Linux-Advocacy Digest #914, Volume #30 Fri, 15 Dec 00 19:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Conclusion (sfcybear)
Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Tell us Why you use Windows over Linux. (Chris Osborn)
Re: Microsoft Light Bulb Part 2 (Peter Hayes)
Re: Corel to pull out of Linux (Peter Hayes)
Re: Kulkis digest, volume 2451894 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Name one thing Microsoft INVENTED.... (Stephen King)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Corel to pull out of Linux (Pan)
Re: Corel to pull out of Linux (kiwiunixman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 22:33:10 GMT
Steve Mading writes:
>>> I don't care.
>> You should, given that you're arguing with someone who agrees with
>> you that something about computers can be intuitive, rather than the
>> person you disagree with. Most interesting.
Note: no response.
>>> YOU are being illogical.
>> Where, allegedly? Yet another one of your pontifications.
> To answer the above, I'd have to repeat what I've already posted.
Another pontification.
> I'm sick of doing that.
You're erroneously presupposing that you posted your evidence for my
alleged illogic, Steve.
>>> It doesn't matter if someone else is too.
>> It should, given that you're arguing with someone who agrees with
>> you that something about computers can be intuitive, rather than the
>> person you disagree with. Most interesting.
> We don't agree once you peel away that outer layer, though. I don't
> phrase things the wame way Aaron does, but in practice it comes out
> the same. Sure, things can be intuitive to SOME people, but not
> universally (which you already admitted), and (this is where we
> disagree) therefore it's totally useless to hold up "intuitiveness"
> as a showcase feature of a program.
Where have I said ANYTHING about it being useless to hold up
intuitivenss as a showcase feature of a program, Steve?
How can you disagree with something I haven't said?
> Calling something "inutitive" is
> purely a marketroid-speak tactic that they use because it doesn't
> really need to be backed up with any evidince.
Sort of like your claims about my alleged illogic.
> (Since no matter what interface you are talking about you can
> probably find some group to whom it is intutive.)
We need to agree on a definition of "intutive" [sic] first.
>>>>>>> since that is often what it means when someone leaves a qualifier
>>>>>>> off on a statement like that.
>>>>>> Evidence, please.
>>>>> 28 years of context as a speaker of English.
>>>> Is that all?
>>> Yes, that's all.
>> That could explain things. Somewhat.
> Don't play the age card. That's an ad-hominem fallacy waiting to
> happen.
On what basis do you call it a fallacy, Steve? Sounds like something
a teenager would say when he thinks he's finally all grown up.
------------------------------
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: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 22:37:47 GMT
Steve Mading writes:
>>>>> On any standard 104-key or 101-key keyboard.
>>>> My keyboard is quite standard, Steve.
>>>>> If yours is different, then say it or shut up.
>>>> Practice what you preach, Steve.
>>> I would, except that mine isn't "different".
>> Mine isn't "different" either.
>>> There *IS* a standard 101 and 104 key layout pattern,
>> Including specifications on spacing?
>>> that the vast majority of keyboards sold use.
>> Evidence, please.
>>> I could list them all, but then again I don't have all day.
>> It's so much easier to pontificate.
>>> Let's just start with the one in front of me:
>>> IBM KB-8923
>> The IBM part numbers I'm familiar with start with two digits,
>> then a letter, and then four digits. ANd for some reason, IBM
>> likes to have part numbers and FRU numbers that are different.
> Here's the full list of numbers I find on the back of the keyboard:
> Model number: KB-8923
> S/N: 1133479
> Date: 89-82
> FRU: 76H3284
Ah, now that looks like an IBM number. Mine don't have model
numbers, but rather part numbers.
> Rev: C01
>>> I've seen keyboards on Dells, Gateways, Compaqs, Sparc stations, SGI
>>> Indy's, SGI O2's, IBM 3151 terminals, DEC VT220 terminals. They all
>>> fit my argument, the only exception being the one I already mentioned,
>>> a few laptops have layouts that are unique to them. (with the
>>> arrow keys up above the number row, on the right.)
>> Your experience seems to be rather limited.
> You could end this by just specifying the keyboard instead of
> being so fucking vague.
I have several keyboards, including both laptops and desktops. The
laptop is an extremely popular model, hardly unique, which was your
escape clause.
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 22:39:15 GMT
In article <3ow_5.7209$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:91buii$10qg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Let me make it more clear:
> >
> > The most important factor IN DETERMINING STABILITY is my own
experience.
> In
> > other words: Regardless of what any tests, benchmarks, etc say, my
own
> > experience with the systems matters more. Some bonehead on a
newsgroup
> can
> > tell me that they have been able to keep WinNT running for 3 years
> straight.
> > Well, my own experience doesn't bear that out, and that sure matters
much
> > more than what may or may not have happened in some IT shop
somewhere.
> >
> > I trust my experience, everything else serves only as a guide.
>
> What exactly *IS* your experience in attempting to maintain a high
> availability NT system?
>
Propbably more than yours.
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 15:49:46 -0700
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Curtis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert) posted:
> >
>
> Here is the reasoning behind not using NT:
> "Windows NT had several shortfalls. First, our standard applications,
> which normally run on SGI hardware, were not available under NT. Our
> software staff could port the tools, but that solution would be quite
> expensive. NT also had several other limitations; it didn't support an
> automounter, NFS or symbolic links, all of which are critical to our
> distributed storage architecture. There were third-party applications
> available to fill some of these holes, but they added to the cost and,
> in many cases, did not perform well in handling our general computing
> needs."
>
> Cost of the OS wasn't a factor, it was the OS they were using.
>
> The lack of an automounter? What for?
For their distributed storage architechture.
Translation: for their SAN. In that environment, lack of AM support
would be a critical failing.
> NFS? There are several freeware NFS client/servers for NT,
There are *NOW*, but what about back then? If you do the research,
you'll realize that at that time, NFS support was expensive, and of low
quality.
> and several
> commercial ones for relatively little cost, so this argument seems
> wrong or unresearched.
For that time frame, their argument is perfectly valid.
> This isn't a valid argument.
Yes it is.
> Symbolic links? NT supports hard links. They could've also used DFS
> which supports all sorts of linking including symbolic links across
> the network. This isn't a very valid argument either.
No. They had a mixed environment. NT's lack of support for standard
systems and interfaces was what made it impossible to use NT for this
particular part of their task.
As I've said, over time, some of this has been remedied, but we aren't
talking about now, we are talking about then.
> So basically it boils down to their software wasn't available on NT.
No, it basically boils down to: "NT doesn't provide high quality,
built-in support for open, public standard systems. Linux does, and at
a lower cost than DUX, so we chose Linux for certain operations."
They used NT in other areas, for other tasks, where using NT was both
economical, and appropriate.
> Which software was this, exactly? They didn't mention it, so we can't
> validate the validity of this argument, but it will stand as a valid
> one for the time being.
>
> The primary argument against DUX was cost.
>
> "The biggest limitations of Digital UNIX were cost and lack of
> flexibility."
>
> So basically they didn't feel like using NT,
No. They *couldn't* use NT in an open environment. That was the real
issue, boiled down to it's essentials.
> and their software
> didn't run on it (which sounds unlikely.
On the contrary, it was extremely likely, as for years high end,
bleeding edge graphics work has been done on Unix workstations.
Porting Unix source code to NT is a non-trivial task.
> However it was in 1997,
> so the argument could be made), and DUX was too expensive.
> Linux was chosen because NT didn't support the software.
And because NT provided and supported mostly proprietary, closed
sub-systems that did not integrate into a multi-vendor, open
environment.
> That's essentially what it boils down to. This wasn't a victory
> for Linux as much as it was a defeat for Digial Unix and
> NT didn't win or lose.
It wasn't a defeat, or a victory, for ANYBODY. They simply used what
was best for each task.
Which is why the Mac, even with it's antiquated kernel, is still widely
used for authoring . . . superior support, plus support for existing
infra-structure.
The NT kernel may be far superior to the Mac, but the Mac is still the
superior platform for graphics production.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Osborn)
Subject: Re: Tell us Why you use Windows over Linux.
Date: 15 Dec 2000 22:57:13 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I've recently, within the past 3 days, noticed The Gimp is a great
>replacement for Photoshop.
Not for me. The Gimp doesn't provide the same functionality I get from
PhotoShop, it's not even close. Plus I really like combining PhotoShop
with ImageReady.
>And isnt Adobe making Illustrator for Linux? i think its in Beta now but
>i could be wrong
Never heard of this before. Maybe I might finally have a reason to
hook up a monitor to one of my Linux boxes?
--
Chris Osborn Full System, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 2160 Jefferson St., #240
http://www.fullsystem.com/ Napa, CA 94559
Webhosting that *works* - 99.99% uptime - First 3 months free
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Light Bulb Part 2
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 22:54:55 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000 19:26:21 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The
Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
> As those in Chicago know well: save early, and save often. :-)
In Ireland it's "vote early, and vote often"
Peter
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Corel to pull out of Linux
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 22:58:37 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000 01:38:52 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
wrote:
> It won't be the government which stops Microsoft.
After the recent antics of the Supreme Court, M$ has nothing to fear from
the DoJ action.
Peter
------------------------------
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: Kulkis digest, volume 2451894
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 22:58:34 GMT
As a sign of good faith to those of you who have complained, I will
now implement the same corrective measure that I have implemented
in the past for other similar offenders. Here is the inaugural
Kulkis digest.
01> Tholen....
01> it's YOU who should be apologizing. Now remember Dave...
01> when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
01> remember to slit lengthwise.
02> Tholen....
02> it's YOU who should be apologizing. Now remember Dave...
02> when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
02> remember to slit lengthwise.
03> Tholen....
03> it's YOU who should be apologizing. Now remember Dave...
03> when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
03> remember to slit lengthwise.
04> Tholen....
04> it's YOU who should be apologizing. Now remember Dave...
04> when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
04> remember to slit lengthwise.
05> Tholen....
05> it's YOU who should be apologizing. Now remember Dave...
05> when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
05> remember to slit lengthwise.
06> Tholen....
06> it's YOU who should be apologizing. Now remember Dave...
06> when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
06> remember to slit lengthwise.
07> Tholen....
07> it's YOU who should be apologizing. Now remember Dave...
07> when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
07> remember to slit lengthwise.
08> Tholen....
08> it's YOU who should be apologizing. Now remember Dave...
08> when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
08> remember to slit lengthwise.
09> Tholen....
09> it's YOU who should be apologizing. Now remember Dave...
09> when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
09> remember to slit lengthwise.
10> Tholen....
10> it's YOU who should be apologizing. Now remember Dave...
10> when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
10> remember to slit lengthwise.
11> Tholen....
11> it's YOU who should be apologizing. Now remember Dave...
11> when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
11> remember to slit lengthwise.
12> Tholen....
12> it's YOU who should be apologizing. Now remember Dave...
12> when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
12> remember to slit lengthwise.
13> Tholen....
13> it's YOU who should be apologizing. Now remember Dave...
13> when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
13> remember to slit lengthwise.
14> Tholen....
14> it's YOU who should be apologizing. Now remember Dave...
14> when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
14> remember to slit lengthwise.
15> Tholen....
15> it's YOU who should be apologizing. Now remember Dave...
15> when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
15> remember to slit lengthwise.
Illogical Kulkis, given that you're the one spewing the invective,
not me.
16> What Marty is saying is that, being the sub-standard in-duh-vidual
16> that you are, using you as an offering would be an insult to the gods.
What I am saying is that your invective (and Marty's) gets you nowhere,
Kulkis.
17> Tholen....
17> it's YOU who should be apologizing. Now remember Dave...
17> when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
17> remember to slit lengthwise.
Illogical Kulkis, given that you're the one spewing the invective,
not me.
18> Actually, Dave, I was quite serious.
Your use of the past tense suggests that you're not serious anymore.
19> Tholen....
19> it's YOU who should be apologizing. Now remember Dave...
19> when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
19> remember to slit lengthwise.
Illogical Kulkis, given that you're the one spewing the invective,
not me.
20> You just just don't fucking get it, do you Tholen.
How ironic.
20> You're a premier-grade moron. A complete knee-biter.
How ironic.
20> How's that book of yours coming along...
20> "How I turned $10,000,000 in real estate into $100 cold cash"
Classic erroneous presupposition on your part.
21> Goddamn, Tholen... somebody offers you clever and helpful advice,
21> and you insult him in return.
How ironic.
21> What a fucking ingrate you are.
How ironic.
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 16:10:00 -0700
Tom Wilson wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Tom Wilson wrote:
>
> I'm not talking the business side of things. I'm talking for home users.
My family and I use Linux, and only Linux, at home.
> Linux is still very weak in the game department
You mean, total number of games? Not as far as I can tell . . . my
seven year old can't play 'em as fast as I can find 'em and load 'em.
> (Performance as well as
> availability).
Quake II ran faster, and smoother, under Linux than it did under
Windows.
As for availability . . . that depends on what games you want to play,
but in general, you are probably right. But as I said above, I really
don't notice a lack.
> Hardware support has a long way to go yet.
Not really. XFre 4.0.1, plus DRI, plus Mesa give you just about as much
speed as you really need for real time 3D on such video cards as the
Voodoo3-3000.
> My saying never, in hindsight, might have been a bit strong. It may indeed
> happen. I don't think it will for some time to come, though.
Already here, and has been for some time, with some people.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 00:54:37 +0200
"John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Swangoremovemee wrote:
> > Neither do the folks who run Solaris, SCO or Aix, MVS, VM or Mac/OS.
>
> But when having that choice might benefit them . . . they're stuck,
> while on the other hand, when I wanted RAID-0 and RAID-5 capability on
> my Linux box, all I had to do was download the patch, apply it,
> recompile, reboot, and I was off and running.
>
> That isn't something you can do with Windows or the MacOS.
Yes you can, Win2K support RAID-0, RAID-5 and another one, who number I
forgotten, it may be RAID-1, but I'm totally not sure here.
------------------------------
From: Stephen King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Name one thing Microsoft INVENTED....
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 23:17:08 GMT
A transfinite number of monkeys wrote:
>
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2000 00:48:38 GMT,
> Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :
> : Seems like people are having trouble naming ONE THING
> : Microsoft invented.
>
> The Blue Screen of Death?
More realistically, and much to Mr. Gates' credit, Microsoft has
invented a magnificent marketing machine which sells sow's ears
convincingly disguised as silk purses.
Now, ask me if they've ever invented anything useful to anyone other
than themselves and their stockholders ...
--
Porsche Boxster 88,295,375 Club-Z points away
Stephen J King :: RR2 Utopia Canada L0M 1T0
--
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 16:15:04 -0700
Swangoremovemee wrote:
>
> On Thu, 07 Dec 2000 23:54:45 -0600, B. P. Uecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Linux is a replacement for Netware in your dreams. The problem with
> >Linux (aside from the fact that open source development is a black
> >hole) is that it tries to be everything to everyone and masters
> >nothing. It is basically acceptable as a server platform but beyond
> >its circle of devotees (and dolts who who can do no better than parrot
> >slashdot) it has no mindshare. Linux on the desktop will never happen
> >and on the server end it is mainly a toy for easily distracted geeks
> >who will eventually find another bandwagon to hop on. I give it
> >another couple of years before it joins OS/2 in the trash heap. And
> >I'm a generous man.
>
> The chickens are going to come home to roost when these brave
> companies that are switching to Linux supposedly in mass, see that the
> cost of maintaining Linux is actually higher than Windows.
If this is the sticking point . . . then Linux will win hands down.
Linux TCO is much lower than Windows TCO is.
> The only reason they are switching is the cost fact of licensing and
> software. Bottom line is the ticket and as we go into a recession next
> year (which I believe will happen), companies switching to Linux will
> increase in order to save money.
>
> They will be in for a large shock when they see how little support
> they will have.
"How little" . . . compared to what? They get much better support for
Linux, than they do for Windows.
The distributed, open nature of the Linux support paradigm automatically
makes it better and more responsive.
> Try telling a secretary who has been using Word or Wordperfect to
> switch to StarOffice or even the rube-goldberg-wino version of Linux
> Wordperfect and see what happens.
Been there, done that. No problems. What else you got for me?
> Linux is going to go down in history as a miserable failure and it is
> just a matter of time for the word to get out. The first company that
> goes belly up because of it will be enough to send the others running
> back to Windows or real Unix.
Nobody will go belly up 'cause of a choice of OS, regardless of what
that OS is.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 16:16:54 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Fri, 08 Dec 2000 14:56:35 GMT, Swangoremovemee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> >On Thu, 07 Dec 2000 23:54:45 -0600, B. P. Uecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Linux is indistinguishable from Unix to the end user once
> you are on the desktop.
And after you get to the desktop, many people cannot tell the difference
between Linux and Windows until they try to start their favorite MS
app . . .
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Pan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Corel to pull out of Linux
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 15:26:31 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MH wrote:
>
> Corel, like most short-sighted businesses, listened to the linux hype and
> like a rabid money-grubbing dot.comer, threw good money after bad.
Strangely, their linux division is one of the few that turned a profit
for the company. Go figure.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://salvador.venice.ca.us
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Corel to pull out of Linux
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 23:28:09 GMT
Well if (as you (MH) said) all Linux users pirate, then I must be a
loner in the fact that I BUY all my Linux software LEGALLY, everything
from distro to applications. Yes, I could easily download these
illegally off a hotline server, however, the only person at the end of
the day I will be hurting is my self, as companies will discontinue
selling Linux software due to piracy. However, I have little, or no
sympathy for companies like Microsoft who screw there customers into the
ground, selling over priced, bug ridden software. If it weren't for the
marketing think-tank at Redmond, companies like Corel would be thriving,
who create superior software, both in reliability and inter
compatibility between different office suites.
kiwiunixman
--
"Like a midget at a urinal, you gotta keep on your toes"
Naked Gun 33 1/3
"Like a blind man at an orgy, you gotta feel your way out"
Naked Gun 33 1/3
____
Unix Programmer:
"If it an't broken, don't fix it"
Microsoft Programmer:
"If it an't broken and working perfectly, then their must be a problem"
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
