *matter* </tic>.
> >
> > For the user, it is what matter. And what I'm using right now is not a
> > server, it's a workstation.
>
> I thought getting things done was what computers are for. I am obviously
> wrong...
Yes, and allowing to computer illetirate people to get things done is
largely what Whistler appears to be doing.
I'm not computer illiterate (of course, now there would be several who would
jump up and say I'm. If there would be, I'm going to answer them with
"Predictable"), so I can't really comment about this.
I'm going to test Whistler on a computer illiterate very soon, though.
> > > > For now, I think that there is a good chance that Whistler will be
as
> > good
> > > > from win2k as win2k was from NT.
> > >
> > > Not what you'd call hard.
> >
> > You think that it isn't hard?
> > Then you've never used NT & 2000
>
> Spent time on NT, and it isn't as bad as 98, but certainly not crash hot,
> either. I haven't used 2k, because it is just NT5, with a new paint job.
And
> that *matters*.
No, it isn't.
There are a lot of things that are different in 2K.
Try installing a new video card in NT and then in 2000 and then understand
what I'm talking about.
NT can be a nightmare in this regard, 2000 is a breeze.
That is just one point where 2k surpass NT on many levels, including speed
on comparable hardware.
The 2k interface is nice, but it's the least of the things that they
changed.
If you think that 2K is NT with a paint job, you really need to spend some
time with 2000.
[1] No one can evalute a system stability in less than a month at the
minimum.
This is solely my *opinion* based on some very superficial tests that I've
done.
I've the system up for about 24 hours, I've installed very little so far,
mainly focusing on discovering what is new.
The way I work on a new OS may be a little strange, but I like to get a
feeling of a system before I dive into.
This mean avoiding the manuals and documentations and have a trial run with
the system first, with as little prior knowledge about the system as I must
have to manage with it.
This is what I'm doing with Whistler right now. (As a note, doing exactly
that on RH6 was very bad. It's my fault, of course, but I still think that
it's impolite of the installer not to ask me before it deletes all my HD)
------------------------------
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 23:44:23 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> 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 operating system came with the PC, you paid, whatever else the
salesman told you.
I bought my laptop about a year ago. I told them I wanted no operating
system. It arrived with Win 98 installed, with no CD-ROM. I sure as
hell paid something for that copy, even if it was a small amount
absorbed into the cost of the laptop.
(And I had a hell of a time installing NT until I realized that
the disk would of course be formatted as FAT32! Now, of couse, the
old laptop has a multitude of NT and Linux partitions.)
Chris
--
[ ] En-crypt Microsoft.
------------------------------
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 23:45:39 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> What does the cow has to do with the eagle?
>
> You are confusing totally different subjects here, are you even aware of
> that?
You're a real Dale Carnegie!
------------------------------
From: Curtis <[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 18:47:18 -0500
"Bennetts family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
»
» "Curtis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
» news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
» > "Bennetts family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
» >
» > [..]
» > » Spent time on NT, and it isn't as bad as 98, but certainly not crash
» hot,
» > » either. I haven't used 2k, because it is just NT5, with a new paint
» job. And
» > » that *matters*.
» >
» > You really should use it before saying such drivel about it.
»
» Yeah, sorry, I know. I don't doubt that 2k is more stable than NT4, and
» Whistler will be even better, but still, there's too many bodge fixes, and
» the whole thing desparately needs a rewrite from scratch.
You really should use it before saying even that. :=)
You may be surprised what you experience. I've seen many a skeptic who
have been surprised. Now, I'm not saying it's the holy grail and a
perfect OS because that doesn't exist. I'm just saying that it's miles
ahead of it's predecessor, and is pretty much testimony to the fact that
the server and high end user OS market is very much not monopolised and
is very competitive.
Curtis
---
| ,__o
!___ _-\_<, An egotist thinks he's in the groove
<(*)>--(*)/'(*)______________________ when he's in a rut.
------------------------------
From: . <[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, 28 Nov 2000 12:51:00 +1300
In article <8vsjnl$5ffj4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> A common anti-ms arguement is that it change the API without bothering to
> tell anybody and thus breaking competitor's applications.
I think you mean "a common anti-ms observation"
Even if they don't do it intentionally, they keep breaking things. I
think it was SP6 that broke Notes server wasn't it? Required all clients
have admin access or something...
You could also have a look at the Logitech mouse stories...
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[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 23:52:01 GMT
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
> Giuliano Colla wrote:
> >
> > I'm forced to use for a portion of my time Windows, but this doesn't
> > necessarily make of me an incompetent amateur.
>
> I've been peeved by Microsoft's Gilligan-like iconclasm for a long time.
> I got my first real computing experience on a PDP-8, then worked with
> a time-sharing terminal (Digital OS again) from Atchison, KS, to
> Kansas City, I think. Then a small IBM mainframe. Then a DEC-10.
> Found a resonance in a PDP-11 running UNIX. Nothing else has
> felt so good since, until Linux.
>
I followed a completely different path.
I really started with HP 21xx (roughly contemporary of PDP 8) with
either DOS or RTE, then a lot of Intel systems (mainly for program
development), from 8 bit ISIS to 32 bit RMX, for many years networked
with a Xenix server, but without ever looking into it, because it just
run, and no reason to tamper with it. We experienced two crashes in
eight years, because of HD power supply failure. A few mainframes and
other systems, but not for long each.
When I first met an IBM PC with DOS I was astonished. I had the feeling
of having gone back to stone age: even ISIS OS (running on an 8080 with
64k memory and two 8" floppies) was a lot more sophisticated. However it
was much cheaper than Intel stations with HD, so it took some place in
our lab. Then RMX OS was ported to PC architecture, and I could again
enjoy my 32 bit real-time multitasking.
It was interesting to have the same tools (such as editor, compilers,
etc.) running at full speed in multi-user 32 bit environment, and then
see the equivalent 16 bit version crawling in a single user DOS/Windows
environment, on the same hardware platform!
Then Intel was kindly invited to discontinue its software support for
embedded systems, which could produce some competition to MS, and we
were left in MS hands.
Until one year ago I had never really met Unix.
Our customers were requiring a pretty user interface, with graphics and
such, and, given the experience I had made in the last years with MS
quality, I decided to give a test to Linux, before committing to a
crappy thing as Windows.
I bought a book on Linux (with RH 5.0 CD included) on november of last
year, and I was conquered in a short time. I found again old friends,
because many of the systems I had been using in the past were apparently
derived from Unix concepts, and most of all I found again a professional
and sound design, as compared to the approximate, amateurish style of
MS. It feels good, you're right.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: wahoo! I'm running now
Date: 27 Nov 2000 23:54:40 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: True at first, only because the default configuration under XF86Setup
: worked fine so I didn't know. I went back and DID select Emulate 3
: button mouse and now cute paste DOES work with mouse but STILL fails
: using menues.
Is this what you are doing?
1 - left-drag to highlight source section.
2 - use menu of source app to copy.
3 - use menu of target app to paste.
This should work.
Or, is this what you are doing?
1 - left-drag to highlight source section.
2 - use menu of target app to paste. (without first doing a 'copy'.)
This shouldn't work.
X has more than one clipboard buffer. The buffer for "currently
highlighted stuff" is what is used when you middle-click to paste.
When you use the menu to do a "copy", you are *transferring* from
the "currently highlighted" buffer to the copy buffer. This copy
buffer is what you paste when you use the menu to do it.
The reason for this is that while the middle-button paste technique
is very handy (for normal mice) it does suffer from the fact that
it only pastes what was last highlighted, and that's a very
temporary, ephemeral kind of thing (you lose the highlight a lot
when you click around on other things). So the secondary copy
buffer is also available and acts like the one in Windows, where
you have to explicitly store the highlighted stuff into a buffer
with cut or copy, so it lasts beyond the current highlighting.
You can have it either way, but you can't mix the two. You can't
paste with one technique what was copied with the other.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: wahoo! I'm running now
Date: 27 Nov 2000 23:56:46 GMT
Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
:>
:> Not me, but then it might be a usage issue. Erik F. mentioned
:> that a way he likes to work is to:
:>
:> 1. Select text on document #1.
:> 2. Edit > Copy.
:> 3. Select text on document #2.
:> 4. Edit > Paste.
:>
:> Presto: instant replacement, when using Windows. Alas, this doesn't
:> work for my version of kwrite. But that may be because I'm using
:> RedHat 6.2, and whatever version of KDE came with that.
:>
:> This is obviously not a major flaw, but it does illustrate that
:> things break sometimes -- even under Linux. :-)
: Yes, X does have a limitation of one selection at a time. The second select
: wipes out the first.
Then kde is doing something that breaks the X design. There are supposed
to be two separate cut buffers, one for currently highlighted stuff,
and another for manually cut/copied stuff.
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 13:02:51 +1300
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> The math would incur equal penalties to pure 32-bit and doubled 32-bit
> operations. The bit checked need not be the Zero flag. The Overflow flag
> records whether or not a math operation caused wraparound. The structure of
> the code I wrote previously stays the same. Replace JZ with JO, and INC with
> ADD [TimerTickValue0], #TICKTIME or whatever. If this tick time varies, then
> it will have to be loaded into a register in both scenarios and added from
> there.
The overflow flag will be set when the counter reaches it's maximum
positive value and shifts to its smallest negative number. In this case,
a 32 bit value effectively becomes a 31 bit value because the sign bit is
being used, and overflow will occur the instant the sign bit becomes 1.
If you talk about overflowing as being the wrap back to 0 you have a 32
bit value for your counter, but you WILL need to use the zero flag,
because the overflow is not set on wrapping back to 0.
------------------------------
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, 28 Nov 2000 01:42:01 +0200
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8vsjnl$5ffj4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> >"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.
> >
>
> Yes, you were supposed to know, you fool. Don't ever write any
> code for windows again, foolish mortal. Keep your hands of
> anything from Redmond, because if it goes wrong, it *will* be
> your fault, and we'll tell you the reason later. Maybe.
When did I say that?
By all means, develop for windows, but don't blame the OS when you use an
updated version of a file when you developed the application, and it didn't
work on a system with an older file.
If it was the other way around, you might have a reason to complain, but not
when an older version not supporting something a newer version does.
> >> > 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.
>
> And we all know that this never happens, don't we children.
Please show me a time when MS changed *documented* API (if you use
undocumented API, that is your problem) calls and broke application and
didn't fix it.
BTW, since it's netscape that we are talking about, I'm downloading it,
(strange UI in the page, took me six mouse clicks to reach the download zone
from www.netscape.com) and it gave me this message:
You are currently using:
Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0b
Unknown language, Windows NT 5.1, Weak or Unknown Encryption
Upgrade Available!
Netscape 6.0
I'm sure you will find this amusing.
------------------------------
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, 28 Nov 2000 01:45:18 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 25 Nov 2000 21:04:17
> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >> It became market leader because it was given away by the monopoly
> >> with the monopoly OS. That's what monopolies do. I think that's
> >> also what the court found.
> >
> >No, actually, the court found that even thought IE was bundled with
Windows,
> >it didn't stop Netscape from competing.
>
> You are only slightly mistaken. What he said was that Microsoft's
> efforts to engage ISPs, ISVs, and others in exclusive contracts
> preventing Netscape from competing did not have sufficient impact to
> convict them of restraint of trade.
Interesting, Netscape had the exact same contracts.
> >It was that IE was a better browser that cause the shift.
>
> No, it was the bundling, the restraint of trade charge which Jackson
> *did* convict them of, along with monopolizing OSes and attempting to
> monopolize browsers.
I know what made me use IE, and it wasn't product bundling.
It was IE (version 4 and upward) being superior from Netscape (4.XX, I'm
downloading 6 right now)
> >With IE, I could get all the mail from all those email boxes with no
> >trouble.
>
> You mean with Outlook?
Outlook Express, it comes with IE.
Outlook & OE only share a name, they've very little in common.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
