Linux-Advocacy Digest #882, Volume #30 Thu, 14 Dec 00 19:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Microsoft using Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 23:14:09 GMT
Les Mikesell writes:
>>>> Irrelevant, given that I didn't say there is anything mnemonic about
>>>> control. Try comprehending what I actually wrote.
>>> You have to write something logical before I can do that.
>> You're erroneously presupposing that I haven't already written something
>> logical.
> No, you are incorrectly speculating that I am presupposing.
Incorrect, given that I have what you wrote, therefore I do not need to
speculate.
>>>>> If something were really intuitive, you wouldn't need a mnemonic
>>>>> anyway.
>>>> Irrelevant, given that I didn't say they were intuitive.
>>> Why did you bring them up,
>> Because you brought up the matter of moving the screen, claiming that
>> you use hjkl to do that. Yet those move the cursor, not necessarily
>> the screen. The keys I mentioned do move the screen, unless at one
>> extreme, of course (which also applies to hjkl).
> No, those move the cursor as well but the screen moves as a direct
> result with both.
The point is that you do not need to use hjkl.
> Both accept an appropriate numeric count
Which has nothing to do with needing to use hjkl.
> so I fail to see any real difference in this context except the
> finer-grained control that you have with jk,
You can use the Enter key for similarly fine-grained control in one
direction.
> which is why I mentioned moving a line up, something likely to be
> impossible with the other choices.
Something wrong with moving up a few lines? My point stands: you do
not need to use hjkl; there are alternatives.
>>> if not to oppose them against jk which you earlier said were not
>>> intuitive.
>> I said they were not intuitive for cursor movement. Get it right.
> Do you mean in an absolute sense or compared to some other
> keyboard character?
Do I really need to answer that question? Do I really need to repeat
all the times I've commented about relative versus absolute? Do you
really not remember?
>>>>> Besides, those don't do the same thing.
>>>> They let you see the surrounding text, if not already visible. Note
>>>> that your "move the screen a line one way or the other" in incorrect
>>>> for at least one direction, possibly both. The hjkl keys move the
>>>> cursor, which won't necessarily move the screen.
>>> Did you forget already that they take an optional 'count' prefix? You
>>> should have learned the form first, then the content as you need it.
>> Wonderful; now you're talking three keystrokes instead of one. (Yes,
>> I am presupposing more than 9 lines of movement, because screens tend
>> to be more than that.) So much for the touted speed.
> Unless you are positioned in one particular spot, you won't be able
> to meet the specification of moving a line.
Sure I can: hit the Enter key.
> So much for your ability to do it at all.
I just did it without hjkl. But more importantly, considering that
the discussion is about viewing a document, why would you want to move
just a line? Is your screen only one line tall?
>>>>> I read it. Giving commands to a document viewer is exactly the
>>>>> same as giving commands to an editor.
>>>> Irrelevant, given that what was brought up was the viewing of a
>>>> document, not the giving of commands to a document viewer.
>>> Can you repeat that a little slower?
>> I r r e l e v a n t , g i v e n t h a t w h a t w a s
>> b r o u g h t u p w a s t h e v i e w i n g o f a
>> d o c u m e n t , n o t t h e g i v i n g o f
>> c o m m a n d s t o a d o c u m e n t v i e w e r .
> Oh, then you are just mistaken.
Non sequitur. You asked me to repeat is a little slower, which I
did. The content did not change.
> The point of bringing up the viewer was to discuss the command set.
And I stand by my claim that you do not need to use hjkl.
>>> I don't understand why you think the control of an action is
>>> unrelated to the action, or why it would be irrelevant in the
>>> context of a discussion about controlling commands.
>> I don't understand why you think the viewing of a document is the
>> same as editing a document.
> Because it is. I may or may not choose to modify the document
> when editing,
Editing the document is changing the document.
> but I don't do it blindly - at least when using
> an interactive screen editor as we are discussing.
Does anybody edit blindly?
>>> What is intuitive depends on prior experience,
>> With comparable things, not the same thing. Brushing your teeth in
>> the morning is no longer intuitive, if it ever was.
> Perhaps it isn't for you.
Is it for you?
>>> and you keep telling me that people haven't had any of the relevant
>>> experiences.
>> And I keep asking you how many other editors use hjkl for cursor
>> movement. If you answer "zero", then there wouldn't be previous
>> experience with those keys for cursor movement in an editor. If
>> you don't answer "zero", give me the name of the editor. So far,
>> nobody has done that.
> Elvis, vim, vile, emacs in viper-mode, emacs in vip-mode.
Did you notice something all these names have in common?
> You seem to miss the point that innovation happens somewhere and
> starts a new set of things that will be intuitive when you encounter
> the less-innovative clones later.
Having identical behavior doesn't make something intuitive. All you
have to tell someone is that "this behaves the same way as vi", and
you don't need to rely on intuition.
> Vi may have been the innovator, or perhaps the author had experience
> with something similar. After the fact it doesn't make much difference.
And just look at how many other products decided to go with those
"innovations": not many. Clones like elvis exist because some vi
users didn't want to learn a new editor on a PC. They were shunning
the innovations of the separate cursor keypad, the mouse, and so on.
>>>> Incorrect; when editing a document, you need to insert and remove
>>>> text, whereas you don't need those when viewing a document, thus
>>>> the features are not the same.
>>> An editor may or may not make modifications to a document.
>> If you don't need to make modifications, you don't need to use an
>> editor.
> How do you propose that I should make that decision before
> viewing the existing contents?
Irrelevant, given that I didn't suggest that you not view the existing
document.
>>> Thus it is incorrect to say that those features are always needed
>>> or used.
>> They are needed to do editing. Nothing incorrect about that.
> They may or may not be. Thus it is incorrect to say 'always'.
Where did I say "always"?
> The contents of the document may turn out to be just fine without
> modifications.
Then you didn't edit the document.
>>> There are other differences beyond the control keystrokes. For example
>>> you can run vi in 'read only' mode by invoking it as 'vi -r' file or
>>> using the name 'view'.
>> Thus not "very much the same".
> Identical, in fact.
Since when is "vi" the same as "view"? One lets me do things; the other
does not.
>>> However, it will still copy the original into a working copy before
>>> you start and is thus a less efficient thing to do than running
>>> 'more' or 'less' especially on a large file. Also, vi does not work
>>> to view the contents from a pipe.
>> I've had vi croak on sufficiently large files. I've also had it
>> croak on files with sufficiently long lines.
> Yes, like the 640k memory limit and the 32Meg disk limit imposed
> later by later popular software,
vi was written for UNIX systems that didn't have the 640 kB memory
limit.
> vi's arbitrary size limits turned out to be inappropriate for some
> current operations. Clones like vim and emacs viper-mode provide a
> work-around, but if you are just viewing and want to avoid the copy
> and size issues, less is better.
Sounds like you're recommending that people not use vi for viewing
a document.
>>>>> That would be a good reason for chosing it, wouldn't it?
>>>> That would be a good reason for not calling it "intuitive".
>>> Wrong.
>> If I own an Acme 1000, learn how to operate it, and then encounter
>> an Acme 1000 in some other setting, say a hotel room, for example,
>> knowing how to operate that Acme 1000 in the hotel room does not
>> come from intuition.
> What if it is the 'new, improved 1001' model or a competitor's version
> with a dozen new features that you don't understand or need - yet you
> can still operate it with the 1000's methods?
Then it depends on the details. Intuition applies when you're able to
do something new without relying on some form of help.
>>> If you re-use something previously encountered it is intuitive.
>> And I keep asking you how many other editors use hjkl for cursor
>> movement. If you answer "zero", then there wouldn't be previous
>> experience with those keys for cursor movement in an editor. If
>> you don't answer "zero", give me the name of the editor. So far,
>> nobody has done that.
> Nobody realized you were incapable of finding facts for yourself.
You're erroneously presupposing an incapability.
> The answer is not zero.
What is the answer? Don't try to count the likes of elvis.
>>>> I suggest you consult a more complete dictionary. Or do you wish
>>>> to argue that brushing your teeth is intuitive?
>>> Repeating the same task doesn't require intuition, but if your teeth all
>>> fell out and you grew a new set it would be intuitive to brush those
>>> instead.
>> Wrong, given that it's repeating the same task.
> No it isn't, until the 2nd time you do it.
That occurred with the first set of teeth.
>>> Some dictionaries have an alternate meaning as a synonym
>>> to 'instinctive', but people don't really have instinctive behaviour
>>> (although today I'd like to fly south for the winter).
>> In some instances, the synonym might apply. Brushing teeth isn't one
>> of them.
> Not for people.
Sounds like you're agreeing with me.
>>> Is that the only way you can learn?
>> Consulting a reference, whether it be a written manual, a web site, a
>> summary card, or a system administrator, makes the task non intuitive.
> What if someone tells you it is 'just like' some other task you
> have already mastered?
That someone acted as a reference.
>>>> So, does that strengthen or weaken the argument that they are not
>>>> intuitive?
>>> There is no such argument.
>> Then exactly what have you been arguing about, if not that?
> That the reuse of the orthogonal commands within the preset
> pattern is intuitive.
Really? Is the use of a Fortran DO loop with a step size of 2
intuitive, having learned the form of the statement, and having
previously used only a step size of 1?
> That is, the fact that the same commands
> are re-used within vi in ways that are indendent of the context
> makes them intuitive as you construct different combinations.
DO I=1,10,1
DO I=1,100,1
For the second, I've constructed a different combination. Does
that make it intuitive?
> If you know what 'k' does and the nature of the pattern, you
> automatically know what 10k does, and as soon as you
> know what 'd' does, you know what 10dk does.
So, that makes:
DO I=2,100,2
intuitive? Note the nature of the pattern. Know what the first,
second, and third values do.
As I said before, you have a peculiar notion of what is intuitive.
>>> Any choice of keys is an arbitrary thing.
>> Using the 'h' key to enter an 'h' into a document doesn't seem all
>> that arbitrary to me, though in principal you could redefine the
>> keyboard to do pretty much anything, if you like.
> How much are you willing to stake on that wild speculation?
What's allegedly wild about it?
> If you were in front of a keyboard controlling a nuclear missile
> and wanted to start a document with the letter 'h', would you
> hit the 'h' key without knowing anything else?
I would first find out how to start a document. My intuition does
not tell me that one can start a document by typing 'h'. I might
try typing 'edit' to start a document, however.
>>> The part that is intuitive is that you only need to learn the form
>>> of: {optional count} {command} {range/motion} once and you can
>>> repeat the pattern in many subsequent ways.
>> Do you not sense an inconsistency here? "The part that is intuitive
>> is...to learn"?
> Not at all. People do not have an instinctive nature,
On what basis do you make that claim?
> so intuitive things are re-use of previously learned knowledge.
But if the previously learned knowledge is a template, then simply
replacing the variables with constants is not an example of
intuition. It is an example of following instructions. If, for
example, you know that 10l moves the cursor 10 columns to the right,
and you want to delete the next 10 characters, but you don't yet
know the magic letter to trigger the deletion, your intuition might
lead you to try 10d. If that happened to work, then you could
claim that the command was intuitive. Unfortunately, it doesn't
work. What you wanted was 10x. Not intuitive in this example.
But if you already knew that x was the command to delete a character,
then using 10x to delete 10 characters is not relying on intuition
at all. It's relying on filling out the template.
> Learning the pattern allows you to re-use commands in different ways
> without having to learn those other ways ahead of time, hence
> those uses are intuitive.
The very fact that you're calling it "learning" means that it isn't
intuitive! Intuition allows you to do things *without* learning.
>>>>> Alt? What's an Alt?
>>>> It's something I learned that vi doesn't let me re-use, contrary
>>>> to your claim.
>>> If you want to use it, map it.
>> Something else to learn, and it presupposes that it's possible to do.
> You are presupposing the existance of an alt key.
Incorrect, given that I know one exists on my computer.
> I suggest that that vendor providing the alt key should also provide
> a vi configured to use it.
You're confusing hardware with software. Or do you subscribe to the
notion that choice of operating system software should be left to
the hardware vendor, not the consumer?
>>> But vi was around first and is hardly responsible for your choices.
>> Fortunately, I had more choices when I first needed to use an editor.
> How does that relate to being fortunate?
I didn't have someone else's choice forced upon me.
>>> It is not irrelevant in a discussion of the vi command set.
>> Feel free to explain the relevance of an Alt in 1976 in a discussion
>> of the vi command set.
> There is nothing to discuss about something that doesn't exist.
Then it is irrelevant. Yet you said it is not irrelevant. Do make
up your mind.
>>> The set could not contain futuristic magic keys unknown at the time.
>> You mean like Control? Imagine that, a "futuristic magic key".
> Control keys not only existed, but the values they generate in
> combination with the alphabetic keys were standardized at
> the same time as the letters themselves.
Really? How did you generate a control-C on an IBM 026 keypunch?
>>> No, my concept of logic is hopelessly tied to the idea of a
>>> cause preceeding the effect.
>> And what caused me to learn an editor that used Alt keys, the
>> effect being that the operation of vi was not intuitive?
> Lack of guidence.
Balderdash. In reality, it was the guidance of a person who had
experience with both that led me to try an editor that used Alt
leys.
>>> Most vendors would supply vi with any obvious keys on their
>>> specific keyboard already mapped to the appropriate thing.
>> Tell me, what did DEC do with their "Compose Character" key in vi?
> I never had one of those. You'll have to ask someone who did.
Is it possible that there might be several other vendors with
hardware you never had? How can you justify your "most vendors"?
>>>>>>>> You mean the $ never means the dollar sign?
>> What happened to the text that use to be here?
> It was irrelevant.
On what basis do you make that claim?
>>> The intuitive part is that it defines a motion and may be used
>>> in that position like any other motion. The command part
>>> is arbitrary.
>> Is that your notion of intuition? If I learn that the form of a
>> Fortran DO loop ends with start, stop, and step values, and if my
>> first use involves a step value of 1, does that mean a subsequent
>> usage where the step value is 2 was "intuitive"? No! The *form*
>> of the statement has been *learned*.
> Yes, you re-use previously learned knowledge in a new way without
> having to learn it again.
There's nothing new about choosing your intended step value! Are
you seriously going to claim that someone who uses a step size of
1000 for the first time in twenty years of Fortran programming just
did something "intuitive"?
No wonder you're having such a problem with this discussion. You
really have a peculiar notion of what represents intuition.
> However, reasoning is usually involved in a programming loop
> where it may not be required for your finger motions as you
> type edit commands.
See my previous example about trying to use 10d "intuitively" to
delete the next 10 characters.
>>>> The problem is knowing what to use. Just because someone learns
>>>> what symbol to use for "end of line" doesn't mean they will
>>>> automatically know what to use for "end of file".
>>> I don't see the problem here.
>> Reread what I wrote.
> Why, has it changed?
No, but your comprehension of it might.
>>> Are you suggesting that they would know if some other symbol had
>>> arbitrarily been chosen for one or the other?
>> I'm suggesting that they would not necessarily know that the same
>> symbol had been overloaded.
> Does that relate in some way to what either of us said?
It relates to what I said.
> If they would not automatically be able to know a different symbol
> how is it better than using only one?
"Does that relate in some way to what either of us said?"
>>> If not, what is your point?
>> See above.
> It is still the same unrelated text.
On what basis do you call it "unrelated"?
>>> Isn't that exactly the reasoning behind the Mac's 1-button mouse?
>>> Some people manage to work with it.
>> And it wasn't intuitive. Why do you think two- and three-button mice
>> became so popular? Why didn't others follow the Mac's lead, if that
>> design was so intuitive?
> Of course it isn't intuitive because it doesn't repeat previously learned
> knowledge. It is difficult or impossible to combine innovation with
> intutive use.
Irrelevant, given that I never said otherwise. In my own software
design, I weigh the relative advantages of sticking with something
familiar versus the power of something innovative. Not all innovations
are equally powerful. Not all familiar items are equally useful.
>>>>> Yes, you don't have to reason or look it up. You re-use the previous
>>>>> learning, making the process intuitive.
>>>> Are you trying to suggest that learning doesn't involve any reasoning?
>>> Yes, they are different things. You can learn facts without doing
>>> any reasoning.
>> That's memorization. Not what I call learning. When I expect my
>> students to learn something, I do not expect them to simply memorize
>> some facts.
> Then you are calling learning the wrong thing.
Rather ironic, coming from someone calling intuition the wrong thing.
> You can only learn facts,
If I tell you that I think it's windy today, you just learned from me
something that is an opinion, not a fact.
> and intuitive things let you re-use those previously
> learned facts without reasoning.
There's that logical inconsistency between "intuition" and "learning"
again.
> You are talking about thinking or reasoning instead.
One can learn about reasoning.
>>> The reverse would be more difficult but I wouldn't
>>> go so far as to speculate that it is impossible.
>> Reasoning is often used to determine facts. Galileo observed the
>> phases of Venus and reasoned that it had to orbit the Sun.
> Reasoning has nothing to do with facts
Reread what I just wrote.
> although they may sometimes coincide
Are you now going to diverge into a semantic argument?
> - but so rarely that it becomes a historical event.
Sounds like you just contradicted yourself. But on what basis do you
call it "rare"?
> Innumerable other people reasoned other, different possibilities
> that were not facts.
Which doesn't preclude that reasoning can lead to the determination
of facts.
>>>>>> That there might be different levels of escape is also not intuitive.
>>>>> It was to me,
>>>> Why?
>>> As always, similar prior experience.
>> Similar prior experience with what?
> With characters that had special actions associated unless they
> were put in a special context to negate their special nature.
> A nicely visible example is documenting the codes used in
> an 'embedded code' text formatter - or more currently, the
> encoding used to allow the special characters in html or xml
> markup to be included in the represented values. Contrast
> these with what happens when you hit control-C in an
> OS that uses that value as a program termination signal and
> you see the different levels and should understand that the
> levels might be nested arbitrarily deeply.
Doesn't the adjective "special" counter the notion of "intuition"?
>>>> The first time I plugged in a microwave oven, I didn't need to consult
>>>> the manual. The power cord was intuitive.
>>> Because it was similar to power cords in your prior experience.
>> So, you agree with me that a power cord can be intuitive. Great. Go
>> argue with Aaron, if you can tolerate his invective.
> 'Can be' applies to almost everything. It will depend on your prior
> experience vs. the innovation in the thing in question.
But Aaron claimed that nothing about computers is intuitive. Go argue
with him.
>>> I recall inserting a knife into a power outlet at an early age. It
>>> wasn't at all intuitive what the holes were for.
>> And if somebody showed you a plug and a socket, then called them male
>> and female without telling you which is which, would you find that an
>> intuitive used of terminology? Perhaps not "at an early age". Once
>> again, intuition is not an absolute.
> I would hope that most people would encounter the terms in
> another context before the one that might be intuitive in
> the sense of instinctive.
Is there some other sense of "intuitive" that differs from "instinctive"?
Your notion of "intuitive" is still peculiar. But you didn't really
answer my question.
>>>>>> The average user isn't going to know about tty input subsystems.
>>>>> I did. It is no more obscure than knowing the name of msconfig.
>>>> Are you arguing that msconfig is intuitive?
>>> No, I am arguing that people have prior experience with slightly
>>> obscure things, often making them candidates for intuitive reuse.
>> Do some of those "obscure things" involve a computer?
> For many people, probably approaching or past a majority in the US at
> least.
Thus some things about a computer can be intuitive. Go argue with
Kulkis about that.
>>>>>> The average user isn't going to know about signals at the OS level.
>>>>> Unix users do,
>>>> On what basis do you make that claim?
>>> All of them I know do.
>> What fraction of the userbase do you know?
> Enough.
Just how large or small do you think the userbase is?
>>> Since so many programs read standard input if not given some filenames
>>> on the command line, most people would still be waiting for cat or grep
>>> to complete if they didn't know about ^D or ^C.
>> That presupposes some knowledge of a connection between ^D and signals.
>> Some people know what to do without knowing the jargon involved.
> Yes, that's why people consider it intuitive.
Not knowing jargon doesn't make something intuitive. Note how I did
NOT use the Fortran standard jargon for "start, stop, and step" values.
>>> Yes, believe it or not, people learn what helps them do something
>>> better/faster/easier.
>> That doesn't prove they know everything practical.
> I didn't say they did.
Then why did you remove what you did say?
> There is no license exam with a demand for some specifiec minimal amount
> of knowledge.
Irrelevant, given that I said nothing about a license exam.
>>>>> For example using control-Z for job control to put things in the
>>>>> background and yank them back for keyboard control without needing
>>>>> extra windows is very handy.
>>>> And every UNIX user knows that? That makes it intuitive? And
>>>> control-Z won't yank them back. You need "fg" for that.
>>> But earlier you said people wouldn't know that...
>> I don't expect someone to know something that isn't the case.
> Isn't it? How do you suspend your current job when you want
> to bring another to the forground?
You're presupposing that I want to suspend my current job. I
very much like to have number crunching jobs continue in the
background, which I can do easily by clicking on another window
(or use the keyboard equivalent, for those of you who don't like
to move the hands).
> Or did you not do something usefull after backgrounding the
> previous one?
Usually one "backgrounds" a process to permit something useful to
be done in another window. Of course, there's no guarantee that
what gets done is useful; if might be an accidental command to
delete a file that you didn't want to delete.
>>> The intuitive part here is when you reuse the pattern of escaping the
>>> special character for the times you need to use it as a normal
>>> character.
>> On the contrary, tell that to the novice (the "escaping the special
>> character" part), and see how many press the Esc key first.
> Yes, you can tell a novice to type 'run', spelling it for him
> and see him type 'are you in'. That is cute but equally
> irrelevant.
Nothing cute or irrelevant about my example.
> There are innumerable ways to mislead a novice.
There would be fewer with an intuitive design.
>>>>> Or, that it will be the first time you encounter the concept and hence
>>>>> you should learn the thing that will make the next encounter
>>>>> intuitive.
>>>> Subsequent encounters of the same thing are not intuitive.
>>> I don't share that opinion.
>> On what basis do you call it an opinion? If I own an Acme 1000, learn
>> how to operate it, and then encounter an Acme 1000 in some other setting,
>> say a hotel room, for example, knowing how to operate that Acme 1000 in
>> the hotel room does not come from intuition. That's not an opinion.
> Things are never the same.
Incorrect. I occasionally encounter devices in other places that are
the same as something I own.
> If you have to apply reasoning to deal with the differences it is not
> intuitive. If you don't, it is.
Depends on what you call "reasoning". Suppose you find yourself in
a hotel room with a television remote control that doesn't have all
the buttons labeled with words, but one has a different color. If
you press that one and the set turns on, was it intuition that got
you the desired result, or was it reasoning?
>>>>> On the contrary - it applies to re-using experience without having
>>>>> to reason.
>>>> So, you *are* going to argue that brushing your teeth is intuitive,
>>>> right?
>>> If it is your second set of teeth, yes.
>> "Repeating the same task doesn't require intuition"
>> --Les Mikesell
> It isn't the same task if it isn't the same teeth.
As I feared, you're resorting to a semantic argument. The task is
the same. Washing your windows is still the same task, even if you
had to replace one window because an errant baseball broke it.
> How did you decide you should even brush the new one at all?
Certainly not intuition.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Microsoft using Linux
Date: 14 Dec 2000 23:20:13 GMT
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Charlie Ebert wrote:
> >
> > Interesting article covering Microsoft's possible
> > use of Linux in the near future and their
> > discontinuance of Windows.
> >
> > http://www.cnbc.com/news/001208plotkin.html
> >
> > I suspect we will see more of these in the
> > near future.
> >
> > But I wasn't shocked to hear him say what
> > I've predicted would happen for 3 years
> > now.
>
> There is some historical and legal reasons why Microsoft can't sell a
> UNIX or UNIX clone. One has to read some history of SCO and Xenix.
However, Linux is neither a UNIX nor a UNIX clone.
>
> Secondly, the GPL is a very good licencing system to prevent Microsoft
> from stealing and not sharing.
One would hope. But how much BSD have they stuffed into W2000, for
none to see?
>
> --
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
Vacuo
__
'The Earth may be flat, but History is circular.'
Vacuo 2000
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
