Linux-Advocacy Digest #70, Volume #31            Tue, 26 Dec 00 21:13:02 EST

Contents:
  Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) ("Kyle Jacobs")
  Re: Could only... (Andy Newman)
  Re: Why Advocacy? (pip)
  Re: Windows 2000 (John Travis)
  My experiance with win98 and SCSI vs Linux (genkai wa doko da)
  Re: Why Advocacy? (pip)
  Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Ayende Rahien")
  Re: ATA RIPOFF! ALERT! (Generic PC CPRM copy control) ("Adam Warner")
  Re: Windows 2000 ("Jeepster")
  Re: Could only... ("Greg S. Trouw")
  Re: Why Advocacy? (mlw)
  Re: Why Advocacy? (mlw)
  Re: open source is getting worst with time. (Craig Kelley)
  Re: Which retail Linux distribution is best? (maximus)
  Re: Why Advocacy? (mlw)
  Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000 (Craig Kelley)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 00:40:54 GMT

And they ALL are still missing the point.

None of these programs offer INTERFUNCTIONALITY.

When I thought the platform was changing, (mistakenly apparently) I got hold
of Afterstep.  I thought it was great, it was customizable, it was
intuitive.  But it lacked functionality.  Sure, I had a thousand different
file managers. And I had Linuxconf, but were they working together?  NO.

Could Linuxconf configure my Afterstep WM?  NO!  Could it configure XFree86
at ALL?  NO!!!

Could  I use either one to configure my Afterstep applications?  NO!  I did
use the embedded configuration tool, but I hit the bugs and the general lack
of true configurability it had, and got fed up with it.

I then tried Gnome & "e".  The results LOOKED decent, almost intuitive, and
the integrated file manager (GMC) was great.  But it lacked stability.  My
GNOME programs (and user session) would crap out repeatedly.  I got fed up
with this as well.

KDE came out, and I thought I was finally ready to embrace Linux.  Nope.
The interface was an improvement, but true functionality was missing.  Sure,
it integrated the user interface into a single, comprehensive program (doing
away with numerous small programs all doing numerous, small tasks).  But the
file manager was awful, the central admin tools were pathetic, and it just
wasn't complete.  I read the "documentation" finding more missing pages then
a pre-burnt novel.

XFree86 Hasn't come very far in a while.  Sure, new hardware has been added,
and version 4 positions XFree86 in a more easily configurable package (like
doing away with abundant configuration tools, and replacing it with full
autoprobing) but functionality is still absent.

I've seen the antialiasing, How long has MacOS had this?  And Windows?
Windows 95 & Plus had screen font antialiasing for five (going on six) years
now.  Linux is just getting these features out NOW??!

YaST is a powerful, but underfeatured administration system.  Featuring
nothing but token configuration options for the top 10 most configured items
in Linux.  Great, Linuxconf does this.  And YaST has the same problem.
Update a single YaST configurable component manually, and loose the ability
to configure under YaST.

But they aren't substantial.  The underlying problem still persists, ease.
It's not easy.  And desktop computing MUST be easy, that is why it's the
DESKTOP.  WORK has to be done on it, and spending hours configuring and
reconfiguring software is  unnecessary, and tedious.

When all those true innovations begin working with EACH OTHER to configure
everything WITH EASE and all function as ONE COMPONENT, then we can call
Linux "a good desktop OS."  Till then, MS and Apple got you beat.

TIP: Begin ripping off innovations from Apple's OSX.

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 27 Dec 2000 00:00:57 GMT, Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> >Five years.
> >
> >And I still see the horrible RedHat Linux "Control Panel" is still
> >lingering.
> >
> >Although there are some advantages to the Control Panel, Linuxconf has
> >pretty much overridden it in functionality and features, making the
Control
> >Panel items useless.
>
> Ah-huh. So you've offered at least one example of Linux improving, since
> they didn't have Linuxconf five years ago (-;
>
> They didn't have KDE or GNOME five years ago either. You don't think these
> represent advances in usability ? How about added support for true type
> fonts, 3d hardware acceleration, automatic detection of sound and video
cards,
> configuration tools such as linuxconf and YAST,   GUI based installs and
> easy default installs ? How about font anti-aliasing (still very new,
works
> with XFree 4.02) I think there have been a bunch of substantial
improvements.
>
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
> elflord at panix dot com



------------------------------

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Newman)
Subject: Re: Could only...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 00:53:11 GMT

worldviewer wrote:
>
>Could only happen in America:
>
>http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-4277328.html?tag=st.ne.1002.bgif.ni
>

But it doesn't say what OS he used.  Dammit post on-topic!  Is there
proof he did it because of a forced change over to Windows (or Linux,
pick side appropriately)?  Was the adoption of Microsoft Exchange and
Outlook the last straw?  Or was it KDE vs. Gnome?  We demand answers.



------------------------------

From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Advocacy?
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 00:45:52 +0000

"Form@C" wrote:
[snippage]
>So much time & money has
> been poured into windows now that I seriously doubt if the Linux-based
> alternative can ever really catch up, never mind replace it.

It is already there on the server front. The GUI and drivers are
catching up in the important areas (where most users have a need).

> Obviously, because of the age of the original Windows GUI, it has built up
> a wide following - especially in business where there are a lot of
> advantages (this *is* what it was designed for after all!). Employees can
> use quickly installed systems which need minimum maintenance. 

sp1, sp2, sp3, sp4, sp5, sp6. ie upgrades, security fixes.... think
again!

> Linux
>... it. Still cheap (becuase of GNU) but not quite so "cut-down" as it used to
> be.

..free speech not beer...

> It *has* to be
> constantly updated in order to run new software packages. 

as does win32

>There is no
> alternative, the software writers want to use the latest libraries which
> the library writers want to improve! 

a does win32. This really is a problem of how we organise shared
libraries, but we all seem to agree that they are a good idea.

>The various methods of updating have,
> unfortunately, become almost proprietory because no one distributor is big
> enough to force everyone onto their system (it has been tried though!) Even
> the RPM system is failing because it is being "improved" to version 4. Why?
> Did V3 have enough bugs to make it unusable? If so, how did it last so long
> and become so widely accepted?

nobody forces anybody to do things "one way", this is a strength. RPM is
not great, but it is good.

> Linux was never intended as a business or home pc os. It was a learning
> tool. It has now grown too big for its original purpose but not big enough
> for what people want to do with it. Consequently hardware manufacturers
> arn't really interested in writing drivers for it. Why should they? 

didn't you just say that the market was growing?

>They
> won't sell any serious quantity and they are in the business of making
> money! 

Take any poll of Linux users and I am sure that they are not adverse to
spending on hardware. Besides, it does not need manufacturers to
"support" linux, only make specifications and other technical
information available to let the community provide the support. Why
would they not want free drivers? (well quite a few don't but with
little technical or ip reasons IMHO)

>This is why many drivers are rare/flakey - the guy that writes them
> doesn't get paid! Without its hardware support where can it go?

I didn't think that the driver for my network card was flaky. In fact it
was written by a nice guy from NASA. Linux attracts smart people.
 
> I have to admit that I am not a Linux fan (you may have guessed by now). 
:-)
>> *like* playing with windows. I find even KDE2 clumsy and counter-intuitive
> in comparison. Sure, the software is very clever indeed but it *still*
> needs a lot of work when it comes to the user interface. 

Sure does!

>At least we don't
> need to worry about the mounting and umounting of disks, so beloved of unix
> and Linux users until recently, now. That went out at about the same time
> as DOS replaced CP/M!

yes it is nice that a virus can get at all your windows media in one go! 


> At the end of the day, the only reason for a business to switch its office
> over to Linux is financial. They pay less for the software. Unfortunately,
> they also find that they have to pay a lot more to support it. It will be a
> fine balancing act to decide just how big a system is needed to justify the
> change. 

If they find a bug in Windows how much power do they have to get it
fixed? Zero! How about in Linux? Now talk about support costs when an
Email virus can cause millions of currency x's worth of damage because
of daft software and a bad os design.

>For the home user, I'm not sure that either Linux or Windows is the
> right system. Windows is now too expensive (compared to the hardware cost)

Windows comes pre-installed and cost factored!

> and Linux still needs a huge dose of "user friendliness" before we can plug
> in this year's cards and run last-year's games. It is far too unforgiving
> as it stands.

True. It is like BR "we're getting there" (sorry uk thing).

> OK, that's enough for now. I've had my say for the moment.
> 
> <flame-resistant underware temporarily put to one side...>

------------------------------

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Travis)
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 00:32:22 GMT

And Jeepster spoke unto the masses...

:X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
:X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400


:Hi
:
:Its horses for courses I guess.....
:
:I am not for or against win or linux....its a matter of getting the job done
:using whatever is at hand and whatever is best for the job in hand.
:
:Thanks for all your replies anyway...even kiwiunixman who I would like to
:believe does not represent the majority of linux users in his rudeness.
:
:--
: 11:54pm  up 1 day, 14:39

He he.  First time I've seen this sig on a windows box :-).

I think W2k makes a very decent desktop workstation for the average user.
Pretty stable, better hardware support than NT, etc.  But the upgrade curve is
still in full effect.  I think this is probably the most annoying factor.  The
software upgrades can get pretty pricy with each release.  I just did a very
frustrating install for someone where it threw a shit fit over the dual vids but
that is another issue entirely :-).

jt
-- 
Debian Gnu/Linux [Sid]
2.4.0-test12-ReiserFs|XFree4.0.2|Nvidia .95 drivers
You mean there's a stable tree?


------------------------------

From: genkai wa doko da <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: My experiance with win98 and SCSI vs Linux
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 00:44:27 GMT

 I don't even know why I am posting except it's something to do on a
cold night after tooling on a disagreeable computer all day.

I have right now 5 SCSI cards, I have gotten them over the last 3 years
in varying ways from throw aways to paying small amounts of cash ($16 or
less) all of them work under linux fine, some better than others, but
what can you do, they read and write from/to a disk, what more could you
want?

Of these hosts 4 of them will not work with win98 under any
swapping/removal of other cards in the same machine. The hosts are as
follows:

Adaptec 2940U (bios v1.23S3) Compaq OEM I believe (PCI)
Asus PC-2000 NCR53C810 Based controller (PCI)
Always in2000 (16 bit ISA)
Mediavision PAS16 (combo scsi+soundcard 16 bit ISA)
Future Domain TMC-845 (8 bit ISA)

The only one that works in Windows for me is the 8 Bit ISA card.
Now obviously all these cards are supported under Windows but even with
a clean OS install, juggling of CMOS reserved IRQ settings, different
motherboards altogether, installing the newest drivers, etc. I'm no
slouch when it comes to puzzling out problems and this is just a total
puzzle. All I can say is viva Linux (and Unix in general!) I'm not even
a great advocate of Linux I don't _care_ if other people use it. I'm
just as happy tinkering on an Amiga or Sparc or VAX (which you'll notice
Linux runs (to some degree) on all 3 of these platforms but that's not
my point ;)

Anyone else have far greater 'luck' with expansion cards under Linux vs
Windows?


brian

--
RCS/RI, Retro Computing Society: http://www.osfn.org/rcs/
RIFUG, RI Free Unix Group: http://www.rifug.org/
Dropdead, my band: http://www.dropdead.org/
my videogame stuff: http://www.gloom.org/~gauze/


Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

------------------------------

From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Advocacy?
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 00:54:15 +0000



genkai wa doko da wrote:
> [snip]
> In my small experiance with USB under windows 98 it's horrible. THe USB
> mouse I have works for about 5 minutes usually less then the driver
> stops responding. My girlfriend has a USB scanner at work, the thing was
> constantly disconnecting itself and you couldn't reconnect it (via the
> tray icon that said connect) I set it up on the parport and it's run
> flawlessly ever since. I am just going to avoid USB.

Well that is your experience and I don't doubt it. I've found usb to be
great, easy and fast. Drivers can be badly written in any OS, does not
invalidate the concept.

How is your printer pass-though working for the scanner? I've never had
a printer pass -though reliably work without performing cartwheels.

Embrace usb - it is a better way my friend!

------------------------------

From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 02:55:54 +0200


"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...


> Since IE is a full-fledged HTML-capable (+ DHTML, + XMHTML, + ActiveX,
> + Java, + JavaScript, etc.) browser, it would fall into the second
> category; this indicates that you are apparently claiming that Linux
> doesn't support a browser-driven user interface (a third subcategory,
> which is often called a "web application").
>
> However, you'd be wrong in that case; Linux supports Jakarta and PHP
> just fine (Jakarta serves up Java 'servlets', which are similar to
> ActiveX objects; they allow for dynamic generation of data and can
> also retrieve data from other things on the server side for presentation
> to the user, in a more or less controlled fashion); both hook into a
> HTML-capable webserver (Apache) and can even hook up a database
> (Postgres, msql, mysql, Oracle, DB2) to said webserver, allowing
> all sorts of nifty things to happen such as "shopping carts".

When working with PHP, I'm usually using Oracle or MySQL, can PHP do ODBC?
AFAIK, there aren't that many (at all?) database servers which doesn't have
ODBC drivers, a great plus when you need to work with databases.

> To be fair, Microsoft supports all of these options as well, and
> more (LDAP, for example -- although even here Linux probably has
> a server/client pair; I just don't know what it's called offhand.
> NT has ASP (via IIS), although I understand there's a Solaris-capable
> webserver that can do VisualBasic, plus part of COM -- and JSP and ASP
> compete for dynamic server page generation).

There is a module for Apahce that does ASP, and several other products that
will let you run ASP outside of windows.
So you can do ASP on any platform you like, but it's pretty much pointless,
IMO, to do so.
The biggest advantage of ASP is that you can link via ASP to compotents, an
ability which is, for the most part, lost when you move from windows
platfrom.






------------------------------

From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ATA RIPOFF! ALERT! (Generic PC CPRM copy control)
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 13:57:41 +1200

Hi Andy and everyone,

> Bruce Scott TOK wrote:
> >Maybe the Register is being dismissed in this fashion in "certain
> >circles" who don't want to face what it has to say... (read your
Chomsky!).
>
> Or the "elites" who started it all in the first place don't want
> it talked about too much.

Can anyone find a main stream news organisation that is covering this story?
Everything feels eerily silent (perhaps its just the Christmas season).

Adam



------------------------------

From: "Jeepster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 01:00:08 -0000

I totally Agree John ;-)

BTW - the sig was easy to do, I used the same technique I did on my Mandrake
box..... ;-)

--
  0:59am  up 1 day, 15:44




------------------------------

From: "Greg S. Trouw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Could only...
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 18:28:31 -0700

    Actually I'm not so sure about that.  In Iraq, all it takes it to
say that Heisain is a bad president (OK, it's gas, not a gun), and in
Brazil with the death squads it only takes being a homeless kid.


------------------------------

From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Advocacy?
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 20:50:44 -0500

pip wrote:
> 
> mlw wrote:
> > (3) Counter FUD
> > There are a lot of people saying things about Linux that are simply not
> > true. We should address these and counter them with facts.
> 
> The problem is that people who spread FUD generally do not listen to any
> reason :-(

The issue is we can't let the "FUD" opinion be expressed without a
factual counterpoint being available.

> 
> 
> > (4) Dispel myths about Windows.
> > Linux is a good operating system. It is not the best, but it is very
> > good. IMHO, as a whole, it is far better than any of the offerings from
> > Microsoft.
> 
> This is unfair. Take USB, as Xmas has passed I now have a USB mouse
> which worked fine under windows, yet I know that I really don't want the
> pain of configuring USB under Linux and would prefer to wait until 2.4.
> Linux is a better OS technically, but many end users are not as
> concerned if it does not easily support hardware and perhaps more
> importantly software. Linux will in time.
> 
> > Unfortunately, Microsoft's marketing and technology
> > "evangelism" has created the impression that the various Windows
> > environments are much better than they really are.
> 
> So true!
> 
> > The above reasons are my reasons for posting here.
> >
> > Why on earth would someone advocate Windows?
> 
> Games! Also some very neat software is not yet available for Linux.
> Putting on my programmers hat: there is NO reason why I would want to
> program under windows unless I am getting paid for doing so (apart from
> the "better" ide's). Putting on a sys-admin hat there is also NO reason
> why someone should want Windows other than if they can't be bothered to
> learn new things.

This is the issue! Windows does not need avocation, it has a
multi-billion dollar marketing evangelism company behind it that isn't
afraid to lie.


-- 
http://www.mohawksoft.com

------------------------------

From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Advocacy?
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 20:54:23 -0500

pip wrote:
> This is unfair. Take USB, as Xmas has passed I now have a USB mouse
> which worked fine under windows, yet I know that I really don't want the
> pain of configuring USB under Linux and would prefer to wait until 2.4.
> Linux is a better OS technically, but many end users are not as
> concerned if it does not easily support hardware and perhaps more
> importantly software. Linux will in time.

USB is the G.W. Bush of interfaces. Firewire is far better. That being
said, USB is usable and Linux will use it when 2.4 comes out.


-- 
http://www.mohawksoft.com

------------------------------

From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: 26 Dec 2000 18:59:38 -0700

"Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> > Now, how to I update my Windows 2000 machine from the command line
> > again?  Remotely?
> 
> If you want to do it via the command line, you can use Telnet or for more
> security, go with rcmd.  If you want to use the GUI remotely, fire up
> terminal services (administration, not user).
> 
> Very easy.

You can't install 99% of the Windows programs using a command line
because they require GDI interaction.

Terminal services may work with an enterprise setup (ie, non-default
install), and then only with Windows 2000 -- otherwise you'll need to
buy extra software.

> There are more powerful tools to remotely update more than one machine
> automatically if you are administering many computers (say an IT job), but
> that would be way off topic... what is on topic is that with Linux, it is
> hard to install stuff period.  Forget remote capabilities... it is hard
> enough to use when you are directly on the console!

It's easier than Windows, in my experience.

-- 
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley  -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block

------------------------------

From: maximus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Which retail Linux distribution is best?
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 01:50:52 GMT

I want to thank everybody for their advice and opinions thus far. Keep
em coming, I appreciate and read everything that is posted. Never
thought there would be so many diverse opinions. Not 100% sure if that
is good or bad but it is very interesting for a newbie and the fact
that most of you have actually tried most of the distro's is very
impressive. Greatly appreciated...

--
"Strength and Honor"


Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

------------------------------

From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Advocacy?
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 21:02:44 -0500

Pete Goodwin wrote:
> 
> mlw wrote:
> 
> > (2) Promote better understanding of Linux.
> > For those that do not know, or have not used, Linux, to inform them of
> > the advantages (yes, and disadvantages to limit false expectations.)
> 
> Please list the advantages and disadvantages.

Right now this thread is about "why advocacy" not "advocacy.

> 
> > (3) Counter FUD
> > There are a lot of people saying things about Linux that are simply not
> > true. We should address these and counter them with facts.
> 
> You've just told a FUD about Windows in your post - see below.

Like what?

> 
> > (4) Dispel myths about Windows.
> > Linux is a good operating system. It is not the best, but it is very
> > good. IMHO, as a whole, it is far better than any of the offerings from
> > Microsoft. Unfortunately, Microsoft's marketing and technology
> > "evangelism" has created the impression that the various Windows
> > environments are much better than they really are.
> 
> And people who use Windows and use Linux are quite capable of spotting what
> is "evangelism" and what isn't. Linux appears to be a very good system if
> all you want is a CLI or multiple CLI's. It starts to show its cracks when
> you try to go for a good GUI. Windows is far from perfect, but Linux + KDE
> for example is not any better.

I use Linux all the time. I used to use Applix, I now use Star Office,
not because of price, but because the newer version of Applix wasn't
very good. Otherwise, I run it in a GUI environment.

My Linux environment hasn't crashed because of either a program or OS
failure in well over a year. Can a single Windows user say that in
complete honesty? I use it regularly, and I am constantly upgrading and
installing applications. I a Windows machine that is used far less, and
crashes all the time. It is running Windows 98SE. 

> 
> > Why on earth would someone advocate Windows?
> 
> Because some things are better on Windows?
> 
> Because more hardware on Intel machines is supported on Windows than on
> Linux?

I just stated objectives which can be aided by advocacy of Linux, what
objectives do you have?


> 
> --
> Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2

-- 
http://www.mohawksoft.com

------------------------------

From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000
Date: 26 Dec 2000 19:03:02 -0700

"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> > Some Windows programs can not install for administrator and also put
> > their settings into a user's account. (You must know this if you use
> > NT.) They don't know how. So, these programs must be installed as the
> > user who will be using them. To do this, you must have the privileges
> > which would allow a virus to spread.
> 
> There are any number of solutions to this problem.  1)  give the user
> account temporary admin privs, install the program, remove those privs.
> Problem solved.  2)  Using Win2k, simply install the program with admin
> privs as the dialog box that pops up allows.  3)  Monitor the keys created
> via any number of tools, then recreate those same keys in each user hive.
> 
> There are other solutions, but those are just off the top of my head.

None of the above work for Omnipage Pro OCR software.

It's annoying.

> > Some Windows programs assume system wide access to operate. To operate
> > these programs you must also have privileges which would allow a virus
> > to spread.
> 
> Name one.  The only one I know of that requires this out of the box is
> Office 95, and that can be worked around pretty easily.
> 
> > The answer is to not use Windows NT for these programs OR use NT in an
> > insecure way. Most users will choose to use NT in an insecure way.
> 
> No, the answer is to use it the way it's intended to be used.

Yep, in this case we have to give everyone Administrator group
access. 

-- 
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley  -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block

------------------------------


** 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
******************************

Reply via email to