Linux-Advocacy Digest #318, Volume #31 Sun, 7 Jan 01 05:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Why Hatred? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (Andy Newman)
Re: Windows 2000 (Ed Allen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 21:00:51 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 5 Jan 2001
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 5 Jan 2001
> >> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 4 Jan 2001
> >> >> >Fine, Linux can't replace windows on the majority of users systems
(yet).
> >> >>
> >> >> That's where your wrong. According to your own "any script on Unix
can
> >> >> be done on NT" logic, Linux is perfectly capable of entirely and
> >> >> completely replacing Windows on every user's system. It just can't
*be*
> >> >> Windows.
> >> >
> >> >What???? Your logic is flawed.
> >>
> >> How so? You have stated that any script that can be written on Unix
can
> >> be written on NT (despite the falsity of this claim to begin with)
under
> >> the "its just software" argument, saying 'perl and bash are available
> >> for Windows'. By the same token, of course, any OS is a complete
> >> replacement for Windows. There is nothing incomplete about Linux.
> >
> >Virtually any useful software that's available for Linux is also
available
> >for Windows, the same cannot be said of the reverse.
>
> Not that I agree with that statement at all; I thought we were talking
> about the OS, not the apps? Because there is no MS-Office for Linux, it
> is not an acceptable desktop? Any application, though not any
> particular product, is available on Linux, or could be available if
> there were any market demand, just as any script for Unix "could" be
> written on NT.
The point was that all those tools you talk about for Linux are also
available for NT. Not "similar" tools. The *EXACT SAME ONES*.
The same cannot be said in reverse.
> >> And didn't have even a small amount of the success at monopolizing that
> >> Microsoft did, and they've only been in existence for a bit over 20
> >> years. IBM didn't *start out* monopolizing, as MS did.
> >
> >MS was in existance for over 6 years before IBM licensed MS-DOS from
them.
>
> And they were monopolizing with MS-BASIC in microcomputer ROMs the whole
> time.
No, that didn't happen until 1981. MS was founded in 1975.
> >> >If it was a detriment to the consumer, the consumer wouldn't buy the
> >> >upgrade.
> >>
> >> So it is, so it must be. And you wonder why I bring up Microsoft's
> >> constant efforts to force consumers to upgrade, despite their
> >> reluctance.
> >
> >If they didn't want to do it, they wouldn't.
>
> So it is, so it must be. If you didn't "want to" give the guy your
> wallet, you won't. Whether he "wants to" put a bullet in your head is
> your problem.
While that's true, it's not the same thing.
> >> No, because the statement is not fact; it is supposition. You presume
> >> that because there are some companies which ostensibly compete with
> >> Microsoft, therefore Microsoft cannot be monopolizing.
> >
> >No, my statement is that MS is only a monopoly because it's competitors
> >failed to compete. Given an alert and competant competitor, MS is too
large
> >to compete with it effectively.
>
> If that were true, it wouldn't make a wit of difference at all. There's
> nothing in the Sherman Act about "unless...". Monopolizing is illegal,
> as is attempting to monopolize.
Being a Monopoly is *NOT* illegal, nor is gaining a Monopoly.
> If you just happened to "end up" with
> an overwhelming market share, then its generally a trivial thing to show
> your competitive efforts and how they resulted in your success, in
> court. When it turns out that your internal communications all point to
> intentional anti-competitive efforts, then it puts the lie to your
> statement. You are entirely mistaken about the source and cause of
> Microsoft's monopoly. It is a common mistake.
Whether or not MS intended to do as you say is irrelevant to whether or not
they succeeded BECAUSE of it. They succeeded because their competitors were
incompentant. The tactics they used should not have worked on any alert
competitor.
> >> Its a vapid
> >> assumption, not a statement of fact, that "competent competitors that
> >> don't let MS get a foothold". In point of fact, it would seem that
> >> *certain* competitors have not been entirely destroyed by the monopoly
> >> (and more than adequate reasons can be seen in the characteristics of
> >> their market themselves),
> >
> >"not completely destroyed" makes it sound like MS has nearly destroyed
them.
>
> One cannot tell what the world would be like in an alternate reality.
> Given the importance of Quicken, I'd dare say that Intuit may well have
> become a much larger company in a world without Microsoft.
Intuit chose to concentrate on one market. That's their strength. AOL is
in many markets, and has become a much larger company even since MS started
competing with them. Your "what if"'s are meangingless. Intuit also writes
software for the Mac, yet they've not chosen to go into any other markets
there either.
> >Intuit still holds 90% of the personal finance market. AOL still holds
70+%
> >of the Online Information Service market. That's not "not completely
> >destroyed", that's eating MS's lunch in that market.
>
> That's pie-chart competition. How large are those markets? How large
> would they be without an OS monopoly? You cannot know. ALL you know is
> that they were, indeed, not completely destroyed. Neither seems to be
> really thriving, by some perspectives; AOL just got bought, and despite
> their "90% hold of the personal finance market", that market isn't
> bubkus, the way Microsoft has things laid out.
Both companies hold large percentages of HUGE markets. AOL has something
like 25 million customers. Intuit, probably the same number (at least).
> >> and you wish to presume that this is the
> >> definition of competence, and by that pretend to "prove" that competent
> >> competitors are not destroyed by anti-competitive monopolies, and
> >> therefore all that are destroyed are simply incompetent. Its silly,
> >> really. No, the continued existence of Intuit and AOL does not provide
> >> any working support for hypothesizing, let alone concluding, that
> >> Microsoft does not act anti-competitively, thereby raising prices above
> >> competitive levels and excluding alternatives.
> >
> >Raising prices gives competitors more of a chance to compete. Hell,
Corel
> >lowered it's prices to ridiculous levels and still couldn't sell office
> >software. People just didn't want it.
>
> Therefore, raising your price can be a *competitive* act. Very good,
> Erik. Now, can it also be an "anti-competitive" act? How might we spot
> the difference? Would observing whether a raise in price was followed
> by increased, lower-cost alternatives appearing indicate anything?
>
> Raising prices above competitive levels means ripping people off, not
> just increasing the pricetag. In a free market, competitors cannot
> raise prices above competitive levels without decreasing their sales.
> That's why they're called "competitive levels", and why active
> competition is required for them to exist.
But that's just it. The fact that people willingly pay higher prices for
MS's software when cheaper competition is available says that MS gives them
something the cheaper competition does not. Something that's important to
them, or they would buy the cheaper alternative.
> >> >> >The Amiga died not because of competition, but because it's parent
company
> >> >> >was incompetant. [...]
> >> >>
> >> >> Enough with the drivel.
> >> >
> >> >You're going to claim that Commodore was competant? Give me a break.
> >>
> >> It was popular. I leave all other speculation (outside of my own
> >> opinion as an owner that it was a very good system) to those who prefer
> >> to second-guess the incompetence of others, so that they may try to
> >> convince themselves of their own competence, by proxy.
> >
> >Yet you don't mind making comments about how it's "drivel".
>
> Yes, because it is drivel.
It's fact. Commodores management were idiots. Hell, there was a
shareholder revolt. A number of people went to the shareholder meeting and
via proxies, tried to get the board to change their practices. They were
thrown out of the meeting.
> >> >> >Windows is in fact a reliable, efficient and effective for me.
[...]
> >> >>
> >> >> I noticed the subtle yet glaring ad hoc qualification, there, Erik.
> >> >> What's up with that?
> >> >
> >> >Because it's an opinion about my useage.
> >>
> >> Bullshit; its an "escape hatch" to make your opinion unfalsifiable. It
> >> also makes it meaningless and arbitrary, but you would have to have
some
> >> intellectual integrity to care about that.
> >
> >Opinions, by definition, are unfalsifiable. I don't need to qualify one
to
> >make it so.
>
> So why did you qualify it? My opinions, by the way are not
> unfalsifiable. That they are my opinions is fact, but it can still be
> falsified, and all of my opinions are, by conscious effort, available
> for revision in the face of evidence.
I didn't qualify it. My statement was intended to give no doubt that it was
my opinion.
> >If I say, in my opinion, the sky is green. It could very well be from my
> >perspective (I may have been taught that the color blue is green).
>
> Such post-modernist bullshit is neither here nor there. You may have
> been taught the *wrong word* for that color, but it wouldn't make it the
> right word; just the word you use. You would be, as always, mistaken.
How can you say that any word is the right or wrong word? Words are
subjective. The chinese use totally different concepts for words than the
western socieites.
> >> >No, Linux is more expensive than NT because of training costs.
NT/2000
> >> >costs more because it does more. It's a workstation level OS rather
than a
> >> >consumer level one.
> >>
> >> Bwah-ha-ha-ha.
> >
> >So, you're going to claim that it's cheaper to retrain 50,000 employees
in
> >Linux than to maintain a Windows environment?
>
> Yes; Linux is internally consistent and standards based, very reliable,
> and logically, if arcanely, controlled. Windows is not any of these
> things, except arcanely controlled.
Internally consistent. That's why there's over 100 window managers out
there.
It's consistent in that it provides no consistency.
> >> >> I think its awfully shameful that people don't recognize NT pricing
for
> >> >> what it is; a complete sham. Its a scam; a way to increase prices.
NT
> >> >> software doesn't inherently *cost* any more to produce.
> >> >
> >> >No, but NT most certainly did cost a lot more to produce than Win9x
did (by
> >> >produce I mean R&D, and maintenance).
> >>
> >> Yes, but to even suggest that this is important is to bring up the idea
> >> that a product's price is based on the cost of development. But that
> >> would make the price scalable, so that WinDOS would cost about $2
today,
> >> and NT would already be down into double digits. Oops. Maybe you
> >> should try a different fib, er, I mean argument.
> >
> >You're forgetting the costs of marketing, advertising, distribution,
> >printing, and a host of other things.
>
> And these are more expensive for NT... why?
NT sells far fewer copies of it's OS than 9x. There are fixed costs
associated with everything, and those are amortized over the number of
copies you sell, then there are per unit costs as well which are roughly the
same.
> >> Per-processor licensing agreements are not "volume pricing". Microsoft
> >> has been in the habit of referring to them as "volume discounts" since
> >> they were shown to be illegal, but the term you're looking for is
> >> "cliff's-edge pricing", which refers to the actual cost to the OEM of
> >> providing monopoly crapware, without which they would go out of
> >> business.
> >
> >No, MS doesn't use per-processer licensing. They use either per-model
> >pricing for large OEM's, or volume "pack" licensing through distributors
to
> >smaller OEM's.
>
> Per-model per-processor licensing agreements are per-processor
> licensing. Are you suggesting that OEMs pay only once for each model of
> PC they make with Windows? No, it is each computer they pay for. The
> rates are set per-processor.
Gee, then why is it that you can buy the same server from Dell with 2000,
Linux or No OS?
> These rates are negotiated separately for
> each model line, but they are nevertheless per-processor, and until
> recently every major OEM had such an agreement for EVERY model line they
> had. Recently, all the major OEMs have started biting the bullet, and
> providing Linux. It costs them money, but they know its what the
> consumers want.
And therefore, they're making money. Imagine that.
> >> They pay less because if MS tried to charge them any more, it
> >> would break their pre-load lock-in, which is a fundamental support for
> >> Microsoft's illegal monopoly.
> >
> >Oh, so you admit that MS can't raise prices for fear of losing market
share.
> >There goes the monopoly theory.
>
> That there is a ceiling and a limit to how indefinitely a monopolist can
> hold prices above competitive levels without adversely reducing their
> number of sales, does not change the fact that only a monopolist can
> ever do it at all. So there are still potential market pressures
> preventing, for instance, MS from charging $3000 for WinDOS and $17,000
> for W2K. That doesn't in any logical way 'rule out "the monopoly
> theory"'.
That's patently false. Anyone can control their prices simply by raising or
lowering the price they sell them for.
> >> No, it doesn't. Because it already was; the "profits" from DOS alone
> >> were more than enough to pay for them. Its a scam, you putz. The cost
> >> to develop is not related to the price of the product, or else the cost
> >> would go down over time, and it hasn't.
> >
> >There are fixed costs, and remember that MS continues development for
quite
> >some time.
>
> Could you provide us with some numbers, indicating that these fixed
> costs are an appreciable component of the sale price of NT?
They're an appreciable cost of any MS OS development. You don't think they
make IE versions compatible with NT for free, do you?
> >Something has to pay for new versions of DirectX, Windows Media
> >Player, etc.. which are all downloadable free even by users of the
original
> >Windows 95.
>
> Microsoft's other criminal activities are not my immediate concern. Do
> these costs accrue specifically to NT for any reason?
They are paid for by OS sales, including NT sales.
> >> >You certainly had no problem second-gussing the market when making
your
> >> >original comment.
> >>
> >> No, that was probably double-checking. The difference is potentially
> >> subtle and always abstract, so I'm not sure you you'll be able to
> >> understand it. I'm not at all sure what you're pretending to refer to
> >> as my "original comment", though, so if you'll be more explicit, I'll
> >> try to explain it to you.
> >
> >Ok, since you have to be so thick headed. You said :
> >
> >"Perhaps sufficient users wouldn't agree with you that they'd appreciate
> >the choice. Perhaps it really does fill you with... discomfort, to
> >contemplate people learning how to use computers, and being free of
> >Microsoft and its software and their dependency on paying someone else
> >to gain value from their own property."
>
> I don't understand how you think my proffering possibilities is
> second-guessing. I don't need to second guess anybody to recognize that
> Linux is growing greatly in popularity; merely double-checking the Dell,
> Compaq, and IBM web sites will make that clear. You'll notice that I
> specifically avoided insisting that this must be *why* this is
> occurring, but I am allowed to speculate. That's not second-guessing.
> Second-guessing is saying that Microsoft's competitors are
> 'incompetent', or that 'users don't want to have to learn anything'.
While linux shipments of OS's keep going out the door, the majority are
upgrades to existing systems and new *SERVERS*. I think we'll find that
Linux's growth will peak very soon, until it can start becoming more desktop
friendly.
> >> >> >The vast majority of people who use computers don't want to know
> >> >> >how or why it works. They just want it to work.
> >> >>
> >> >> And here we get to the problem.
> >> >
> >> >Most peoples computers do work, be it Windows, MacOS, or Linux.
> >>
> >> You can say that some of the peoples computers work all of the time,
and
> >> all of the peoples computers work some of the time, but you can't say
> >> that all of the peoples computers work all of the time. So designing
> >> computers around the premise that they will usually work, and thus have
> >> no capability of continuing to function adequately if anything at all
> >> should go wrong in the slightest, is, well, only fit for monopolists.
> >> Anyone who might require that their products be able to compete with
> >> alternatives and still provide profits are generally going to recognize
> >> that they sometimes fail, and attempt to make such failures as
minimally
> >> problematic for the consumer as possible. This is generally why
> >> obfuscation of software code, for instance, is generally considered a
> >> bad thing, even as developers make jokes about 'job security'.
> >
> >Try to bring a Television in for repair. It will cost you 3x the cost of
a
> >new TV to fix it.
>
> Oddly enough, televisions don't used standardized modular hardware and
> general purpose software components.
And you think nVidia's hardware is "standardized"?
> >The notion that products are disposable is quite common.
>
> The notion that a PC is disposable is entirely derived from the
> Microsoft monopoly.
Not.
> >> Consistency does not mean everything must work identically; it means
> >> everything must work according to the same fundamental mechanisms.
This
> >> is the argument that Unix people have for avoiding krufty "bolt-on"
> >> development the way Microsoft practices it.
> >
> >Really? So KDE works in the same fundamental mechanism as GNOME? Not.
>
> As far as I know, 90% of a user's actions would be entirely identical in
> either one. They are just GUIs; pointing and clicking doesn't change
> that much. An icon is an icon, a menu is a menu, a button is a button.
Which all do different things when clicked on between the systems.
> >Consistency means things work the same way all the time.
>
> Well, they don't. So I consider consistency to be more related to
> whether or not you can figure out how they will work, this time.
> Windows fails this test, utterly, in several ways.
Such as?
> >> Microsoft's approach is to
> >> pretend (in addition to pretending that nothing ever fails, as stated
> >> above) that the fundamental mechanisms of how a computer works is
> >> unimportant to successfully using a computer. Its delusional, but it
> >> serves the monopoly well. Also, despicable people like you that
trumpet
> >> the value of ignorance in order to promote the monopoly.
> >
> >Actually, that's Apple's philosophy.
>
> No, Apple's philosophy is proprietary computers which are all but
> appliances.
Disposeable. What you claim only exists in MS's domain. You're
contradicting yourself.
> >> Library conflicts are only theoretically related to DLL hell. They are
> >> problems which affect related parts of an OS. The cause of library
> >> conflicts is free market development; the correction is knowledge. DLL
> >> hell is caused by design deficiencies in the Windows platform; the
> >> correction is limited to ignoring it (the Microsoft way) or abandoning
> >> Windows, and potentially all monopoly crapware, entirely.
> >
> >It's also a design deficiency of most Linux distro's and their apps.
>
> Well, I would certainly want to avoid any distro that includes bundled
> apps that have, within the set, unresolved library conflicts. But it
> does depend on how large the bundle would be, I think. I'm getting the
> Deluxe RedHat 7.0 package, I'll let you know if there's any library
> conflicts (though I'm getting it pre-loaded, so I might not be aware of
> all of them.)
Imagine that. The monopoly hard at work.
> >> No, I said it doesn't have the class of problems you were referring to.
> >> I said that the problems you experience weren't Linux problems, but
Erik
> >> problems.
> >
> >Of course. Yet the problems you have with Windows are not Max problems.
>
> You are correct, sir. Mostly; some of the problems I have with Windows
> are "Max problems", in that it is only my style of use which makes them
> real problems, and to anyone else they would merely be annoyances.
Spoken like a true bigot.
> >> >Automatic transmissions outsell manuals by an order of magnatude
today.
> >>
> >> Yet you see no manufacturer of automatic transmissions plotting to
> >> destroy manufacturers of manual transmissions in the marketplace. Go
> >> figure.
> >
> >That's because an automatic transmission cannot compete with a manual
one.
> >They are two different markets by their designs.
>
> Then whether one "outsells" another is entirely irrelevant, and it was
> rather bogus of you to bring it up, eh?
But they do the same thing. Just like PC and Mac markets are the same, but
different.
> >> >It's because most people don't WANT to be concerned with the details
of
> >> >shifting gears. Likewise, people don't want to be concerned with the
> >> >details of their OS.
> >>
> >> You can double-check some of the people all of the time, and you can
> >> double-check all of the people some of the time, but you can only
> >> second-guess all of the people, all of the time. Again, the fact that
> >> manual transmissions are still widely available, and widely purchased,
> >> proves the falsity of your understanding.
> >
> >My statements are not false. Manual transmissions are popular with a
small
> >subsection of the population, that doesn't mean that the people that
drive
> >automatic transmission think "I wish I knew exactly how this worked".
>
> In fact, those who use manual transmissions don't, either. The point
> remains, insisting that you can determine what people want by
> second-guessing how little effort or knowledge it requires is
> self-serving, and bogus. It is an abrogation of the whole idea of a
> free market; there is no reason that everyone needs to buy the same
> thing, nor does monopolization become competition by simply saying it is
> so.
Of course not, and you are free to buy Linux on many PC's, just like you're
free to buy Manual transmissions on many cars, but not all cars. Hell, most
cars don't even offere manual transmissions as an option (that is, the
majority of models).
> >> Oh, you read ahead, did you? You'll notice that most people pump their
> >> own gas, a good number of people change their own oil, and there are no
> >> licensing agreements necessary to understand the inner workings of the
> >> engine, if that is your desire. You don't see the auto manufacturer's
> >> changing the specifications of their cars routinely in order to
> >> discourage such behavior, though it wouldn't entirely surprise me if
> >> certain professional mechanics might think that would be a good thing.
> >
> >BMW prohibits you from installing any car stereo other than a BMW one in
> >their cars or you warranty is void.
>
> Your stereo warranty, maybe.
No, the warranty on the whole car. Your waranty on the entire car is voided
if you install an non-BMW stereo or even CD changer.
> >Why do you think Ford and GM make so many special tools to work on parts
of
> >their cars. To discourage you from doing it yourself.
>
> Generally, I expect that it is because it is more efficient to engineer
> the parts without considering whether they use the same as the
> competitor's parts, since there aren't isn't really enough efficiency in
> using no special tools to make the consumer care.
It's more efficient to create special tool than to use existing tools? What
planet are you from?
> >And most people don't change their own oil. Hell, I could change my own
oil
> >but i'd rather pay someone to do it for me. I just don't have time to
deal
> >with the mess.
>
> Whatever. Did you miss my point? I guess you must have.
Your point was meaningless.
> >> On the contrary; you seem to expect that knowing the turn signal from
> >> the accelerator is knowledge only fit for mechanics.
> >
> >Not at all. Knowing where your power switch, and how to click a mouse is
> >equivelant.
>
> According to you, but you don't know what you're talking about. I have
> spent more than a decade teaching people to use computers, and you are
> mistaken. I should have remembered why I don't get into car analogies.
Because they don't support your argument.
> >> Only in your rather bogus opinion, or by mistake.
> >
> >So you admit that you just lied when you said you don't state things
which
> >are untrue?
>
> No. I wasn't even mistaken; I just didn't realize you were trying to
> play schoolyard games.
So you admit that you've posted false information, under the name of a
"mistake" and then can't admit to having made one?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Newman)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 09:53:20 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>Various methods can be used to emulate this within vi/Unix.
If you've used XEDIT you'd realise you can't do it's ALL command
in Vi. Emacs can using selective display.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Allen)
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 10:01:01 GMT
In article <1XJ56.13$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>It's also the most likely scenario. Attributing to malice, that which can
>adequately be explained by other means is a sign of a paranoid personality.
>
"You are not being paranoid if they really are out to get you."
Johnny Fever, WKRP in Cincinnati
>You anti-microsoft zealots put MS so high on a pedestal. They are
>omnipotent and carefully craft these huge conspiracies which they pull of
>flawlessly year after year. In your rush to decry them, you are willing to
>latch onto any feeble rumor and present it as fact (for instance, the
>neverending stories of how NT contains DEC source code line for line, how
>Hotmail was converted to NT right away and it crashed, how MS uses secret
>API's in their apps to make them work better than their competition, and a
>ton of others).
I was just going to snip that paragraph but you went too far.
The failure of Hotmail under NT has been shown to be true repeatedly
but because you WinTrolls are so desperate for success stories for
W2K that you keep bringing up the conversion to it, ignoring the
complaints from users about downtime. After all the complaints only
come from customers, it's not like they were important.
The "secret API's" have been admitted to in court. Who are you to
accuse Microsoft executives of perjury ?
>
>Fact is, MS got lucky in a few key areas, and their competition failed to
>compete.
>
Fact is, M$ is a criminal organization.
A little light reading for you:
http://library.northernlight.com/SG19990714180000309.html?cb=13&sc=0#doc
--
"Bank of America Chief Executive David Coulter recently suggested that
if he had one silver bullet, he would use it for Microsoft."
- LESLIE HELM, LA Times
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
