Linux-Advocacy Digest #546, Volume #30 Thu, 30 Nov 00 00:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is awful ("kosh")
Re: Netscape review. (spicerun)
Re: Linux is awful (kiwiunixman)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "kosh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 21:37:02 +0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Comparing Linux to Windows 2000 is like comparing the Space Shuttle to a
> bottle rocket and Linux isn't the Space Shuttle. I just installed
> Mandrake 7.2 and I, and the 3 other people using it are not impressed at
> all. This is our first venture into the world of Linux, and will be our
> last at least until Linux can match Windows 2000 in some very basic
> area's. First off we used Mandrake 7.2 complete from Mcmillan and you
> should be warned about the false advertising on the box. First of all
> this is NOT a complete version of Linux if only for no server version
> install offered. Also the tech support is for TWO INCIDENTS via Email
> and for installation only. They don't tell you about the two incident
> part on the box. We sent several questions, none of which were answered.
> The install program is broken badly. If you type the command for expert
> setup at the boot prompt which is supposed to turn off hardware checking
> etc, it doesn't work. It still goes off on autopilot and tries to detect
> hardware anyway. This was a major problem on a laptop we were trying to
> install on because it kept detecting the wrong video chip and all we got
> on bootup was a white screen with no way of killing it except power off.
> No killing the X-server and no way into an alternet console. There was
> also no way around this because even on boot up selecting i for
> interactive was interactive only up to starting X and it did that no
> matter what we selected.
>
> On the other 2 systems things installed better but KDE 2.0 is very
> unstable. It too locks up frequently, especially when exiting it but we
> can kill it and it doesn't take things down. So now it was time to play
> with the systems. We were able to set up the network ok and get Internet
> Connection Sharing up and running even easier than with Windows 2000 but
> why no dial on demand that will work with kppp and the Gnome dialer? I
> know it can be done with scripts but a newbie is going to use kppp which
> is set up as part of the install. Security seemed preety good taking a
> trip over to Gibsons site. Most things seemed to work, but there is a
> major problem and that is what is going to send people back to Windows.
>
> Linux gui just looks terrible. No matter what screen fonts, resolution
> or refresh rate is picked it is simply hard on the eyes. Many of the
> Gnome themes are dark and hard to see. Netscape is the worst in this
> reagard being painful to look at even with imported Windows TT fonts
> using DrakConf. By contrast Microsoft Windows is smooth and crisp
> looking. Mind you were using an Nvidia and a Matrox card, both of which
> look stunning on Windows. People are going to take one look at this mess
> and they will return it because it looks so boxy and awful.
>
> We have played with fonts, colors and themes and quite frankly have had
> it.
>
> Between the crashing of the GUI, crappy look and yes the lack of quality
> (although there is no lack of quantity) applications, Linux is a non
> issue around here. It's off our systems and we have fired off a letter
> to Mcmillin requesting a refund for deceptive packaging.
>
> Rozzi
With all these problems I have to wonder if you have ever seen linux. Many
of your statements are patently false because I tested them on my boxes
all of which run Mandrake 7.2 and before that 7.1, 7.0, Redhat 6.2 back to
5.0 then slackware. I think you are just making things up to make yourself
feel better and to try to stem the tide of growing linux users to make
your windows experience not become worthless.
I do understand that you feel threatened by linux but stopping the tide is
inevitable. If you want to beat linux get ms to do a better job. Otherwise
learn it and stop crying. Honestly no one is going to wipe your nose or
pat you on the back saying it is all going to be better. This is life and
life goes on. Linux will get better over time. Despite how people keep
comparing MS to the borg I think linux has a higher correlation but
without the negative qualities. Ie it is the most quickly adapating
operating system I have ever seen. Many bugs that exist today are fixed
tomorrow. That security exploit you saw on bugtraq this morning was just
fixed in a patch this afternoon. No matter what MS does or any other
company does there are more programmers for opensource apps then there are
for ms by a lot. All that spare time adds up to more then any company can
afford. So no matter how bad you think it is it will improve far faster
then you would ever have thought possible.
Kosh
------------------------------
From: spicerun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Netscape review.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 04:42:32 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
> When you're done smoking, mark, would you come down and
> join the rest of the real world?
How would you know what is in the real world when you are living exclusively in a
Bill Gates World?
> Is MS is a monopoly, then why are Mac and Linux doing so
> well.
Yep, you're obvious an MS attorney who used this statement in court.....Along
with trying to tell us that Netscape/AOL could merge now and become a big
company. What your selective memory won't let you remember is that until MS was
in court, nobody had a shot at the market.....Merchants didn't dare let anything
not MS around on their shelves or in their business for fear of MS retaliation.
While MS was in court, Merchants could finally allow competitors around them
knowing that if MS retaliated, MS would be answering for that in court.
As far as Mac doing so well, I think it is a combination of putting out a better
product and OS, and MS shooting themselves enough in the foot in the court trial
enough that several users decided it might be time to try the competition. A Mac
advocate could address this issue much better then myself.
As far as Linux doing well, MS hasn't been a real factor in how well it does....A
lot of people found shortcomings in Windows for years, searched for alternatives,
and started using Linux (or any other Free Unix OS). The number of people
finding Linux/Free Unixes have been increasing. The MS effect on Linux has been
really interesting since with Win98, Win2K, and the Court Trial, MS have shot
themselves in the foot worse than anybody would have ever thought....and Linux
suddenly have record number of people trying Linux to get off that unreliable MS
OS.
> You and your kind repeatedly tell us how wonderful
> Linux or the MacOS is doing and how it's much better than
> any OS MS ever put out.
You and your kind have been pushing MShaft on Amiga, Atari, Commodore, and Apple
users for year. In fact you Wintrolls have been pushing MS on anything not-MS
related. Were you really so stupid as to believe there wouldn't be a backlash
once it was found out what liars/FUD spreaders you guys were? And even today,
you represent your type well. Here you are again advocating (actually beyond
advocating) Windows in other newsgroups not concerned or caring about Windows.
You Wintrolls obviously think that you own all of these newsgroups. Welcome to
the backlash where you find you own nothing! It is also obvious that you
Wintrolls apparently can't navigate the internet well enough to advocate windows
in a windows newsgroup.
So please don't give us a lecture on 'our kind'. Your kind is the worst kind
ever in the computer world.
> What then, if MS has a monopoly on OS software, is Linux?
Linux is a pain in MS's side since MS can't get Linux off the market or out of
distribution like they can with OSes produced by a central company that can be
bought up or run out of business. Linux happens to be much more stable,
reliable, and, even, robust than Windows available on many more platforms that MS
ever considered.
> Or MacOS for that matter?
With the advent of OSX, a contender to MS that will probably be as stable as the
other Free Unices......MacOS has a good chance to overtake MS.
> -Chad
Actually, more of a 'hanging chad'
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 04:42:49 GMT
Skully1900, koe waingaio konei!
don't understand what I said? thats your problem!
kiwiunixman
Skully1900 wrote:
> Comparing Linux to Windows 2000 is like comparing the Space Shuttle to a bottle
> rocket and Linux isn't the Space Shuttle. I just installed Mandrake 7.2 and I,
> and the 3 other people using it are not impressed at all. This is our first
> venture into the world of Linux, and will be our last at least until Linux can
> match Windows 2000 in some very basic area's. First off we used Mandrake 7.2
> complete from Mcmillan and you should be warned about the false advertising on
> the box. First of all this is NOT a complete version of Linux if only for no
> server version install offered. Also the tech support is for TWO INCIDENTS via
> Email and for installation only. They don't tell you about the two incident
> part on the box. We sent several questions, none of which were answered. The
> install program is broken badly. If you type the command for expert setup at
> the boot prompt which is supposed to turn off hardware checking etc, it doesn't
> work. It still goes off on autopilot and tries to detect hardware anyway. This
> was a major problem on a laptop we were trying to install on because it kept
> detecting the wrong video chip and all we got on bootup was a white screen with
> no way of killing it except power off. No killing the X-server and no way into
> an alternet console. There was also no way around this because even on boot up
> selecting i for interactive was interactive only up to starting X and it did
> that no matter what we selected.
>
> On the other 2 systems things installed better but KDE 2.0 is very unstable. It
> too locks up frequently, especially when exiting it but we can kill it and it
> doesn't take things down. So now it was time to play with the systems. We were
> able to set up the network ok and get Internet Connection Sharing up and
> running even easier than with Windows 2000 but why no dial on demand that will
> work with kppp and the Gnome dialer? I know it can be done with scripts but a
> newbie is going to use kppp which is set up as part of the install. Security
> seemed preety good taking a trip over to Gibsons site. Most things seemed to
> work, but there is a major problem and that is what is going to send people
> back to Windows.
>
> Linux gui just looks terrible. No matter what screen fonts, resolution or
> refresh rate is picked it is simply hard on the eyes. Many of the Gnome themes
> are dark and hard to see. Netscape is the worst in this reagard being painful
> to look at even with imported Windows TT fonts using DrakConf. By contrast
> Microsoft Windows is smooth and crisp looking. Mind you were using an Nvidia
> and a Matrox card, both of which look stunning on Windows. People are going to
> take one look at this mess and they will return it because it looks so boxy and
> awful.
>
> We have played with fonts, colors and themes and quite frankly have had it.
>
> Between the crashing of the GUI, crappy look and yes the lack of quality
> (although there is no lack of quantity) applications, Linux is a non issue
> around here. It's off our systems and we have fired off a letter to Mcmillin
> requesting a refund for deceptive packaging.
>
> Rozzi
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:55:16 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 29 Nov 2000 20:10:43
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 28 Nov 2000 19:11:09
>> [...]
>> >> Now, you can refute my reasoning, provide evidence to the contrary, or
>> >> attempt to ridicule my position by building strawmen about "evil
>> >> empires" and such. Your choice.
>> >
>> >So, what you want MS to do is to go for vacation for a year or two, in
>which
>> >their market share will shrink.
>>
>> No, I want them to stop monopolizing. That doesn't mean they have to
>> lose market share (though its practically guaranteed in a free market
>> that one producer won't have such a dominant market share, which is the
>> whole point of a free market), but that's their problem. All I want
>> them to do is obey the law and act competitively, rather than
>> anti-competitively, which is illegal when you have large market share,
>> and stupid when you don't.
>
>Can you list actions of illegal behaviour on the side of MS in the last
>couple of years?
Are you kidding me?
Well, it all starts with an illegal pre-load monopoly on PC OSes,
solidified with per-processor licensing agreements and cliff's-edge
pricing.
http://www.nando.net/newsroom/msruling.html
Well, they spiked the market for DR-DOS with a FUD message in Win3.1
beta:
http://www.drdos.com/fullstory/incomp.html
They ripped off patented technology to include in their DOS, while
trying to kill off the technically superior DR-DOS, and any other
challenger to their preload monopoly, we must presume:
http://www.vaxxine.com/lawyers/articles/stac.html
They also bundled Windows with DOS to prevent competition for enhanced
OSes or GUIs on the PC. This was covered, ineptly enough, in the
aforementioned consent decree from the first reference. Later, they
also destroyed competition for office applications by similarly bundling
Office with Windows, giving OEM's an "offer they couldn't refuse" to cut
out competition. Its worth noting that this competition hung on even
through the ghastly support they could provide on Windows, initially,
and in the face of MS Churn (tm). But controlling production (by
restricting information) and cutting off distribution are pretty
effective monopolistic practices. To this point, Microsoft has not been
prosecuted for this crime.
They intentionally designed their email client to reject competing
service's egreeting card as spam (and then waged a disinformation
campaign accusing the plaintiff from "forcing" them not to include spam
filters, and entirely fabricated and bogus charge):
http://www4.bluemountain.com/home/ImportantNotice.html?020399
And of course, the seminal case, still being played out in the media, is
the infamous IE case, where MS evidently decided that rather than
compete with Netscape, they would "cut off their air supply" by tying IE
to Windows. Because of this particular illegal activity, they have been
convicted of monopolizing OSes, finally, as well as attempting to
illegally monopolize web browsers.
http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/microsoft-all.html
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
[...]
>> Where have I heard that, recently? Oh, yea, it was Aaron Thickskull's
>> scathing response to your "Gee, ain't Whistler Neet-o!" thread.
>
>You said that MS software == crapware.
>I wasn't talking about the look.
Neither was I. As looks go, its not too terribly bad. Windows, I mean,
not this alpha product.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:55:19 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ed Allen to my rescue, again.
Said Ed Allen in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 29 Nov 2000 05:59:16 GMT;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 28 Nov 2000 19:24:59
>>>
>>>Really?
>>>Put
>>>mem = <some value greater than your RAM>kb
>>>in lilo.conf
>>>reboot.
>>>kernel panic
>>>There has been a discussion about this about a month ago.
>>>Isn't is a case where the OS fail?
>>
>>No, it is a case where you misconfigured it, and it dutifully did
>>precisely what you told it, to the best of its ability. Its not like
>>such a goofball thing to do is going to cause the OS to scribble all
>>over every config file on the system, causing cascading errors even once
>>the thing is changed back, unless you scrub the system and re-install
>>everything.
>>
>Sorry to butt in here but this seems relevant:
>
>
>Name: crashme
>
>Summary: Test operating system environment robustness
>
> Tests operating system environment robustness by invoking
> random data as if it was a procedure.
>
>==========< From the history of the SPARC port of Linux >====================
>Stability
>
> Testing the stability of an operating system is not an easy job. We
> used the fine Crashme program to automate the process of finding
> problematic areas on the kernel. The SparcLinux team did a hard work at
> answering the question from users and responding as quick as "190ible
> to the bug reports from the users that were either beta testing the
> kernel or those users that had an installed Linux/SPARC system.
>
> In short, Crashme is a program that tries to execute random garbage
> code over and over. This program is known to bring down most commercial
> Unix operating systems (including both of the Sun operating systems).
>
> The routine use of Crashme on the Linux/SPARC port became part of the
> developement cycle (up to the point of having the team leader starting
> Crashme from his init scripts). The Crashme helped to find lots of
> problems in the port that were fixed as soon as Crashme spotted them.
>
>
> Thanks to having an international team of developers and support
> people, when the first Linux/SPARC distribution on CD went out we had
> a very strong port: a port that had taken only 22 months to engineer
> and complete (starting from scratch up to releasing the operating
> system on a bootable CD-ROM).
>
>============================================================================
>
>
>Somewhere, I lost the link, there is a website which used to keep a
>record of how long each OS would run crashme before failing.
>
>They quit updating the site when Linux times reached a week and all
>the others failed within the first two days. NT times were in minutes.
>
>So yes, a well designed OS will survive garbage being thrown at it.
As I said, this is the whole point. To hell with uptime of web servers;
in a real world modern day environment, the question of reliability
seems plainly illustrated by these results.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:55:21 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 29 Nov 2000 17:45:55
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 28 Nov 2000 19:52:37
>> [...]
>> >Please explain me how the OS is to be blamed when a program require access
>> >to a part of the OS it has no need to go, and in fact, violate several
>> >conventions about how programs should work, in order to do something that
>> >would've been easier, more secure, more reliable, and complince with
>> >conventions, and won't bother the user.
>>
>> By designing an OS in which programs require access to part they decide
>> they want to access in a technically accurate, consistent, and practical
>> fashion. By defining conventions about how programs should work which
>> disadvantages third parties. By making the technically flawed way to do
>> things the easiest way to provide value to your customers, because it
>> locks in the monopoly. By making the must insecure, unreliable,
>> non-standard operating system possible, and then illegally monopolizing
>> to prevent users from gaining the benefit of low-cost and interoperable
>> computers unless they support that system.
>
>MS has done so, the programs I'm talking about are *not* following the
>conventions. How is this the OS fault?
You seem to think that "conventions" have the same impact as "APIs",
particularly and probably exclusively on Windows, at least. IOW: by
decree of Microsoft, it is the application developer's fault.
But I don't friggen CARE! I have more things than blame-casting to pay
attention to. All I do is look at which components, when combined with
a system, fail most often; then I avoid those component. A-number-1 on
the list? WinDOS, followed by all MS crapware, followed by NT (an
accident of history, more than anything else).
>The program has ignored this by placing *user spesific* settings in HKLM.
Why? If you can't give me a *reasonable* explanation of why the app did
it this way, then YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE, and you're just
blame-casting, second-guessing. If you'd like to double-check what
Microsoft did to make it seem useful or appropriate to put user specific
settings in the local machine setting, I'm sure you'll find that it
really *shouldn't* be an issue. But I could be wrong. You are going to
have to double-check the facts, though, before you second-guess the
programmers.
>The rule is to put machine settings in HKLM, and user setting, in HKCU.
In a desktop PC environment, such a distinction is an arbitrary one. MS
should have a better method of doing things, so that these kinds of
problems don't come up. As Giuliano pointed out, an OS is supposed to
be *designed*, not merely *piled up*.
>MS has defined this when they created the registry. You can reason this out
>simply by *looking* at the key names.
>There is *absolutely* no difference from programmer POV at where you write
>to the registry.
Apparently, there is. If they write to the wrong node, you call them
incompetent. Other than that, though, its only whether it makes the bad
design of the Windows registry apparent, AFAIK.
>The difference is that you need to write HKCU instead of HKCU, and seperate
>machine spesific configurations and user spesific configuration.
>This enable you to write a multi user program without actually *doing*
>anything but programming according to the way you *should*
And is this a trivial change from the way things were done immediately
prior to when MS defined them thus? You keep wanting to take the most
obvious and extreme example of a bad application, that it writes its
configuration to the wrong place for no reason whatsoever, and presume
that this means that the registry is a great system. But what about the
*other* problems?
You keep missing the point, I think. So I'll make it plain. Yes, it is
the applications fault when this kind of bug happens. It is Microsoft's
fault for letting it happen; OSes are supposed to support apps, not trip
them up because they didn't follow "conventions".
[...]
>If you write for Win9x/NT, you should be writing according to the
>conventions and to MS suggestions.
>Since those conventions include putting user spesific settings in HKCU, how
>is stupid programmers ignoring this can be count as the OS fault?
>
>On the 9x line it would work, (you lost the ability to support multi users
>unless you build it up yourself, though) , but on NT it breaks the programs.
>Is this the OS fault?
Yes, of course it is. Why do you ask?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:55:26 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said mark in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 29 Nov 2000 22:40:41 +0000;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Curtis wrote:
[...]
>I have been asking for the same list of apps over and over
>and over again. I'm still waiting, and I'm still not seeing
>Where is this list of apps?
I'm sorry, Mark. You missed it.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
========================================================================
A more decent question would be what applications were available for
OS/2. If I'm labelled as being a Winvocate as you did later, I'll not
waste time writing those down. My knowledge of those are a given being a
Winvocate and all. :=)
For OS/2 the apps that I used included (don't expect me to list every
striking one of them here now):
WinOS/2 - Corel WordPerfect Suite
OS/2 Native
Word Processors - Papyrus
- Clearlook
Photo-editing -- Embellish
PMView
E-Mail -- PMMail
MR2/ICE
Post Road Mailer
News -- PMI News
Fax --- PM Fax
Internet Dialer -- Injoy
Shell Enhancers -- Object Desktop Professional
Stardock Themes
CandyBarz
FTP -- (EmTecFTP)
File Manager -- Initially DiskJockey and then FileStar\2
Other Uitilities
GammaTech Utilities
Unimaint
C-A-D Commander
I didn't have a CD Burner or Scanner at the time.
========================================================================
>>| So how long is OS/2 to NT transition - 5 mins? 1 year?
>>
>>It doesn't matter. Never mind. I won't add another piece of info to the
>>mess that confuses you so much.
>
>It absolutely matters. It is fundamental to your claims. how
>long is this crucial period. You said, paraphrased 'I had linux
>installed in the transition period between nt4 and win2k'. So
>how long was that? 10 mins, 1 year?
You really are harping, Mark. Even if Curtis is entirely full of shit,
which I don't think is at all true, its become boring and even
embarrassing to see you try to bludgeon him on this point.
[...]
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
