Linux-Advocacy Digest #709, Volume #30 Thu, 7 Dec 00 05:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is awful (Pete)
Re: Linux is awful ("Tom Wilson")
Re: MSN and AOL-Time Warner: Is Microsoft being hypocritical? (jtnews)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux is awful ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux is awful ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux is awful ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux is awful ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Linux is awful ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Microsoft Light Bulb Part 2 (kiwiunixman)
Re: Blurry Fonts: Is there a solution? (Bob Nelson)
Re: Linux is awful ("Tom Wilson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pete <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: 07 Dec 2000 09:13:31 +0000
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hey, this is *Linux* - the be-all and end-all of OSen, right? Hint: WinME -
> which was released _before_ this particular distro of Linux, if I'm not
> mistaken - at least recognized the drives, installed on them, booted from
> them, and once I'd installed the drivers for the UDMA controller (included
> with the system, BTW) voila - UDMA100 support.
>
> Compare that to Mandrake. Can't even _install_ it, it won't recognize the
> drives, even as IDE. Yup, modern, advanced, powerful... but won't even
> install. Love it.
Compare 98 to my old system i had (not 95 was fine though) , it got
shipped with motherboard drivers that either were wrong / didn't
work. It differed IRQ's with whatever the bios said they were and then
that card would work (Only on PCI cards). You could get 1, maybe 2 pci
cards going by telling windows it could use all the other IRQ's, and
maybe some card moving at it as well... But i foudn it impossible with
3 (and yes i tried turning pnp os in the bios
on/off/left/sideways).. But 95 worked fine.. And so did mandrake.
And the end of the day, all this arguing about stabililty is just
getting no-where. You WILL have people who have windows run for days
for them, and others, it wont. I have a friend who had 98 running
(after the 3? something day patch was fixed) that ran for 2 months
solid.. Ok, all it did was a dial up proxy server, and sometimes had a
browser loaded on it, but thats all.. But then I know someone else who
has NT blow out on them 3-4 times a day. Shouting lier to everyone is
silly, because in there experiences its true... (I have a friend that
ME wont even install, blue screens everytime, yet hes got 8 days
uptime on mandrake now)..
Now all this arguing is all because some troll cross posted this to so
many groups, and hes probably sitting back laughing at all these
people whos replied to his thread and this argument that he made thats
soooo funnny.. Lets just agree to disagree, and end it...
Follow-ups set to alt.os.linux.mandrake
Pete
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 09:20:06 GMT
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:dtEX5.6483$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [snips]
>
> "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ayende, by Microsoft definition, Windows ME (Moron Edition) is meant to
> > be adequate for the home user, WTF!, it's shit, fuck it's worse than
> > Windows 3.11!
>
> Is it? Let's compare.
>
> My scanner, drives, display adapter, webcam and soundcard lack Win311
> drivers, so I wouldn't be able to use them with it; this would be an
> advantage of ME over 311. ME supports better, albeit far from perfect,
> memory management and tasking. This is an advantage over 311. ME has a
> TCP/IP driver included (311 didn't include that, did it?); this is an
> advantage over 311. ME has a more flexible way of managing files, folders
> and shortcuts than 31; another benefit. ME supports long file names;
> another benefit over 31.
>
> So, in what ways is ME worse than 311?
He's talking in terms of performance and bugginess I suspect. Personally,
I've only played with ME for a few minutes and so can't render my own
opinion yet.
--
Tom Wilson
Registered Linux User #194021
http://counter.li.org
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 04:28:14 -0500
From: jtnews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MSN and AOL-Time Warner: Is Microsoft being hypocritical?
sfcybear wrote:
>
> Rumor has it that MS needs to sell of investments to show a profit. If
> it were just on revinues from Sales, service, training, etc. MS would
> show a loss. You can check the numbers in MS's anual report. Or watch
> the papers, I've seen a couple of snips that hint about this as well.
Where did you hear this? As of the quarter ending Sept 30, 2000,
their operating margin is still 47%, with an operating income of
$2.77 billion and net income of $2.206 billion on sales of $5.8 billion.
Goto www.sec.gov and find the 10-Q for Sept. 30, 2000.
Three
Months Ended
Sept. 30
1999 2000
-
========================================================================================
<S>
<C> <C>
Revenue
$5,384 $5,800
Operating expenses:
Cost of revenue
712 859
Research and development
813 956
Sales and marketing
922 1,038
General and administrative
148 170
-
========================================================================================
Total operating expenses
2,595 3,023
-
========================================================================================
Operating income
2,789 2,777
Losses on equity investees and other
(19) (52)
Investment income
550 1,127
-
========================================================================================
Income before income taxes
3,320 3,852
Provision for income taxes
1,129 1,271
-
========================================================================================
Income before accounting change
2,191 2,581
Cumulative effect of accounting change (net of
income taxes of $185)
- (375)
-
========================================================================================
Net income
$2,191 $2,206
========================================================================================
Basic earnings per share:
Before accounting change $
0.43 $ 0.49
Cumulative effect of accounting change
- (0.07)
-
========================================================================================
$
0.43 $ 0.42
========================================================================================
Diluted earnings per share:
Before accounting change $
0.40 $ 0.46
Cumulative effect of accounting change
- (0.06)
-
========================================================================================
$
0.40 $ 0.40
========================================================================================
Average shares outstanding:
Basic
5,129 5,299
-
========================================================================================
Diluted
5,527 5,557
========================================================================================
====== 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: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 10:46:03 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 6 Dec 2000 11:11:28
> >You lack basic understanding in how to create GUI, apperantely.
>
> Sure, right. And you have your head up your ass.
Personal insults is the last resource of a clueless troll.
> >> >BTW, there is nothing that prevents you from doing this on any OS that
you
> >> >want.
> >> >QT4 is the (sad) proof of that.
> >>
> >> Gotta take a cut, eh? You're proving to be a Windroid, Ayende.
> >
> >How does this has to do with anything?
>
> I don't know. I'm not the one that brought it up. What *does* QT4 have
> to do with anything? Yes, there are real world interfaces on Mac. One
> would expect that that platform would have many more, proportionally,
> than any other. Yet Windows still beats it, handily. Must be because
> its more popular, eh? Or maybe because such a crappy platform prevents
> the competitive forces in the free market from rejecting crappy
> application developments. Kind of like that registry permissions thing
> you've been ranting about.
You *really* are ignorant.
There is nothing in Windows that makes real world interfaces easier to built
than in any other GUI platform.
And there is nothing in windows that prevet free market in applications.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 11:16:06 +0200
"Jerry Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:ZfAX5.43$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.x Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Jerry Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:ZRdX5.4296$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In comp.os.linux.x Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > "Jerry Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:LEyW5.2831$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> In comp.os.linux.x Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> >> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > "Kenny Pearce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> >> > > Eric Meyer wrote:
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > > >They should really try doing a Windows install before
> >> > complaining.
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > > > I have many times. It may not be as easy as installing
Office
> > (or
> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> > like),
> >> >> >> > > > but it's still a hundred times easier than linux.
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > > > Em
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > RedHat installation is really easy... at least as easy as
> > win95/98
> >> >> >> > > installation... I've never installed any other distros...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Redhat custom install can be hard, because you need to
repartition
> >> > your
> >> >> > HD.
> >> >> >> > Server install should be avoided at all cost, RedHat somehow
> > figured
> >> > out
> >> >> > if
> >> >> >> > I choose to install a server, I have no need for information on
my
> >> > HDs.
> >> >> > And
> >> >> >> > so it deletes them happily without even asking my opinion about
> > it.
> >> >> >> > Never installed a workstation RH, can't say anything about it.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Just read the guides first.
> >> >>
> >> >> > I know that it is in the docs, the reason I've problems with it is
> > that
> >> >> > Redhat neglected to put a simple warning box through the
> > installation.
> >> >> > You may disagree, but on every other possibly distructive action,
you
> >> > get a
> >> >> > warning saying this may be dangerous. Why not on one of the most
> >> > dangerous
> >> >> > thing that you can do to your computer?
> >> >>
> >> >> Reminds me of Windows, "are you sure ... " etc on every stupid
thing.
> >> >> Now even xcopy whines when you copy over a file. But, just double
> >> >> click on a .reg file and it merges it into the registry! No
questions
> >> >> asked. I remember reading of someone that did this on a .reg file
from
> >> >> NT on W9x (or maybe vice versa) and destroyed his system.
> >>
> >> > No, if you double click a reg file, it tell you "Are you sure you
want
> > to
> >> > add the information in <file name> to the registry?"
> >>
> >> No, it doesn't, it just blithely merges it into the registry.
>
> > It asks you, it doesn't merge anything to the registry by default
without
> > asking you.
> > Here is what the path of the default actions ("Merge", in the registry
> > [HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\regfile\Shell\Open\Command\]) is: regedit.exe "%1"
> > In order for the registry to accept these without giving warning, you
need
> > to do this: regedit.exe /y "%1"
> > So, no, the default is to *ask* you first.
> > This behaviour is consistent with every windows that I've worked with
> > starting with 95 and upward.
>
> NO IT DOESN'T I have done it. Don't tell me what I know happened
> didn't.
I explained to you how this is done by default, I also explained that you
need to change the default settings in order to make the program accept the
reg file without prompting you.
You changed the defaults, your problem.
The default is that the regedit will ask you whatever you are sure you want
to do this.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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 11:20:23 +0200
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 06 Dec 2000 19:49:58 -0500, Curtis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Windows stability has steadily improved. Win2k is presently very stable
> >and will easily hold its own in most user contexts.
>
> I've found that lately I just don't care what MS wants to sell me. And
> I find myself strangely disinterested in spending $300 to get something
> that might be almost as good as what I've already got.
>
> Well, actually, it would be a lot more than $300 since none of my home
> computers meet the minimum spec for W2K, and some of them aren't even
> that old. About 30% of the ones at the office don't either, which
> might explain management's lack of enthusiasm for W2K.
I would say that anything below P133Mhz+32MB is indeed old.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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 11:22:13 +0200
"Uncle Fester" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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...
I do the same on Win2K, what is your point?
Netscape 6 got bad reviews in the Linux world, which was my point.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[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 09:45:42 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:0iFX5.1650$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Jerry Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:wbAX5.41$d62.2380@bgtnsc04-
> > > I'm not claiming that Win98SE is rock solid stable, just that it's not
> as
> > > instable as people seem to think if it's properly maintained.
> >
> > You're joking, right? The only "routine maintenance" my Linux system
> > gets is its weekly backup. I certainly don't need to do all of
> > the crap you listed to keep it perfectly stable. The fact that you
> > need to do all of these things is indicative of a very poor design,
> > but then again we all knew that about Windows already.
>
> That's not really the issue. The statement was that it's impossible to
keep
> windows 9x up longer than a few hours. That's patently false.
As strongly as I dislike Windows, I agree. You can keep them up for a while
longer. Two weeks is my limit under 98 'B'. NT can go on for about a month.
Most of the time, I'm only in Visual Studio. These times are only valid if
I'm not doing anything that involves higher memory/processor loads, though.
Using DirectCD, ZipMagic, or Outlook Express render that timetable null and
void as well.
--
Tom Wilson
Registered Linux User #194021
http://counter.li.org
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[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 09:53:05 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:90jrr8$1ft1r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Win98? Weeks at a time?
> > > I'm impressed.
> > > Do call Guniess, you are a first.
> >
> > No, he's not. I've run Win98 for weeks at a time as well. My longest
> > uptime on 98SE was almost 2 months. I ended up having to reboot because
the
> > modem locked up and wouldn't dial (not a problem with Win9x, the modem
was a
> > crappy old Cardinal modem that had that problem, even under FreeBSD.)
> >
> > There's no black magic involved with keeping 98 up and running. It just
> > involves doing routine maintenance. Defragging the drive, Optimizing
the
> > registry (using RegClean or Norton's optimization wizard), and keeping
the
> > DLL problems under control with SFC (system file checker). Also, using
> > hardware with known good drivers.
> >
> > I'm not claiming that Win98SE is rock solid stable, just that it's not
as
> > instable as people seem to think if it's properly maintained.
>
> Clue for the goddamned fucking clueless:
>
> That's not "maintenance" that's FIREFIGHTING.
>
>
> You know what sort of 'maintenance' is needed for a Unix or Linux system?
>
> Changing the backup tape.
Be fair Aaron.
You occasionally have to blow the dust off of them too. Especially if the
CFO comes to visit.
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Light Bulb Part 2
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 23:01:27 +1300
Just take a deep breath and came down.
kiwiunixman
Tom Wilson wrote:
> "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > While you Windows programmers are still trying to figure out the Win32
> > API, Linux programmers have finished their program's and have time to
> > reply to posts at COLA.
>
> Fuck you! <grin>
>
> --
> Tom Wilson
> Registered Linux User #194021
> http://counter.li.org
> Currently running under Windows and fighting with said API.
>
> Arrrrrgh!
>
> <RAMPAGE>
>
> HAVE YOU MICROSOFT EGGHEADS EVER HEARD OF CONSISTANCY OR STRUCTURE...YOUR
> DOCS ARE AS SPAGHETTI-LIKE AS YOUR CODE! HAVE YOU NO SHAME? AND WHY DO YOU
> MAKE AN EASY, LOW LEVEL DRIVE INTERFACE FOR YOUR SUPPOSEDLY SECURE NT AND AN
> OBSCURE ASSEMBLY INTERFACE IN YOUR NOT SO SECURE 95/98? FOR GOD'S SAKE, IS A
> CONSISTANT INTERFACE BETWEEN PLATFORMS TOO MUCH FOR THIS SIMPLE SOUL TO ASK?
> I PROGRAM FOR YOUR OS's SINCE DOS 1.0 AND THIS IS MY REWARD? OH YEAH, WHILE
> I'M HERE, COULD YOU EXPLAIN TO ME WHY ANISOTROPIC MAPPING PRODUCES DIFFERENT
> RESULTS ON EVERY VERSION? I'M REALLY TIRED OF INVESTING MY TIME TO BUILD
> STABLE APPLICATIONS ONLY TO INSTALL THEM ON THOSE RICKETY HOUSES OF CARDS
> YOU CALL OPERATING SYSTEMS! I DON'T DESERVE THIS AND NEITHER DO MY
> CUSTOMERS! I SUPPORTED YOUR ORGANIZATION ALL THIS TIME AND WAIT FOR A
> DECENT PLATFORM. YOU PROMISE - I BUY THE NEXT VERSION (REPEATED BEHAVIOR
> SEVERAL TIMES). THEN A BUNCH OF HACKERS AND A GUY IN FINLAND BITCH-SLAPPED
> YOU ALL OVER THE PLACE BY WRITTING A STABLE OS FOR FREE! YES, FREE! FOR
> SHAME, PEOPLE! WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT THIS? WIN2000 YOU SAY? I'M
> SURE I'LL HAVE TO DO IT EVENTUALLY SEEING AS YOU HAVE MOST OF THE WORLD BY
> THE BALLS RIGHT NOW....BUT, IT BETTER BE WORTH IT! I'LL BE GLAD WHEN I GO
> COMPLETELY EMBEDDED AND WON'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH YOU GUYS AGAIN! THAT'S RIGHT
> BABY, I'M TALKING DIVORCE AND I DON'T CARE WHO GETS THE RECORD COLLECTION
> EITHER! I WANT OUT!
>
> </RAMPAGE>
>
> <pant></pant><gasp></gasp>
------------------------------
From: Bob Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Blurry Fonts: Is there a solution?
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sucks
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 10:07:05 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[the usual ``content'' mercifully elided]
> F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
Ahem...that would be Jessica, not Tammy.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[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 10:07:15 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:mMGX5.1659$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Uncle Fester" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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.
>
> Just as I thought. You don't know what it means.
>
> System Resources is an average of the three 64K system heaps in 16 bit
> Windows. These are used for GDI handles, Menu handles, global 16 bit
memory
> handles, etc.. They have nothing to do with the first 640k.
>
> Further, being low on resources does not slow your system down. The only
> negative aspect that these resources are capable of producings is if you
run
> out of them completely, in which case windows will fail to open and a few
> other peculiarities.
Some software, even MS's own software, fails to release GDI handles and that
fragments the crap out of your memory pool. Legacy Win16 apps are
particularly bad about it. It indeed can slow things down over time. Kept up
long enough, one of those peculiarites is a completely schizo box that can
and will crash with a boom. Even NT boxes. One of my projects did that very
thing until I tracked down the offending code.The problem behavior went away
after I corrected it.
Another thing I found is that the less you rely on MFC, the better your
application's performance and uptime.
--
Tom Wilson
Registered Linux User #194021
http://counter.li.org
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
