Linux-Advocacy Digest #791, Volume #30 Sun, 10 Dec 00 15:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Whistler review. ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Uptimes ("Adam Ruth")
Re: Uptimes ("Adam Ruth")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Uptimes (sfcybear)
Re: Uptimes (sfcybear)
Re: What if Linux wasn't free? ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: Why don't I use Linux? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Uptimes (sfcybear)
Re: Whistler review. (J.C.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 19:24:43 GMT
"J.C." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2000 18:54:53 GMT, Chad C. Mulligan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >> >Benchmarks seem to prove otherwise.
> >>
> >> It appears you've retreated into the same cosy little bunker as Ayende.
> >When you
> >> can't come up with anything, the super-duper comeback is to mumble
> >something
> >> about `benchmarks', as if benchmarks are going to keep NT/2k up, or as
if
> >> benchmarks actually disprove my administrative experiences with NT/2k.
> >>
> >
> >It is you penquinistas that have the bunker mentality.
>
> All of us?
>
>
> If I quote my own
> >experiences which differ greatly from yours you call me a liar, if I
quote
> >benchmarks of note (TPC come to mind) you claim they aren't real world
> >examples.
>
> TPC's results do not coincide with my experiences with NT/2k. Is that a
problem
> to you? Obviously, it is, and you can't come up with any better
explanation
> than a supposed lack of competence on my part.
>
Since my own experiences do in fact coincide with TPC results and do
contradict Netcraft results and do contradict your reported experience I
must conclude that you do not understand the operating system and therefore
have introduced the instabilities yourself. NOTE: I've done that myself on
test systems to find the breaking points but I don't do that on production
systems.
>
> > I will agree benchmarks don't keep any system up and running that
> >requires an adminstrator with a clue.
>
> ... running a decent OS ...
>
>
> I don't understand administrators who
> >blame an OS for their own inadequacies, much like a mechanic who's blames
> >his tools.
>
> If the mechanic has shitty tools, then his complaints are justified...
>
Tell that to the 70+ year old mechanic next door. He has very few tools but
manages to fix anything brought to him.
>
> [snip]
>
>
> >> >Then your question is moot.
> >>
> >> Really. Care to elaborate, or would you rather dodge the unconfortable
> >task
> >> of replying by mumbling something about my question being `moot'? The
> >latter,
> >> presumably...
> >>
> >
> >So in your limited experience, your inability to configure a Windows
system
> >to perform adequately or stabily is an indicator of poor software,
anecdotal
> >evidence is too small a statistical universe.
>
> Now you've crawled into dc's bunker of accusing me for NT/2k's faults.
According
> to you, the reason why NT/2k sucks as a server platform is because of my
> "inability to configure a Windows system".
>
> And would you please care to elaborate upon why my first question is moot?
>
> Sigh. At least I'm in good company...
>
>
> --
> J.C.
> "The free flow of information along data highways being piped into our
> homes and offices will permit unimaginable control by a small elite..."
>
> -- 'The Thunder of Justice', pg. 264
------------------------------
From: "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 12:36:22 -0700
But in response to your query:
>> Which server can't you run?
>> Oracle maybe, but SQL server and IIS are both available on workstation
and
>> can be used to prototype.
We agree that the version of IIS on Worksation is not the same as that on
Server. Usable, perhaps, but not the same.
"Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:GtQY5.23244$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:910h4k$1na5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > PWS can also mean Personal Web Server, which is what is available for
> > Win9x.
> >
> > Agreed, I was merely clarifying what I meant. I say PWS meaning any non
> > true IIS version which includes Personal Web Server and Peer Web
Services.
> >
> >
>
> That would be inaccurate as Peer Web Services are far more capable than
the
> poor httpd that is personal web server. The Peer Web Services incarnation
> of IIS includes almost all of the functionality of IIS including MTS. The
> only missing parts are Certificate Services and some of the more esoteric
> network configuration options.
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 12:39:46 -0700
This does beg the question, though. What exactly is the difference between
Server and Workstation? If, for all intents and purposes, they're the same
when developing software what is the difference when running software? I've
never gotten a satisfactory response on this other than then price and some
registry entries are different.
Perhaps you can shed some light?
"Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:GtQY5.23244$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:910h4k$1na5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > PWS can also mean Personal Web Server, which is what is available for
> > Win9x.
> >
> > Agreed, I was merely clarifying what I meant. I say PWS meaning any non
> > true IIS version which includes Personal Web Server and Peer Web
Services.
> >
> >
>
> That would be inaccurate as Peer Web Services are far more capable than
the
> poor httpd that is personal web server. The Peer Web Services incarnation
> of IIS includes almost all of the functionality of IIS including MTS. The
> only missing parts are Certificate Services and some of the more esoteric
> network configuration options.
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 19:49:17 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Steve Mading
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 6 Dec 2000 00:07:30 GMT
<90k002$ge2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>: That's the problem with Aaron's argument. It can be used to claim that
>: nothing is intuitive. You're quite right to note that intuitiveness is
>: not an absolute.
>
>If you really admitted that intuativeness was not an abosulte, you
>would refrain from making such blanket statments as "vi is not
>intuative". If you really believed intuativeness was relative,
>then that type of statement would require some qualifiers.
>
Vi is not intuitive ... just extremely useful for those who have
learned its idiosyncracies. I for one could say the same about Emacs or
even Notepad, Wordpad, Microsoft Word, Corel WordPerfect, or other
such products.
One reason I like vi's command set is that it has a common set of
positional modifiers that can be applied to any range command:
c5c / c% / c5w / c5; / cfu / c/search / c?backsearch / c'x / c100G,
d5d / d% / d5w / d5; / dfu / d/search / d?backsearch / d'x / d100G,
y5y / y% / y5w / y5; / yfu / y/search / y?backsearch / y'x / y100G,
<5< / <% / <5w / <5; / <fu / </search / <?backsearch / <'x / <100G,
!5! / !% / !5w / !5; / !fu / !/search / !?backsearch / !'x / !100G,
etc.
and there are even more, such as comma (backwards semicolon),
W (big words; little w uses more word separators), e and E (end
of word or big word), b and B (back a word), and vertical bar
(move to the column specified just before it).
The positioners can also be used on their own, e.g.:
5w = move the cursor 5 words
/search = move cursor forward to pattern
fu = find the character 'u' moving forward in the current line
40| = move to column 40
and of course
mx = set mark x
and there are other commands that don't require a range, such
as i, a, o, O, p, P, x, and s. (These can take a repeat count;
try '80a-<ESC>' for a quick and dirty method of creating
horizontal separators, or 10s to change the next 10 characters.)
Presumably, there are cheat sheets running around for this stuff;
I'd have to look. (I've been using VI and Unix since the early 80's.)
To me, this is easy. Others may think differently, of course,
and it does require some memorization, unlike Notepad which
pretty much merely requires understanding of point, click,
how to type, and the arrow keys. But then, Notepad can't
directly feed a filter ('!!'), either. (It does implement one-level
undo, as does vi; many vi's however have multiple-undo, such as Vim.)
There are also some minor differences in various implementations;
some vi's can only handle full lines -- and someone who hasn't
encountered a mouse before will probably just stare at the desktop
blankly until someone comes and shows him how to point and click.
Another comparison I can think of is Wordstar, which
some people swore by (at?) in the 80's. (I never used it, but it
was also a word-processor with a lot of idiosyncratic command
keystrokes, as I understand it.) There is also Emacs, of course,
which has its own rich, complicated command set. (I don't want
to restart the vi/Emacs war here. :-) )
Since I seem to have gotten into this discussion rather late, I will
merely note that another thing that is intuitive is pull-down menus,
since they show a capsule (sub-)set of commands available to the novice
user...except that they're not intuitive for those who haven't been
told that the thing at the top of the menu which usually has a few
words (one letter of each which is underlined) can have the mouse pointer
placed on them and then clicked. One can make a similar case for buttons
and scrollbars -- in fact, someone (I forget who) has stated that the
only intuitive interface is the human nipple - and even that can be
waved away since we also have discovered that human babies have a number
of reflexes and preprogrammed behaviors, such as the swimming reflex.
Is anything really intuitive? About all I can say is some things are
more easily learnt than others, depending on one's prior experience.
(Of course, if a baby doesn't intuit/learn that Mom's nipple gives milk,
and there's no substitute such as a bottle available, he's not going
to fare well.... :-) )
As for the power switch...the typical representations I've seen are
either a "0/1" symbol (the "1" has no serifs, which makes it look
more like a vertical bar), or a 0 having a gap in it, in which a
1 is inserted (again, the 1 is without serifs). What precisely one
is supposed to intuit from this representation without some familiarity
of "1=on, 0=off" is not quite clear to me; might as well ask whether
a gas pedal is intuitive to a primitive tribesman. (It's easy enough
to learn, admittedly, although teaching him about gasoline/petrol may
be another thing altogether. At best, it's a "magic fluid" that is
put into a vehicle's tank, until he learns about basic chemistry, crude
oil, catalytic cracking, and refineries.) These are for toggle switches,
admittedly; some (many? most?) computer cases actually have SPDT
(or maybe DPDT) pushbuttons which are flush with the case, or a rounded
SPDT or DPDT pushbutton with the "circle vertical bar" symbol; these,
when pressed, cycle on, then off. Some cases are vulnerable to a person
shutting off the power when he meant to reset the computer. (Some people
may not know the difference between cycling the power and resetting the
motherboard, either.)
As an old point of reference, a PC-XT had the power switch in the
right side of the casing (actually, the power supply), near the back,
and it was a fairly ugly toggle switch affair -- the switch is
bright orange, surrounded by a square frame, either to keep the
user's finges from slipping off, or to protect the power switch from
the computer casing (which had an appropriate slot cut out in the side).
(Aside: 63.5 watts? Might as well expect a 60w reading lamp to light up
a stadium....)
One other representation that might be running around -- I can't be sure
since the only place I have seen it is actually on car locks -- is a
black switch with an orange insert that shows when the switch is in
the "on" (actually, unlocked) position; this also might be useful
for circuit breakers (in that case, the orange indicates that a breaker
tripped).
So, to sum up:
[1] Nothing is intuitive.
[2] Many tools can be used with some training and/or reading.
[3] vi is such a tool.
[4] Some people are more easily trained than others.
[5] Some tools are more easily teachable than others, depending on
the tool, the trainer, and the trainee.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
up 80 days, 11:15, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 19:42:29 GMT
In article <VAQY5.23264$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
servers giving
> > the data may be different servers.
> >
>
> In that light what is your proof that Netcraft is reporting
information
> derived from the correct server?
Define "correct server?" remember that netcraft clearly states that the
server that is called by a URL may not be the reporing server. Claiming
that the server called buy a URL is the "correct server" is not
appropreate in the way that Netcraft has discribed the data. The
"correct server" by the way Netcraft has discribed the data is the
Computer that responded with the information. As such, Netcraft is
always dealing with the "correct server"
>
> > Here is what netcraft says:
> >
> > "The site is using a TCP connection-level proxy firewall, such as
> > provided in the TIS Gauntlet, BorderWare, Raptor, CyberGuard or IBM
> > SecureWay firewalls, or some other kind of HTTP level proxy. In
these
> > cases we will receive data from the intermediate machine rather than
the
> > web server, so detect the intermediate machine's operating system
> >
> >
> > http://uptime.netcraft.com/hammer/accuracy.html#os
> >
> > In every case they err on the side of under reporting uptime. With
> > > this I say...Count ALL the uptime!!
> >
> > I Say that if you think I am wrong for quoting webcraft then MS is
also
> > wrong:
> >
> > http://www.netcraft.com/news.html
> >
> > If MS can use a Netcraft to prove their point, I can use Netcraft to
> > prove MY point.
> >
>
> Rather moot since I, personally, always weight Netcraft numbers very
lightly
> regardless of who uses them.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 19:36:44 GMT
2 different methods, both show W2K unstable:
www.netcraft.com
www.uptimes.net
Eric thinks he knows how the Netcraft numbers are retrieved.
CNN, Microsoft, PC magazine and others have all used netcraft data as
proof of their claim making Netcraft far more athoratative than you or
anyone else who posts here and provides NOT supporting documentation.
In article <KxQY5.23256$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:910eer$1la3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Sorry I misread your site referrence. I translated as I would
reading
> > > Matt's sloppy typing. Glad you agree about Netcraft's stats. You
> > wouldn't
> > > now how uptime gets their figures would you?
> >
> > I don't agree with you completely on Netcraft's numbers. I hoped my
> > clarifying post would make that clear. I merely wanted to point out
that
> > you and sfcybear were talking about different numbers.
> >
>
> Thank you.
>
> > I do agree that as we do not know how Netcraft get's their numbers
one
> > cannot make specific claim of veracity. But by the same token,
since we
> do
> > not know how Netcraft get's their numbers one cannot make specific
claims
> > about their falsehood. It is, unfortunately, an unknown quantity.
> >
>
> This is the point that Matt doesn't seem to get. The unknown value
should
> not be used to validate any statistical model.
>
> > I do know, however, how uptime get's their figures, so one can make
claims
> > of veracity. Their number are arrived at by individual system
> > administrators running scripts on thier systems periodically that
send
> > uptime information to a central database. This would, of course,
have
> > several advantages over Netcraft:
> >
> > 1) Systems within a company, and not only front line web servers,
can be
> > monitored.
> > 2) The method of gathering is a known quantity.
> > 3) The method of gathering is accurate, in that the uptime numbers
are
> read
> > directly, not derived by some as yet unknown algorithm.
> >
> > But uptime's method does have the following disadvantages.
> >
> > 1) They are open to fraud.
> > 2) The survey is voluntary, and one must consider what type of
people
> would
> > respond, and how this would affect the outcome
> >
> > This is true of any voluntary survey. All hope is not lost however.
> There
> > are standard statistical algorithms designed specifically to correct
for
> > such weaknesses, as surveys of one type or another have been
analyzed for
> > decades. Uptime.net, or anyone else for that matter, would do us
all a
> > great favor if they would apply these algorithms to their numbers.
I
> would
> > certainly be interested.
> >
>
> Agreed, thus my point to Matt stands, the Data are specific and cannot
be
> applied in generalizations.
>
> > In the end, I do not think it wise to completely discount the
numbers of
> > Netcraft or Uptime.net without specific claims of error. I do not
think,
> > also, that they can be taken as gospel. Sfcybear does make a good
point,
> > though: since these are, to date, the only numbers we have which
aren't
> > strictly anecdotal, they must be given some weight.
> >
> > I'm the one who started this thread and so far I see it as: one
side has
> > brought numbers to the table, and the other side has now to bring
its own
> > numbers or specifically refute the numbers already brought. Neither
of
> > which has yet to be done.
> >
> > Adam Ruth
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What if Linux wasn't free?
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 19:54:53 GMT
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Swangoremovemee wrote:
>> On Sat, 09 Dec 2000 18:43:19 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Most of the "best" computer guys I know do not have degrees. I do not
>> >put much stock in "degrees" so much as I put stock in people. When I see
>> >people using a degree as a status symbol, it simply means, to me, that
>> >they have no real love of what they had supposedly gone to school to
>>
>> Yawwnn.... Sounds like you couldn't make the cut. SOrry to hear that.
> I neither confirmed nor denied any such status. You are making
> assumptions, but, hey what can we expect from an "ME" you're, like,
> qualified to do ... what?
Yes. Mlw clearly has the intellect so we guess he'd have swanned
through university. He also has the correct view of people with
paper degrees (most students at ordinary universities are seriously
under-endowed, mentally .. one has to go up to good universities to
find oneself among good students as a norm), which tends to imply
that he has a higher degree from a good place, or at least knows
how to evaluate them.
And true, people don't usually wave their degrees around if they're
interested in what they're doing. However, not waving them around
doesn't mean either that they have them, or that they're interested in
their work!
Peter
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why don't I use Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 20:01:33 +0000
Richard J. Donovan wrote:
> Ahh, man, you should be using WordPerfect 9 in Windows, if not
> WordPerfect 8 in Linux. Word, not one's favorite tool, indeed!
Wordperfect crashed a lot that last time I tried it.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 19:47:00 GMT
> >
> > MS has no problem using Netcraft numbers as fact, Why do you?
> >
>
> Because I'm not Microsoft.
That's right, you are a nobody that posts only his opinion and NO
SUPPORTING documemnt to a news group.
Microsoft is a Dominate force in the industry (unlike you), CNN is a
dominate force in it's industry (unlike you) and both of these Dominate
forces (And you are NOT a dominate force) have indorsed Netcraft as a
viable source of data. You have provided absolutely NO documentation to
prove otherwise.
>
> > http://www.netcraft.com/news.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Black Dragon
> > > >
> > > > Sign The Linux Driver Petition:
> > > > http://www.libralinux.com/petition.english.html
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (J.C.)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 11 Dec 2000 07:00:47 +1100
On Sun, 10 Dec 2000 19:24:43 GMT, Chad C. Mulligan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>"J.C." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sun, 10 Dec 2000 18:54:53 GMT, Chad C. Mulligan
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> >Benchmarks seem to prove otherwise.
>> >>
>> >> It appears you've retreated into the same cosy little bunker as Ayende.
>> >When you
>> >> can't come up with anything, the super-duper comeback is to mumble
>> >something
>> >> about `benchmarks', as if benchmarks are going to keep NT/2k up, or as
>if
>> >> benchmarks actually disprove my administrative experiences with NT/2k.
>> >>
>> >
>> >It is you penquinistas that have the bunker mentality.
>>
>> All of us?
>>
>>
>> If I quote my own
>> >experiences which differ greatly from yours you call me a liar, if I
>quote
>> >benchmarks of note (TPC come to mind) you claim they aren't real world
>> >examples.
>>
>> TPC's results do not coincide with my experiences with NT/2k. Is that a
>problem
>> to you? Obviously, it is, and you can't come up with any better
>explanation
>> than a supposed lack of competence on my part.
>>
>
>Since my own experiences do in fact coincide with TPC results and do
>contradict Netcraft results
Hrmm. Netcraft carries a whole lot more weight than either of us...
and do contradict your reported experience I
>must conclude that you do not understand the operating system and therefore
>have introduced the instabilities yourself.
... using your logic, I could just as easily say that the above is invalid
since it doesn't coincide with _my_ results. (actually, me and the NT/2k
admins I used to work with, but anyway...)
Apparently, clean installs of W2k and daemons mean I have "introduced
the instabilities [myself]"...
[snip]
>> If the mechanic has shitty tools, then his complaints are justified...
>>
>
>Tell that to the 70+ year old mechanic next door. He has very few tools but
>manages to fix anything brought to him.
Yeah, he's got quality tools, I guess. What's the _number_ of tools got to do with
anything?
If the mechanic (admin) has shitty tools (poor OS) then his complaints are
justified...
[snip]
>> >> >Then your question is moot.
>> >>
>> >> Really. Care to elaborate, or would you rather dodge the unconfortable
>> >task
>> >> of replying by mumbling something about my question being `moot'? The
>> >latter,
>> >> presumably...
>> >>
>> >
>> >So in your limited experience, your inability to configure a Windows
>system
>> >to perform adequately or stabily is an indicator of poor software,
>anecdotal
>> >evidence is too small a statistical universe.
>>
>> Now you've crawled into dc's bunker of accusing me for NT/2k's faults.
>According
>> to you, the reason why NT/2k sucks as a server platform is because of my
>> "inability to configure a Windows system".
>>
>> And would you please care to elaborate upon why my first question is moot?
Well? Would you be kind enough to?
(and would you please snip my sig from your reply; you'll get a fresh copy
with _my_ reply... =] )
--
J.C.
"The free flow of information along data highways being piped into our
homes and offices will permit unimaginable control by a small elite..."
-- 'The Thunder of Justice', pg. 264
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
