Linux-Advocacy Digest #880, Volume #30 Thu, 14 Dec 00 18:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Uptimes (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Caifornia power shortage... ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Whistler review. (JM)
Re: Whistler review. (JM)
Re: Unuther UNIX sight doun! (JM)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 22:34:10 GMT
In article <IRiY5.85621$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:90rdtg$1j0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Snip...
>
> : The typical set-up costs for a commercial
> : NT based web site range from
> : 1-5 million dollars. The costs for a
> : comparable Linux web site range
> : from $1/4-1 million.
> : Recurring costs run about $200/processor/month
> : for NT and about $100/processor/month for Linux.
> : Ironically, there is actually more PROFIT on Linux or FreeBSD.
> : This is because most Linux
> : and FreeBSD servers are "set and forget" situations.
> : Once the configuration settings are completed
> : (a 20 minute job) there's almost
> : nothing left to do but back-ups and log rotations,
> : which are done
> : automatically using cron jobs.
>
> I'd argue the cost of commercial NT based web site.
> For less than half a million dollars,
> you could have the necessary hardware and software.
My numbers included staffing, consulting, and development
costs for a typical enterprise specific environment. Sure,
you could hang the Win2K and SQL Server on a few Compaqs or
Netfinities, but you'd still have to make the content relevant,
stress test your applications, tune the applications, and integrate
to the rest of the enterprise.
I used Microsoft's TPC estimates as additional input for refining
the estimate.
> People tend to forget that OEM servers come
> with 10 CALs for each servers.
But if you are running e-mail, discussion groups, other "back-office"
functions, or protracted SQL Server sessions, the license counts can
escalate WELL beyond the 10 CALs in just a few minutes (Back-office
funcions are based on the maximum number of uniquely identified users
connected during the peak 1/2 hour period (not even 1/2 the peak-hour
load).
> Depending on the number of servers used,
> the CALs add upp in hurry.
Precisely, when you need multiple servers on multiple systems,
and your web front-end is connected to a session managing back-end,
the number of client access licenses can climb into the thousands.
> Add to the equation, that for the web users there
> is no licensing requirement, then
> you can even drop some of the licenses on the OEM machines.
The big question is whether you are managing a session or not.
The web server is simply passing HTTP connections, which are
relatively short connections.
If on the other hand you are performing "Portal" functions,
where you use cookies to connect to a persistant back-end
object via DCOM or COM+, your license fees can get quite
extraordinary.
If you are providing a web interface to a back-office server for
messages, the licenses become unrealistic. Many companies have
flipped from Back-office to UNIX/Pop3 simply because the cost of
the UNIX server is a fraction of the cost of licenses, especially
if the UNIX system is FreeBSD or Linux.
If you are connected directly to the internet, and you
have a business event that triggers a huge traffic event,
your half-hour peak could involve over 1 million CALS spread
across 100 servers (the Victoria Secret video).
> Your recurring cost is way out of whack.
> Salaries are salaries, regardless of the OS.
But the Linux and UNIX administrators typically support an average
of 20 CPUs/FTE compared to 5 CPUs/FTE in complex server (multiple
services on a single server) environment. Much of this has to do
with the fact that:
First, Linux and UNIX provide full support for remote management
(X11 and SSH), scripting (shells), scheduling (cron). Microsoft has
shown contempt for scripting, scheduling, and command line interfaces.
Second, the servers can easily run multiple services on a single
machine. Microsoft suffers from DLL hell. New features on
Windows 2000 improve the situation somewhat, but the core strategy
for getting high availability is to use redundant arrays of simple
single-function servers. Even these servers must usually be SMP
with RAID. And Applications must be recoded to COM+.
Third, since the applications adhere to strict standards
that don't change significantly over time (backward compatibility),
there is less retraining. Microsoft considers frequently changing
standards and backward incompatibility to be a critical strategic
revenue source (you MUST buy upgrades).
Fourth, because Linux and FreeBSD include source code
for critical infrastructure functions, there is a much
better chance of preventing the recurrance of future problems.
Microsoft never publishes critical infrastructure code (they
offer free "examples" in their developer program), and they
don't even acknowledge severe security holes until they have
released a Patch (which usually breaks compatibilities).
> : Actually, this is very true for uptimes. Availability can often be
> : measured by monitoring the number of failures against a known number
> : of machines. I have numbers that come from a pool of over 4000 servers,
> : and have those further broken down by server type such as Lotus Notes
> : servers, File servers, and database servers. Of course, I couldn't
> : publish these because the client who maintained them has an NDA with
> : Microsoft. About all I can do is push up the numbers and see how they
> : jive with the rest of the industry.
>
> And I had/have clients who had NDA with SUN, what's your point?
I have had access to maintenance records and availability statistics
on numerous systems over the last 10 years, and have a pretty good
sense of the relative performance. The recent publication by Netcraft
of "uptime charts" has shown that my availability numbers are pretty
darn close.
> : Windows NT with SP3 had an availability of about 98.7%,
> : Windows NT with SP6+ seems to get about 99.2%, and
> : Windows 2000 seems to get about 99.8% in a single-server
> : environment.
>
> Whatever happened with the NDA?
I'm not giving client names, I'm not giving actual statistical
data, and I'm not publishing referrals. And I won't. People
don't like it, but publishing this information wouldn't be
appropriate. What I can say is that the data mentioned covers
3500 NT servers, 700 UNIX servers (Solaris and AIX), 100,000
internal users and 1 million customers. As for the Mainframes
(20) I only heard of two significant full failures in 2 years.
> : Both Windows and Linux/FreeBSD have the
> : advantage of being able to
> : improve scalability by configuring
> : a "Redundant Array of Inexpensive Servers"
> : The Linux Beowulf has many of these features, as does
> : Windows 2000 clustering.
> : This is how both companies approach the "five
> : nines" problem (99.999% uptime).
>
> What is scalability has to do with availability (uptime)?
> Clustering is for availability, does not improve scalability.
This depends on how many servers you set up. If you can only
configure two servers redundantly, then each has to be capable of
handling the load of the partner, which means you have to buy
twice as much hardware, software, resources... If you can
spread the load evenly across 5 servers with failover spread
amongst the remaining 4 machines in the case of a failure, you
only need 20% more hardware.
If an overloaded machine only slows down instead of crashing,
you can even stretch that overload and reduce overpurchase to
10%. In this case, scalability comes through availability.
PVM and MPI (used in beowulf) can distrubute loads across
multiple servers transparently.
> Setting up couple of servers in
> a cluster doesn't eliminate the apparent limitation of the OS.
> : Actually, most Windows developers need to replace their machines
> : every 12 to 18 months. To make matters worse, many applications
> : mandate that you be running "Server" rather than "Workstation".
> : Windows 2000 professional is great for running Microsoft Office,
> : but you can't prototype servers on a Win2K Pro laptop.
>
> Really, have you tried using W2K server on a laptop? You'll be
surprised....
>
> : Keep in mind also that Microsoft comes out with new operating
> : systems every 2-3 years, but they also come out with upgrades to
> : Office, upgrades to Internet Explorer, and upgrades to utilities
> : and languages. Any of which can trigger the need for bigger
> : and more expensive machines.
>
> So do other OS players, whichever doesn't it will stay behind. You're also
> wrong about MS software and subsequent upgrades requiring bigger and more
> expensive machines. There are numerous third party applications and games,
> which I can't run on my two years old PC. The MS apps are running just
fine,
> even with the upgrade. I'll take MS Office memory footprint any day over
> Sun's Star Office memory footprint on the same machine.
>
> : Even worse is that the MCSE for Windows NT 4.0 is considered worthless
> : in Microsoft's eyes for Windows 2000. Microsoft wants you to know
> : Microsoft buzzwords and no others.
>
> I find that hard to argue with....
>
> : Actually, their biggest problem is still incompatibility.
> : Microsoft assumes that because they have 98% of the desktop
> : market (possibly only 90% if you figure Linux and Mac), that
> : they don't have to adhere to anyone elses standards.
> : This creates a really big problem for corporate interests
> : who have to plug NT servers into Windows, UNIX, OS/390 and
> : VMS.
>
> If you reach 90 - 98% in an area, then you don't have to comply with
> anyone's standard. You are the standard, be that any area of the business.
>
> : The industry wanted LDAP, Microsoft came up with Active Directory,
> : which uses nonstandard Kerberos, nonstandard LDAP, and nonstandard
> : PKI. Furthermore, it's completely incompatibile with NDS, RACF,
> : and NIS implementations of LDAP, which means that even the
> : sign-on can't be consolidated.
>
> Did the industry want LDAP? If you recall Banyan pioneered the use of LDAP
> with its Vines platform. Novell copied it with its NDS product. Neither of
> them made much of a dent in the OS directory market. If anything,
Microsoft
> might be able to be successful with their implementation of the LDAP.
As for
> the implementation being nonstandard, says who? All of those *nix and
> whatever administrators in their small world. Would you kindly
describe the
> PKI standard for example? I wonder which company's "standard" you'll
> describe....
>
> : With integrators charging over $2 million to integrate Win2K to
> : anything, corporate purchasing managers have developed a whole
> : new appreciation for Linux, which was designed by integrators
> : for integrators, and includes 98% of the integration tools needed
> : to create portals, web sites, or gateways.
>
> Judging by the growth numbers for Win2K for this year, 230% according to
> InfoWorld, Win2K integrators have been busy. Evidently money wasn't matter
> much, the corporate purchasing managers must not know/like Linux.
>
> Otto
>
>
--
Rex Ballard - VP I/T Architecture
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 9%/month! (recalibrated 10/23/00)
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Caifornia power shortage...
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 17:43:17 -0500
Russ Lyttle wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > Russ Lyttle wrote:
> > >
> > > kiwiunixman wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Its the environmental run off (nuclear waste) that is the major cause of
> > > > concern. Since NZ went Nuclear free around 14 years ago (which
> > > > pissed-off the US navy) we have had no problems producing electricity
> > > > from Hydro, Steam, natural gas and wind.
> > > >
> > > > kiwiunixman
> > > >
> > > > <snype>
> > > The amount of nuclear waste produced is minute. Wait a few years until
> > > the hydroelect dams all silt up. We have THAT problem here in the US
> > > with the TVA dams. They are going out of service because all the silt
> > > has turned the lake into a swamp that even the ducks avoid. In the NW,
> >
> > Typical government-run project. A commercial entity would have dredged
> > the lakes on a continual basiis.
> >
> A commercial entity would not have built them in the first place. The
> rivers in nature did not carry that much silt. But the lake covers lots
> of land that errodes fast under the constant change in lake level. It is
> not economically possible to dredge the lakes fast enough to keep them
> clean. besides, where do you put all the stuff dredged up?
If it's primarily silt run-off, it should make good fertilizer.
> Hydroelectric power *kills* land even faster than strip mining coal.
>
> > > the dams are killing off the Salmon fish. Your grandkids will curse you
> > > for destroying the beautiful country you inhabit : Turn the rivers into
> > > muck with overgrazing sheep and hydroelectric dams.
> > > --
> > > Russ Lyttle, PE
> > > <http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
> > > Not Powered by ActiveX
> >
--
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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 17:45:18 -0500
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "John Travis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > And Ayende Rahien spoke unto the masses...
> >
> > >Possible, see WindowBlinds & LiteSteps as 3rd party proof, and Whistler
> > >skinning as well.
> >
> > Yes, skinning bloatware, that will be efficient. I'd prefer not to need
> another
> > 128 megs to run my programs comfortably.
>
> Nope, it takes 2MB at most.
>
> > >Possible on 99% of the programs that you would install.
> >
> > I hate to burst your bubble but this number isn't very accurate. I just
> did a
> > clean install of W2k on another machine. I'd say at 30-40% of the
> programs
> > loaded on called for a reboot. Even updating something like PowerDesk
> calls for
> > a reboot. Naturally it isn't that annoying when you can just feed in cds
> and do
> > it all at once, but still...
>
> They *request* reboot, that it a flaw in the installer, they don't *need*
> reboot.
And, aside from telepathic communication with the programmer, how
are you supposed to know the difference between software the DOES NEED
a reboot, and that which does not?
This is yet another goddamned fucking example of the pitifully low
standards that exist in the LoseDOS world.
--
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: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 22:46:08 +0200
On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 21:10:11 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(Monkeyboy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JM
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 07:06:51 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>> ("Monkeyboy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>>
>> >"Real computers don't do x, y or z" is a stupid argument. Computers are
>> >hardware. Hardware fails. OSs are software (yes, even ROMs). Software
>> >fails.
>> >Accidentally (bugs) or deliberately (user). To pretend otherwise is not
>> >unlike an eunuch attempting to masturbate. Distracting but ultimately
>> >futile. Nothing of any consequence will come of it (pun intended).
>>
>> Actually, eunuchs can masturbate etc, they're just jaffas.
>And have no balls. No balls = no Monica stain.
It's not the ball that produce it, but some gland somewhere else.
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 22:46:09 +0200
On 14 Dec 2000 15:36:59 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>It wouldn't if they'd done it the proper way, calling the OS an Unix.
"AN Unix"? Is this a deliberate mistake?
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.society.anarchy,talk.politics.misc,alt.christnet,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unuther UNIX sight doun!
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 22:46:10 +0200
On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 13:38:20 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
>"Matthew S. Staben" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On 13 Dec 2000 21:27:34 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> SPAMMED
>> :
>>
>> >ALL OF EFNET IS DOUN AS WE SPEEK! EFNET COOD HAVE RAN WINDOS BUT
>NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THAY HALF TO BE STOOPIT AND RUN UNIX BECAUSE THAY THINK IT
>MORE STABAL1 BUT ITS NOT AND PROOVE IS THAT ITS ALL DOUN RITE NOW.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> So what if EFNET is down? It's a good thing to see a bunch of queers
>> hanging out in a world of words and emoticons, banished from their
>> queer-to-queer closets.
>
>Is this a new protocol? QTQCP? Queer-to-queer closet protocol?
>
>What port does that run on?
Port "o".
(Note: that is a joke. It is funny. You must laugh.)
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 17:49:04 -0500
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 04:20:11 GMT, Tom Wilson wrote:
> >
> >"Tim Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Swango <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >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?
> >>
> >> Let me see if I understand this. You selected an option that is clearly
> >> documented as being for people who want to wipe their entire systems and
> >> turn them into Linux servers, and you are surprised that it wiped your
> >> entire system and turned it into a Linux server?
> >
> >Boy those folks at RedHat really have a lot of nerve don't they? Just
> >imagine, an installer doing EXACTLY what it is told to do! What were those
> >people thinking?
>
> My only complaint is I believe the other guy is understating the situation
> -- it's better than clearly documented, last I checked, there is a big red
> warning dialog, and IMO, if you're silly enough to go through that, well
> you shouldn't be installing software on a computer.
That's because LoseDOS loosers are so accustomed to seeing utterly
rediculous "Are you sure?" "are you reallly sure?" "Are you really
really sure?" "Do you have a notarized letter stating that you are sure?"
blah, blah, fucking blah, etc. string of utterly fucking useless
warning messages...
...that when they see a warning message on any other system, the
just fucking IGNORE it, because...in Microshaft land, warning messages
are put there for the sole purpose of confusing the novice.
>
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
> elflord at panix dot com
--
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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 17:50:00 -0500
Swangoremovemee wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 07:39:31 -0500, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Wrong. Getting devices to work is the responsibility of the
> >device manufacturer....to provide working device drivers.
>
> As far as Linux is concerned it doesn't really matter because from the
> consumer's point of view, if it doesn't work, it doesn't work and they
> will look elsewhere.
>
> If that person has a lot of money invested in hardware, like a
> pre-load for example, they are not going to re-purchase hardware just
> for the joy of running Linux unless they have a very specific reason
> to do so.
Why did you buy a go-kart if you wanted to compete in the Indy 500?
--
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.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
