Linux-Advocacy Digest #517, Volume #30 Wed, 29 Nov 00 02:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux for nitwits (mark)
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! (mark)
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! (Andrew Carpenter)
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! (mark)
Re: Linux trips over itself once again (mark)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (mark)
Re: Major shift (mark)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (mark)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (mark)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (mark)
Re: Major shift (mark)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (mark)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Ed Allen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Linux for nitwits
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 06:28:21 +0000
In article <900l78$tpm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> bobh{at}haucks{dot}org wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Nov 2000 17:31:38 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >I just mentioned it because it does resemble a certain
>> >GUI found in Win9x/2k/NT. I personally use it on my
>> >laptop only because I wanted the clock and other buttons
>> >at the bottom which aren't available in the conventional
>> >FVWM2 (though you are free to tell me how to *add* them
>>
>> For a very lightweight window manager that has a clock
>> at the bottom of the screen, multiple workspaces, and
>> kde compatibility, you might want to look at Blackbox.
>>
>> http://blackbox.alug.org/
>
>The trouble with migrating to other window managers is that,
>as a new convert to Linux, I don't automagically know how
>to switch to the new window manager after having installed
>it, and the documentation seems to think you should already
>know how to do this so they don't tell you.
Use debian - windows managers are automatically added to
the standard menu system. No need for you to do anything.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 06:33:15 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Byrns wrote:
>mark wrote:
>
>> In article <8vqvqq$5f036$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >
>> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> In article <qFZT5.10131$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >> Chad Mulligan wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> >Because they are still looking for a way in.....
>> >>
>> >> Yeah, on windows trojan ports - as I said above. I don't run
>> >> windows so the trojans they're looking for are not on my
>> >> machine.
>> >
>> >The most wide spread OS is?
>> >Most trojans are written to what OS?
>> >
>> >Combine those two answer and you'll realize why you've a lot of port scans
>> >to windows trojans
>> >Not to mention that this is about the most inefficent way to do this.
>>
>> Doh. How do you get a trojan onto a unix machine?
>
>Ask the folks that used them for the widespread DDoS attacks on eBay et. al.
>earlier this year.
There's a huge gap between a handful of totally unsecured academic
machines being cracked by experts, working on concert to a pre-agreed
single final attack to the hundreds of trojans emailed and posted on
a daily basis for windows users to install on their own machines so
that the kiddies can scan for them later.
Getting a trojan onto a Unix machine is extraordinarily difficult,
just read the alt.2600 faq to see the effort needed, and the risks
involved, and the simple fact that the machine needs to be left in
an exposed state in the first place.
Windows machines are already naturally exposed, with a delivery and
installation mechanism for trojans already provided by Microsoft.
All the user need to is 'open' an attachment in Outlook, and off
we go, people.
>
>> How do you get a trojan onto a unix machine? You need a delivery
>> mechanism. Microsoft provides one. You need root access, Microsoft
>> gives that to everyone.
>
>Let me count the ways... http://www.cert.org/
>
>
27 different scans yesterday across 6 sets of ports looking for
windows trojans.
If you're using windows, do you have time to count anything?
Mark
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 06:39:00 GMT
"Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8R%U5.19068$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > OK, let's try approaching this from the other direction. How many large
> > apps
> > from MS's competitors are you still running unchanged from the first
> version
> > of Windows. Or even from 1995?
> >
>
> How 'bout WordPerfect5.0 (Many lawyers use it because the line numbering
> works).
>
The DOS version? Revised DLL's probably don't hurt those much. It should
work fine under Linux/DOSEMU too. How many of your old DOS memory
managers work now, though? Remember when it was almost impossible to
use a box without a 3rd party memory manager?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Andrew Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 15:51:18 +1030
Andrew Suprun wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Byrns) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >> Doh. How do you get a trojan onto a unix machine?
> >
> >Ask the folks that used them for the widespread DDoS attacks on eBay et.
> >al. earlier this year.
>
> May be thay should switch from Windows they currently run on to
> some Unix boxes to prevent such kinds of attacks.
What exactly do web DoS attacks have to do with trojans anyway?
You don't need to sneak any code onto the servers, you just hammer them
with more requests than they can handle until they fall over. With a DDoS
attack, you do it from multiple locations at once -- which sort of
precludes trojans by definition.
The "Slashdot effect" is basically an unintentional DoS attack, caused by
readers all hitting a featured website at once. No malicious trojan code is
required.
--
Andrew
[ opinions are my own ]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 06:36:09 +0000
In article <8vv5ce$5nime$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <8vsa0t$5grsc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >
>> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> In article <8vr8r9$5a7fd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien
>wrote:
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> >> Doh. How do you get a trojan onto a unix machine?
>> >> >
>> >> >Same mecanism you get one into a win machine.
>> >> >Lure the user to open it.
>> >>
>> >> No, the user needs to save it, give it executable permissions,
>> >> su to root, give it root/suid permissions, put it into the path,
>> >> add a script into /etc/init.d or /etc/rc.d to get the trojan
>> >> started, modify the firewall scripts to open the required ports,
>> >> etc. etc. etc.
>> >
>> >We've been through this before.
>> >If the user execute the program, it can handle the rest on its own.
>>
>> Not without root permissions, it can't. You really don't
>> understand the unix security model, which is causing you
>> to fully misunderstand why the scenario you describe
>> cannot happen.
>>
>> Please take a look at Eric Raymond's intro to unix, it
>> will help you no end with these quite hard questions.
>
>Oh, I am.
>The point I was trying to make that 9x is a *single user OS*
>You seem to be unable to understand what a *single user OS* is.
>A *single user OS* has no cocept of permissions.
>On a *single user OS*, the *single user* has root-like status.
>
>Now, try to make the same arguement for the NT line, and you fail.
>
>You really need to understand the concept of *single user OS*.
>
>If you want to talk about the *disadvantages* of single user OS, that is
>another matter, but trying to compare a *single user OS* security model
>(non-existant) to a linux or unix is laughable.
>Why don't you compare a bike to a motorcycle?
>No, that is not a good enough comparition, why don't you compare a carrige
>carried on the back of a hundred turtles (average land turtles, normal speed
>400 meters per hour) to a Formola 1 car?
>
>
You cannot install anything on a unix machine without the
appropriate permissions.
To get something started by init, you need to be running
with root's permissions.
Go and read Eric's papers, that will help you understand.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Linux trips over itself once again
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 06:37:54 +0000
In article <8vuu2d$hou$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve Mading wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>: On Sun, 19 Nov 2000 22:17:17 +0000, Pete Goodwin
>: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>:>Claire, you can have the same kind of stories on Windows...
>
>: I realize that some people have problems installing Windows, but that
>: number is no where near, not even close, to the problems they have or
>: will have installing Linux.
>
>Back this up with statistics, or expose the the world that you just
>made up this "fact".
>
>All any of us really have to go on here is anecdotes, which will vary
>widely from person to person. *I* have had just as much trouble with
>Windows, the only difference being that with Windows I have no fscking
>clue where to turn to for help, since everything comes with documentation
>only at the baby level, which is useless when you run into some type of
>problem.
>
That was the very first thing I noticed when I first came across
linux. Documentation which is actually helpful, meaningful, has
information. What's become clear over the years is that absolutely
everything is documented somewhere, and you can even delve to source
if you need to.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 06:43:05 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 08:18:36 -0600, Tim wrote:
>>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
>>> rpmfind has been around for more than a year now, so this
>>> debian-is-better-because-of-apt-get doesn't really cut it any more.
>>>
>>
>>Actually I think it still is. When I do "apt-get install packagename" all
>>of it's dependencies are checked and downloaded too and installed in the
>>right order. rpm doesn't do that, and when you're installing a large
>>complicated series of packages with a lot of dependencies rpm is a massive
>>pain in the ass ... I don't know what new features rpm v4 has, hopefully
>>it's a better system.
>
>I'm not sure if dependencies can cascade. However, it's certainly possible
>to do something like remotely apply all the updates, for example.
>
>However, most of the dependency problems people experience arise when they
>try to install RPMs that were built for a different distribution. The
>only other place you get large dependency cascades is if you try to
>upgrade say KDE or GNOME (in which case just download the whole distribution
>+ Qt or GTK) So the main advantage Debian has here is the somewhat
>questionable advantage of obscurity -- noone else is using that format.
Stormix, Corel.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Major shift
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 06:40:58 +0000
In article <900nfl$lvl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>tony roth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> and I remember when atari st's and amiga's were the rage in europe ha ha ha!
>
>I remember when they were the rage in the united states. Whats youre point?
>
>
>
>
>-----.
>
I can remember when commodore pets were all the rage, or trs80s, or
c64s, or dragon 32s, or whatever.
Yup, I have a functioning memory and I live in europe. Er, ha ha
ha, I think.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 06:44:17 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Byrns wrote:
>mark wrote:
>
>> In article <8vqs5v$5e16i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >
>> >"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> >
>> >> 2. Why have another OS just to run the one or two Windows programs that
>> >you
>> >> might need to use. I have been down this road. It's a real PITA to have
>> >to
>> >> log into Windows just to get my mail. All of my real work is done on AIX
>> >and
>> >> Linux.
>> >
>> >Aren't there email programs for linux? Why do you've to use windows to check
>> >your mail.
>> >
>> The thread was referring to Lotus Notes, a proprietary solution, and
>> how much better it runs with wine+linux than on windows.
>>
>> It was not referring to email, but as you so correctly say, there are
>> stacks of email solutions for linux.
>
>Hallock's headers implied that we was using Windows to post.
>
Can't parse this sentence, and don't understand the relevance
to the thread. Is this going to be another one where there's
a typo but it's 'obvious' ?
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 06:48:27 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Byrns wrote:
>mark wrote:
>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Byrns wrote:
>> >mark wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Byrns wrote:
>> >> >Les Mikesell wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> > On Tue, 21 Nov 2000 07:03:36 GMT, Mike Byrns
>> >> >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > >Bullshit Les. Show some proof. My default install of Pro didn't even
>> >> >> > >have
>> >> >> > >NetBIOS over TCP enabled so the port was rejecting connections. When I
>> >> >> > >uninstalled the Workstation service it was stealthed. I've NMAPed my
>> >> >> > >box and
>> >> >> > >nothing is open that I don't want and that's OUT OF THE BOX. BTW I'm
>> >> >> > >not "blocking" anything. Windows does not respond when the services are
>> >> >> > >not installed on the interface. Never has.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I just went through this EXACT scenario installing SuSE 6.4 as well as
>> >> >> > Win2k in default installs.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > With SuSE 6.4 I took the "Almost Everything" option because as a
>> >> >> > newbie, I don't want to miss experiencing Linux to it's fullest. With
>> >> >> > Win2k I did a standard default install.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Try a RedHat 6.2 or up 'workstation' install if you want the
>> >> >> machine not to run any services. Normally I want to use the
>> >> >> computer so I want services enabled. However, that has
>> >> >> nothing to do with the earlier posting about Microsoft arbitrarily
>> >> >> moving the ports for file sharing without telling anyone. Quick
>> >> >> now, which router ports do you block to keep netbios-over-tcp
>> >> >> from leaking out?
>> >> >
>> >> >You block everything you don't know you need. I'm sure glad you don't setup MY
>> >> >routers and firewalls. And on the worstations you don't run NetBios at all.
>> >> >
>> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >>
>> >> Doesn't that defeat having it at all?
>> >
>> >Why should it be loaded on your outside interfaces when it's not going to be used?
>> >
>>
>> Maybe I'm missing something there, but the line says 'workstations', it
>> doesn't say 'outside interfaces'. I don't understand how your
>> question relates to the previous post.
>
>You should. It was clearly a typo. Only the "inside" interfaces have any business
>running "inside" protocols like Windows Networking or NFS. Segment your LAN/WAN
>properly, use properly configured firewalls and grep your logs (yes Windows too) and
>you'll be OK.
>
If it had been clear, then I wouldn't have needed clarification.
If you want a proper filewall, Debian GNU/Linux is an excellent choice.
If you want to grep your logs, grep comes as standard with Debian.
With windows, you need to download it. Oh yeah, you need to buy
a firewall, as well, I think. This is like buying a car and
then having to buy the locks separately. amazing, now that I
think about it!
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 06:45:08 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Byrns wrote:
>mark wrote:
>
>> In article <wWZT5.10145$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Chad Mulligan wrote:
>> >
>> >"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Chad Mulligan wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >
>> >> > > But it really is very simple to install wine. If you can't do it,
>> >then
>> >> > you
>> >> > > have no brain:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > rpm -Uvh wine*.rpm
>> >> >
>> >> > This assumes you use a distribution that supports RPM, not all do.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> The other major choice is deb. Just get the deb package and install. It
>> >is
>> >> easy.
>> >
>> >Also an assumption. Ever looked at Slackware????
>>
>> It's not an assumption, it's a fact. 'The other major choice' means
>> exactly what it says. This is not a Microsoft world with a one
>> true way defined by some people in Redmond, it's a world of choice.
>>
>> The major choices are deb and rpm, but tgz is also available, as
>> well as undoubtably other methods which people use because they
>> can.
>>
>> You can install the source and compile. Oh yeah, you don't get
>> that option from Microsoft at all, do you.
>
>This argument is used only when the Linux folks choose to ignore the government
>anti-trust cases that claims otherwise. Yet they support that too. Inconsistent
>and convoluted just like their OSs.
>
You can install the source and compile. You can't do that with
Microsoft's stuff. It's not an argument, it's a fact.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Major shift
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 06:39:28 +0000
In article <PjSU5.10849$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:900ne5$lvl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:8vv7oi$rri$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> "...a major shift continued toward non-Microsoft servers. "
>> >>
>> >> While the winvocates try to tell us what's so great about a 49 day
>> >> uptime clock, the European server market is moving to Unix/Linux...
>> >>
>> >> http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/reuters/REU20001123S0008
>>
>> > If you read the article, it's not that they're moving away from Windows,
>> > it's that they're moving to higher end RISC systems, which currently
>only
>> > run Unix or Linux. With (until very recnetly) Intel based servers
>maxing
>> > out at 8 CPU's, the 64 CPU systems that Sun and others offer are much
>more
>> > attractive. That's changing though. Win2k Datacenter can support CPU
>> > configurations up to 32 processors.
>>
>> Neat. Half as much as the worst of its competition. And on compaqs yet.
>> Yes, im sure all the high-end engineers out there who are currently
>building
>> gigantic unix systems are going to be very happy to switch to compaq/w2k.
>
>Worst of it's competition? 64 CPU's seems to be the max most commercial
>systems can do.
>
>> No, really.
>>
>> And this datacenter beast has been on the burner for how long now?
>
>What are you talking about? DataCenter has been a released product for
>about 4 months.
>
>> Its never going to happen.
>
>Already has.
>
>
>
Ah, made a big splash then.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 06:45:56 +0000
In article <C1GU5.512$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad Mulligan wrote:
>
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <wWZT5.10145$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Chad Mulligan wrote:
>> >
>> >"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Chad Mulligan wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >
>> >> > > But it really is very simple to install wine. If you can't do it,
>> >then
>> >> > you
>> >> > > have no brain:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > rpm -Uvh wine*.rpm
>> >> >
>> >> > This assumes you use a distribution that supports RPM, not all do.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> The other major choice is deb. Just get the deb package and install.
>It
>> >is
>> >> easy.
>> >
>> >Also an assumption. Ever looked at Slackware????
>>
>> It's not an assumption, it's a fact. 'The other major choice' means
>> exactly what it says. This is not a Microsoft world with a one
>> true way defined by some people in Redmond, it's a world of choice.
>>
>
>Not a fact. Claire said she can count on any install to be standardized.
>The penquinista's response was so's ours, holding RPM, I say RPM ain't
>alwasy there, then you said use deb, but it ain't always there either. So
>you cannot count on a simple installation.
Fact - the other major choice is deb.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Allen)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 06:59:10 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Curtis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 27 Nov 2000 22:44:34 -0500;
>
>>This is why MS markets Win2k only for the PC platform. It's not
>>economically viable for them to do otherwise because there's not enough
>>demand for it.
>
>Pardon me, but how is this at all related to the application barrier?
>If NT/2K actually ran on other hardware, shouldn't Windows applications
>still work?
Apparently not.
I had a MIPS CPU version of NT and every time I asked why they did
not offer a MIPS version of their software I was told that it was
not simply a matter of recompiling their source code from the Wintel
version.
I knew about the differences between Win95 and NT but I was baffled
that Microsoft would develop incompatible versions of NT.
>
>>Before you develop an application, you need to have a target population
>>to market it to.
>
This was the thinking of EDA (Electronic Design Automation) vendors as
well.
They kept telling Engineers asking for a Linux port that there was
nobody cutting purchase orders requiring Linux. Then one of them
smuggly gave that as an answer to a question from the audience.
Another Engineer stood up and asked him what *part number* to use for a
product that his company did not sell. The entire audience cheered.
Within six months most EDA vendors listed a Linux port, with a part
number, as "coming soon". They are doing a booming business on Linux now,
seems the Engineers had been resisting NT.
So you have it backwards. You must offer to sell something before
you can expect to see purchase requests.
As Max is fond of saying, "As a business it is *your job* to guess
what customers want and provide it."
--
"Whether you think their witnesses are credible or non-credible;
they've admitted monopoly power, they've admitted raising prices to hurt
consumers, they've admitted depriving consumers of choice...
-DAVID BOIES, US Department of Justice
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
