Linux-Advocacy Digest #703, Volume #30 Thu, 7 Dec 00 00:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: OS tree - SOUND OFF! (tom)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Windows review ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Dennis Popov")
Re: Linux is awful (Uncle Fester)
Re: Blurry Fonts: Is there a solution? (tom)
Re: Whistler review. ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Linux is awful (Uncle Fester)
Re: Linux is awful (Uncle Fester)
Re: Blurry Fonts: Is there a solution? (tom)
Re: Blurry Fonts: Is there a solution? (tom)
Re: Linux is awful ("Michael")
Re: Linux is awful ("Michael")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: tom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS tree - SOUND OFF!
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 04:32:47 GMT
The Vic-20 had 3.5k; got mine up to a whopping 11.5k with an 8k
expansion cartridge.
The Timex/Sinclair 1000 was a whole 'nother story. Whopping 1.5k!
Tom
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <T9pW5.8795$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Pete Goodwin
wrote:
> >Charlie Ebert wrote:
> >
> >> From mainframe land we found the
> >>
> >> VIC 20. A commordore based machine with 256K of ram I think.
> >>
> >> Then it was a VIC 64.
> >
> >I've never heard the VIC being described as a mainframe. It
certainly never
> >had 256k of RAM! The VIC 64 was a 64k machine, I can't remember how
much
> >the VIC 20 had.
> >
> >--
> >Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
> >
>
> NO, I commoth from mainframe land into the land of PC.
>
> And I think your right. The 64 had 64K and the Vic 20 had? 2k???
> I really don't remember. That was 20 years ago.
>
> Charlie
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 04:43:40 GMT
On Thu, 07 Dec 2000 02:10:53 GMT, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Hey, I think I'll jump in to make fun of Little Chaddie Wingnut. Since
I'm in his killfile, he won't see me. It'll be fun!
>> > Many people don't
>> > realize there's a rape in the U.S. on average every 6 minutes. Actually,
>> > that number was from the 80's, I'm sure it's higher now.
>> Sounds like some more of Rush's dredging up of old data.
>
>Nah, this was from the FBI in 1988, I think. I'm sure the number is
>much higher.
Uh, 1988 was 12 years ago. That would fall under "old data" I think.
And according to that same FBI, violent crime is down since then, not
up. Down quite a lot actually. But I'm sure it is just a Democrat
plot.
They're afraid that if they don't go along with the program, Clinton
will kill them by having the Death Squad shoot them in the head just
before the fanatical suicidal Democrat pilots crash their plane into a
mountain in Bosnia. Or maybe they're just afraid that he'll make off
with their women.
>Even if Rush had said it, does that suddenly make it false?
It sure doesn't lend it any credence. Rush is a dumbass with a big
mouth.
>Somehow simply because someone listens to Rush (BTW, over a million or
>so liberals listen to Rush nationwide) that anything they say is
>suddenly false?
I can't imagine why "liberals" would listen to Rush except to get a
laugh or to get an early lead on what the nutcases at the office will
be talking about. If someone listens to Rush, and says that Rush is
"nearly always right", I would have to question that person's critical
thinking skills.
As I said, Rush is a dumbass. What he says that is true is usually
taken out of context, and much of what he says is just stuff he made
up that sounds like it could be true if you don't pay too much
attention.
>In 1999, 89,107 forcible rapes reported(!). Granted, it was on the decline
>since 1998, but that roughly equates to a forcible rape commited every ~5
>minutes. There are probably thousands more that go unreported.
Oh, so it actually is the complete opposite of what you claimed. I
guess Rush or you must have made a mistake. What were you saying about
him being nearly always right? Somehow, I'm guessing that this little
bit of actual fact won't change "the big picture".
Thousands of rapes went unreported in 1988 as well, btw.
>> > Nor do they want to, nor realize that their government is being
>> > systematically dismantled and sold by the Liberals (not necessarily
>> > Democrats). They are creating an atmosphere of reliance on
>> > Government as the Daddy of everyone and that the Government is
>> > always right.
>>
>> Those two statements are completely contradictory!!!!
>Well, you know what I mean. They're replacing OUR Government (the one
>created by the Constitution) with their own Government which rules over
>everyone.
Yet the Constitution remains unchanged, Republicans control Congress,
we'll probably have a Republican president, and the Supreme Court is
full of conservatives. This conspiracy must not be doing a very good
job.
> I wonder what they're doing that they need guns banned and
> removed from people's homes?
Even most "liberals" aren't talking about a total ban on guns. That's
something Rush made up. Yeah, yeah, you and Rush read minds and know
what the "liberals" are really thinking.
>> > and then c.) proceeded to politically and socially assassinate
>> > Monica, Juanita, Jennifer, Kenn Starr, Newt Gingrich, and countless
>> > other women which the President abused.
>>
>> Ha ha ha ha!
>
>You deny that the Clinton administration didn't engage in public lynchings
>of these people?
I think he thought it was funny that you called Ken Starr and Newt
Gingrich "women which the President abused".
Ken and Newtie did a pretty good job of lynching themselves and Monica
seems to be doing alright after her lynching.
["the Clinton murders"]
>This is what's sad. These are facts. Casual investigation would reveal
>every single one to be suspicious. They're all a matter of public
>record.
And yet the Republican-controlled Congress isn't holding hearings? Why
is that? Are they afraid that the Democrat Death Squads will come and
get them too?
>You're content to laugh because you, ignorantly, think that this couldn't
>ever happen, yet it IS happening all around you.
Why aren't you moving to Canada then? I mean, shit, if the President
is getting away with having 47 citizens assasinated, and this is common
knowledge yet nobody is doing anything, then things are pretty much out
of control here. If you really believe your own crap, you should be
getting the hell out of the country or they will be out to kill *you*
soon. But you won't because you're a dumbass.
>No, I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
ROTFL!!
>But everything he says is right (except for the self love). You haven't
>debated that fact.
I don't listen to Whoosh Limbo if I can avoid it, but if this garbage
about 47 murders and rapes increasing and the Democratic leadership all
being major felons is coming from him, I think that pretty much proves
the case that he's a dumbass. Which he is.
>You have laughed at every fact I have presented. Are you really that
>blind?
No, you're that funny.
>Spare me. Just look, open you eyes. Perhaps you should stop laughing
>and grow up.
I grew out of seeing monsters under the bed years ago.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 04:43:42 GMT
On Thu, 07 Dec 2000 01:56:43 GMT, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>When have you ever heard a Democrat say "That government program is
>TOO large, we need to reduce it"
Some Democrats want to kill SDI. But I guess that isn't what you
meant.
Ask your buddy Rush if the number of Federal employees has increased or
decreased under Clinton. Ask him about the growth rate of the federal
budget and the deficit under Clinton vs Reagan.
>Look at Taxachusetts. Overrun with Democrats, taxes sky high,
>government programs to help every do everything without thinking on
>or own or having self reliance.
Yeah, what a hell-hole it is there. Programmers making six figures, 2%
unemployment, headhunters bugging you all day long, stores at the mall
paying signing bonuses. They're even cleaning up Boston Harbor, what a
bunch of assholes those Democrats are.
And...they just lowered the income tax rate.
>Another example? Hillary Clinton trying to pass a government program
>that would take up 1/3 of the entire budget of the United States.
Yeah, what would the insurance companies and HMO's do then? They get
that money now.
>Liberals are anti-freedom and anti-capitalism.
I guess that explains the boom in Taxachusetts and the last eight years
of economic expansion. You're so smart Chad!
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Windows review
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 04:45:19 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Brian V. Smith" wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JM)
writes:
> >
> > |> >The cards I've seen at Office Depot are a little over a dollar a
megabyte.
> > |>
> > |> And you call that cheap? That would mean 128MB would cost about
> > |> $130!!!
> >
> > Big deal. That IS cheap. Several years ago 128MB would have cost MUCH
more.
> > --
>
> Remember when 16K cost US $500?
I remember holding an entire tube of the things and thinking what kind of
car I could buy with it.
>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > Brian V. Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www-epb.lbl.gov/BVSmith
> > Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
> > I don't speak for LBL; they don't pay me enough for that.
> > Check out the xfig site at http://www-epb.lbl.gov/xfig
> >
> > To the optimist, the glass is half full. To the pessimist, the
> > glass is half empty. To the engineer, the glass is twice as big
> > as it needs to be.
>
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
>
>
> H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
> I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
> J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
> The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
> also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
>
> A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
> B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
> C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
> D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (C) above.
>
> E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> her behavior improves.
>
> F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
> G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Dennis Popov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 23:43:01 -0500
Looks like most of the Linux advocates are nothing but a bunch of trollable
morons with shit in place of brains. You people disgust me.
Swango <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Windows 2000 rocks and Linux is a sluggard if ever there was one. I
> tried Redhat and took the server install option and it promptly wiped
> out my entire hard disk. Fortunately I had a backup but what if I
> didn't?
>
> Even after that Rocky Horror Show, using Linux is like moving back in
> time about 10 years in the computer world. My scanner, printer, and
> USB camera don't work. My Cdrw gives errors all the time although it
> seems to burn fine. My cordless mouse doesn't work properly and I find
> kde to be sluggish even on a 600 mhz system with 256 megabites of
> memory.
>
> Windows 2000 is so much better and from what I have seen Whistler is
> going to be even better than Windows 2000.
>
> To it's credit, at least Linux didn't ruin any of my hardware, quite
> possibly because it doesn't support any of my hardware.
>
> Back to Windows for me and maybe I will look at Linux sometime down
> the road, but for now it's a coaster.
>
> I can see why Linux is free, because they would never get out of court
> if they charged people for this tripe.
>
> Swango
> "It Don't Mean a Thang if it Ain't Got That Swang"
------------------------------
From: Uncle Fester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 04:49:24 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Uncle Fester" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Odds are, you're under 80% free. As a gamer, anything under 85%
> > required a reboot or thing started getting slow. And it's only been a
> > couple hours! ;-) But I'm just a BS'ing Linux asshole, what do I know?
>
> That's complete bullshit. You don't even know what that figure means.
>
> Hint: Resources are not what you think they are.
First 640k of memory. Thanks to Mr. Gates & company. Using programs
where framerates are a #1 priority, try them on a fresh boot, and again
after a couple hours of good heavy use. Compare the results & then tell
me there's no difference... I don't ask anyone to believe me, just try
it for yourself & see.
--
Chuck Kandler
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
Registered Linux User #180746
http://counter.li.org
------------------------------
From: tom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Blurry Fonts: Is there a solution?
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 04:44:00 GMT
In article <2aEX5.37756$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't understand problems reading pdf files. Xpdf and gv do
antialiasing
> and should look at least as good as anything on windows.
I'll give these a try. Don't remember what I was reading with, but it
wasn't any better.
> > Netscape is also horrible, but I don't know if it's Netscape or the
> > font thing again. I've added the lines to the startup file that
gets
> > Netscape to use a little large fonts; I still can't adjust the size.
>
> Just go to edit/preferences and change them. The real problem is
> that most web pages specify fonts that you don't have and the
> substitutions look bad.
Doesn't work; it doesn't let me change any font sizes like the browser
under Windows (& IE). We're talking not even logged on -- just reading
Mandrake's own help stuff. Online is worse.
> No, Microsoft and Apple put a lot of effort into making fonts look
good
> on cheap monitors. X wants lots of real pixels. However, I think
the
> default configuration looks a lot better on Mandrake 7.2. If you have
> a dual boot configuration you might want to tell it to grab the
windows
> fonts too.
Thanks for the suggestion, but I've done that with no luck.
Tom
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 04:52:43 GMT
"kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In the past they (university) used Pascal to teach programming, however, I
> think they had a new lecturer the year I attended.
Too bad...Pascal, IMHO, is the best language out there to teach modular
programming with. BASIC's ease of use plus strong typing. Excellent combo.
<snip>
--
Tom Wilson
Registered Linux User #194021
http://counter.li.org
------------------------------
From: Uncle Fester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 04:53:47 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Uncle Fester" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Then you never use your Windows machine much. Try this:
> >
> > !)Fire up a session of Q3A. After a hour or so, exit
> > 2)Fire up a session of UT. Same procedure.
> > 3)Fire up your ISP & Netscape. Don't be shy. Open your email window,
> > your newsreader window, have 5 or 6 browser pages open, chasing down
> > those hot leads on whatever topic interests you.
> > 4)Shut it down & check your system resources.
> >
> > Odds are, you're under 80% free. As a gamer, anything under 85%
> > required a reboot or thing started getting slow. And it's only been a
> > couple hours! ;-) But I'm just a BS'ing Linux asshole, what do I know?
> >
>
> Switch Netscape with any other combination of Brwoser & newsreader & email
> program.
> You will have no problem playing in the same speed you had before.
Respectfully, I refuse to use proprietary browsers. Now, what this does
show is poor memory management. Windows is not very strong in that area
at all & it hurts it.
I can go thru the very same procedure as outlined above in endless
cycles in Linux-Mandrake 7.2 without a hitch. Using the same programs.
The only difference is the underlying OS. So you tell me...
--
Chuck Kandler
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
Registered Linux User #180746
http://counter.li.org
------------------------------
From: Uncle Fester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 04:55:27 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Wed, 06 Dec 2000 18:00:47 GMT, Uncle Fester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> You linux assholes who
> >> post pure lies like "Windows won't run more than a few days
> >> at a time" are full of shit. You are sitting there with your head
> >> stuck under the ground, trying to tell people what the world is
> >> like. Those of us who aren't hiding can look and see that the
> >> world is nothing like you claim.
> >
> >
> >Then you never use your Windows machine much. Try this:
>
> Bull shit. More lies. Why are you opposed to the truth?
As I've stated in another post, I'm not looking for anyone to believe
me. Just try it for yourself. You don't have to admit a thing to me,
but you'll know inside...
--
Chuck Kandler
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
Registered Linux User #180746
http://counter.li.org
------------------------------
From: tom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Blurry Fonts: Is there a solution?
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 04:49:25 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Yes. I've never had such problems. ...always been sharp.
> > >
> > > Matrox Millenium (circa 1996), and Riva TNT
> > >
> > > Both running at 1600x1200 on a Panasonic E21.
> >
> > Don't take this as a Linux slam, but things are fine under
Windows. I
> > don't know what Linux is doing differently. Perhaps a different
> > resolution (currently 800x600) or Window manager?
>
> what part of "always been sharp" do you not understand?
You didn't specify what whether you were using KDE or what. I thought
there might be a difference in how the different environments would
work, though as I understand it, Xwindow is the only part that actually
interfaces with the hardware.
Tom
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: tom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Blurry Fonts: Is there a solution?
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 04:45:27 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Dec 2000 02:20:11 GMT, tom wrote:
> >Absolutely nothing about my problem, except that it did mention the
> >Netscape issue (only had the same fix I've already tried, though).
>
> Make sure you select scalable fonts (such as your fav true types)
> as defaults in NS. If you select Bitmaps, you can't scale them.
I'll double-check this as well, but it's pretty stupid of NS if they
didn't make the default scalable.
Tom
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 14:30:13 +1000
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3L0X5.1750$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:k_ZW5.152190$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:vMXW5.1336$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > That's just off the top of my head, I can list dozens of tasks that
are
> > much
> > > much harder under Linux than Win 2000. Which tasks are easier under
> > Linux?
> > >
> >
> > Keeping a stable box.
>
> Strange, I get that without any effort at all.
You'd be the only one.
Getting my Mandrake box to
> work with the tseng ET6000 card is a diffent story. It freezes the entire
> system for minutes at a time. Can't telnet in when it's frozen, it's not
> accepting connections, then suddenly it comes back. There's nothing wrong
> with the card, since it worked fine in Mandrake 7.1, but not in 7.2.
>
Then *you've* done something wrong. Or not done something you should have.
Don't blame your incompentance on the OS.
> > Looking at the source code.
>
> There you go. In the highly unlikely event that 99% of the general
computer
> population needs to look at the source code, Linux wins.
>
Let's go the hypothetical here and say that only 1% of the populous does
want to see the source. That's 1% that can't see it with windows, and will
see it with linux. Let the other 99% do what they want. I don't care, I
will run linux because it is what *I* want. I do not care what other people
use, it's their *choice*. Get it? I didn't think so.
> > Using my machine the way I want to use my machine.
>
> I have no problems with that either.
>
>
You obviously don't too too much with that machine, and are quiet happy to
use substandard software, your loss. But again, it's your choice, be my
guest.
-m
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 14:52:05 +1000
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:HL3X5.1756$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Why do you insist on changing the subject. The subject was Aaron claiming
> that Linux is only more difficult on things that you can't do in Windows.
> That's patently not true.
>
No it wasn't. It was some newbie trollbaiting with a typical linux sux type
post. Aaron's point came in later. Which by the way is true if you look at
it in the context he was talking. To a linux person, linux *is* easier,
simply because of familiaraty and the fact that linux will let you do
whatever you want, and that freedom is hard to give up in those situations
where you (for whatever reason) are made to use windows. That is
frustrating. At the same time to a windows person linux is alien and
foreign as well. People will use what they want to use, I use linux because
I find it easier than windows. I clung to DOS6.22 for a long time because
of the problem's with win95, soon after I did go to win95 I moved to an area
where I could access the internet, since then I learnt about linux and
started using it, since then I haven't looked back (except at work now where
I'm forced to use windows, *sigh*).
-m
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
