Linux-Advocacy Digest #501, Volume #31 Tue, 16 Jan 01 02:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: KDE Hell ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Windows 2000 ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Benchmark tests - who cares? (Donn Miller)
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) )
Re: Linux is easier to install than windows
Re: More Linux woes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 06:43:25 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> But there is a very strong legal precedent supporting literally
> *revoking* copyright protection on property (specifically software)
> which has 'over-reaching' licensing restrictions. So you're effectively
> accusing these lawyers of incompetence, and, yes, illegal activity,
> probably fraud, if the intent in including this clause was simply to
> provide a pretense for fees.
I don't ever recall a situation where the Supreme court (the only body with
the power to revoke protections under a federal statute) has revoked all the
exclusive rights provided to an indivudial, or firm in reguard to their
intelectual property.
The lawyers who wrote the EULA wrote it under full knoledge that no one
would ever call Microsoft on it. Think about it. Microsoft was, in
essense, revoking rights from their customers that Microsoft themselves
didn't even have to their own software.
The Microsoft standard EULA has changed conciderably since 1995, when the
company hit the US-DOJ with their business practices. The EULA has since
then, included more "standardized" langugage in reguard to restrictions on
the liscense. Language that is conciderably more similar to the e-liscense
provided at the install-time of a lot of other software makers.
I think this is when Microsoft got a new law firm.
> So, again, we're left with the "intimidation" alone, which is illegal.
> I should think there'd be other grounds, in other circumstances, but
> given the intent and the result, anti-competitive actions are best dealt
> with through Sherman Act prosecution.
Microsoft can put all the intimidating language they want into an EULA.
It's taking action that they have no right to take, which they haven't.
Microsoft doesn't attempt to prosecute people selling their software WITH
original media, and liscense copies IF the seller doesn't have an offical
OEM status with the company. This is a violation of first sale statutes
provided by Title 18, which basicly provide the ability to do just that.
The same action under a 1997 revised EULA is "a violation" (or maybe the
1995 era revision, I can't keep track) of the EULA and could warrent the
*GASP* retailiatory actions based upon the violation.
Now, if you sell a computer WITH Windows, and don't give the new owner the
liscense (which is embodied in both the original CDROM and "unlock" code
papers) THAT Is a violation of the 1996 Telecomunications act, which
provided definitions toward "copies" and they're status as indistributible.
And finaly, I'm one to think that Sherman Antitrust needs a make over. This
is the same law that nearly bankrupted IBM back in the 80's... The case
against Microsoft is five years old, based on laws that are nearly 80 years
old. Times change, and legislation NEEDS to as well.
Linux's existance, Microsoft's pathetic server dominance, Apple's new OSX
are all poised to change the computing market against Microsoft. It's time
for a reevaluation.
What a shame John Ashcroft is gonna be the guy to do it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 06:48:07 -0000
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 00:52:19 GMT, Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Win32 is not the WinNT kernel. Win32 is Windows 95, 98, and to a lesser
Actually, Win32 is infact WinNT.
Other variants of Win32 only came about later.
These include Win32s, Win9x and WinME.
>extent, Windows Me.
>
>3dfx (what's left of em) supports the Voodoo Rush as reference drivers for
>Windows 95 & 98.
...and to a lesser extent ME.
>
>Although this device functions on the Windows 2000 Directdraw layer, it MAY
>be possible to use Win32 drivers under the Win2k system.
>
>If you know how to read a post, I wouldn't be going through this repetitive
>crap.
No, you're too embarrassed to be shown the clueless moron you
really are to actually bow out of this thread gracefully.
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 20:51:48 GMT, Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >I never said there were NT drivers available.
>>
>> Yes you did, version 5.
>>
>> Infact, no current version of Windows is supported by 3dfx
>> for the Rush. There is more than one driver model for Win32
>> systems.
>>
>> >
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 03:33:57 GMT, Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >wrote:
>> >> >The Voodoo Rush chipset is supported by the independent MANUFACTURER
>of
>> >the
>> >> >Video card.
>> >> >
>> >> >3dfxgamers.com provides "reference drivers" for the chipset under
>Win32
>> >> >environments.
>> >>
>> >> The Rush is only supported with Win95 drivers. There is no
>> >> mention in that driver matrix of any version of NT supported
>> >> by the Rush. ME doens't even appear to be supported by the
>> >> Rush.
>> >>
>> >> [deletia]
>> >>
>> >> You don't know what you're talking about.
>> [deletia]
>>
>> --
>>
>> Ease of use should be associated with things like "human engineering"
>> and "use the right tool for the right job". And of course,
>> "reliability", since stopping to fix a problem or starting over due
>> to lost work are the very antithesis of "ease of use".
>>
>> Bobby Bryant - COLA
>> |||
>> / | \
>
>
--
Having seen my prefered platform being eaten away by vendorlock and
the Lemming mentality in the past, I have a considerable motivation to
use Free Software that has nothing to do with ideology and everything
to do with pragmatism.
Free Software is the only way to level the playing field against a
market leader that has become immune to market pressures.
The other alternatives are giving up and just allowing the mediocrity
to walk all over you or to see your prefered product die slowly.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 06:45:01 GMT
Moodswing alert.
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:94000p$9du$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:93vdji$3et$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >> So what? Who wants to take over the world?
>
> > Aparently, your spokespeople at Linux.com
>
> Spokespeople? What the hell are you talking about?
>
> You mean like your spokespeople at godhatesfags.com?
>
> Just because someone throws up a site with a familiar name on it does NOT
> mean that they actually speak for who they say they do.
>
> >> Let the idiots wallow in their own ineptitude. They seem to prefer
> >> it that way anyhow, right claire?
>
> > Except for one small problem, you call everyone who can't recompile
their
> > Kernel five minutes after booting the damn OS an idiot. And you guys
are
> > the first place where newbies turn for help.
>
> 1. I absolutely do not do that. I call claire and a few others who have
> refused to read documentation and break everything because theyre being
morons,
> idiots, idiot.
>
> 2. this is NOT the first place where newbies turn for help, you damnable
> worm. You intellectual cadaver. You lump of fetid sweet meat.
>
> > TRANSLATION= You all suck at tech support, and have the gall to call the
> > people you've been insulting for years idiots.
>
> This is not a tech support newsgroup, you fucking moron. Have you EVER
read
> its charter?
>
> Do you even know what a fucking charter IS?
>
> Why the hell would any of us want to waste our time doing tech support for
> free? What the fuck is the matter with you?
>
> Listen pal, if you cant figure out linux from the documentation and your
> OWN resources, you ARE a goddamn retard.
>
> Case closed.
>
>
>
>
> -----.
>
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 06:49:07 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 06:22:55 GMT, Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 14:43:03 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:Fzn86.57932$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [deletia]
> >industry or even
> >> >> the Macintosh.
> >> >
> >> >Yes, there was a long history of such in the scientific
> >and perhaps even
> >> >banking industry, but not the *PC* industry.
> >>
> >> So? Are you trying to tell us that BillyBob was so
> >incompetent
> >> and disinterested in his 'beefier' potential rivals that
> >he
> >> was completely unaware of any of that?
> >
> >His company was pretty much tied to IBM/Intel from the
> >get-go and for good reason because that's where the money
> >was.
>
> That's no excuse. As others here have pointed out, there were
> common data formats used across 6502's,68000's & 8086's years
> ago and Microsoft even had some early participation in the Mac
> apps market.
Being paid by an industry powerhouse to build an OS for a new product line
is a pretty good excuse! Also, if anyone was going to win the "standards
war", it was going to be a juggernaut like IBM.
>
> Excel is a port TO the x86, not from it.
>
> >
> >>
> >> That would certainly explain the pace of technological
> >advancement
> >> at Microsoft in those days.
> >
> >It mirrored IBM's conservative mindset. Being bleeding edge
> >isn't a smart business move in the long term.
>
> What I'm complaining about hardly constitutes 'bleeding edge'.
>
> Furthermore, any of IBM's other products are/were infact
> 'bleeding edge' by your standard even despite IBM being
> highly conservative.
>From a performance standpoint, they most definitely weren't bleeding edge.
Motorola already had flat memory architecture and quite a bit more
performance per CPU cycle. Even IBM's later models strayed from the edge as
far as processor speeds were concerned. While Compaq was pumping out 12Mhz
286s, the AT was clocked at a little over 6. The AT went so far as to place
clock checking in the POST cycle to prevent a user from speeding the
processor up to sane levels via crystal replacement as was easily done with
the PC and XT.
The only thing revolutionary about the IBM-PC family was the opening of the
architecture. The third party market is what has brought us to today.
Otherwise, the Intel-based PC would have become a relic of the past like so
many others.
>
> The PC was anomaly.
It was a very shrewd, standard setting move. The fact that, just recently,
the ISA bus was finally done away with is indicative of it.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 06:49:24 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >A platform is only as good as the programs running on it. Which is why
BeOS
>
> ...which makes any attempt to postfactum prove that
> WinDOS is somehow quality software, merely based on
> legacy marketshare, rather absurd.
The market makes no judgement upon itself, it is the consumer who decides.
This is basic economics. The consumers have decided, BeOS has no software,
therefor no one uses it. Apple has a smaller software selection, at higher
prices than Windows does, and Microsoft Windows is the most popular desktop
OS on the face of the earth.
The consumer has decided. Albeit, they did it in 1994.
> >Linux has no quality software.
> [deletia]
> You have yet to demonstrate that in even the vaguest manner.
Haven't I? Aside from you people in COLA, who the hell is running Linux on
the desktop? Has IBM migrated ALL their staffers mobile and desktop
platforms to Linux? Pepsi? Have they moved their staff's mobile platform?
Your office/workplace? Is LINUX on their desktops?
No, Windows is on most of em.
Again, the consumer has decided.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 01:54:52 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Benchmark tests - who cares?
Craig Kelley wrote:
> Exactly. I think this is mostly retribution for the Mindcraft
> "benchmarks" done a while ago. Benchmarks are largely useless,
> because it's impossible to comapre disparate systems with single
> meters (like speed). C't showed that Linux out performed Windows at
> the same time that Mindcraft was showing the opposite; they were both
> correct.
I think the problem with benchmarks is that they key in on specifically
targeted aspects of an operating system. It's pretty easy to find
weaknesses in one OS where a strength exists in the other, for example.
In order to be 100% accurate, you'd more or less have to take many
hundreds of diverse measurements, and integrate the entire thing
together.
In reality, open source OSes are better, not simply because they are,
but because of the direction they are headed. For example, the open
source model allows a faster rate of change of improvement over closed
source methods of development. I think that the philosophy behind the
OS is also an important factor. I just can't get things done with a
GUI-based operating system like Windows. You really can't measure
things like that with a benchmark.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 06:58:09 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 04:34:39 GMT, Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Tom Wilson wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > > J Sloan wrote:
> [deletia]
> >smaller,
> >> > local GUI system would be a wonderful thing. It isn't going to make
> >major
> >> > inroads into the desktop market without one, IMO.
> >>
> >> how much smaller would it be to make a "local only" GUI?
> >> 5%?
> >>
> >> probably not even that.
> >
> >I'm looking at performance and stability issues for the most part. Most
>
> ...except X isn't the part of the system that tends to bog
> down and bloat. It's various things built on top, and it's
> not even even all of them (of a particular type).
It's complex layer upon complex layer. It's fast becoming a house of cards.
>
> Also, X is a bloated pig in comparison to GEM or System 6.
>
> Compared to contemporary GUI's it's not bloated at all. From
> what I've heard of MacOS 10, it makes X seem positively trim.
>
> >folks don't need the capabilities offered by X. Many just want a simple,
> >single desktop ala WinDoze. With Linux's performance edge, a simpler
> >windowing system sitting over a simple audio/video HAL would run circles
> >around MS's GUIs. It would scream. As much as some folks would hate it,
>
> Take into account that Windows and NT systems are poor at multiple
> process concurrency and X under Linux already is. WinDOS only has
> an edge when doing fairly exclusive high bandwidth multimedia
> access.
The problems with multiple process handling was the Linux performance edge
I was refering to. Putting a faster, simpler, direct GUI on top of the
Linux kernal would produce an astonishing desktop that much more robust . A
simpler GUI more involved with the local hardware end and less with the
networking side would nullify Window's advantage with streaming video.
>
> >utilizing a multi-purpose clipboard ala Windoze with the exact same
> >functionality would be a big improvement too.
>
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux.sucks
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it
does) )
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 06:58:32 -0000
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 06:02:42 GMT, Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >
>> > I think that some of these counter-arguments I'm reading about the GUI
>not
>> > mattering all that much are a bit on the weak side.
>>
>> For scripting, GUIs are anathema.
>
>Your either missing the point, or ignoring it. I am inclined to believe the
>second choice more than the first one.
>
>> > Let's face it, much of
>> > the reason we buy and use things relies upon the way they make us feel,
>> > that's what it's about! We wish to buy cars that look nice, clothes that
>> > make us look attractive, houses that are clean and well designed, etc.
>Along
>> > with this, we also care about how all these things run and how long they
>> > last, and how good of quality they are.
>>
>> That is why many people abjure automatic transmission, any buy a sportster
>> with a hot manual stick.
>
>???
>
>> > The same is true for computers,
>> > especially an OS. These days, the GUI interface is so common in our
>daily
>> > lives, it's like a separate room that we go into for hours on end and
>spend
>> > quite a bit of our days inside. Who wants to work (or play) in an ugly
>> > environment?? Not too many I should say.
>>
>> Work is work. You do the work in the environment that gets the job
>> done fastest. Sometimes it's the GUI, other times it's the console.
>
>No, for YOU it's the console. Because your work probably involves
>scripting, or administration. You are one person, and your work COULD be
>done under a GUI, but you, and many other Linux zealots are totally
>unwilling to make a concession.
"could" just isn't good enough.
As much as you might like to imply that time should be
not wasted needlessly, you don't really believe that in
practice. Some tasks are simply not optimally done with
contemporary GUI's.
We don't want to waste our lives needlessly babysitting
a moron end user interface. We have better things to do
with our time.
[deletia]
>> > and the more it
>> > improves, the more fun it will become to use.
>>
>> Not so much fun if it is slow. Case in point... the whole line of Windows
>> desktop interfaces.
>
>Case in point: StarOffice; Linux
SO5 is only slower than msoffice when doing things beyond
msoffice's capabilities. SO5 is actually slower under WinDOS.
Yet, I know Win32 SO users that will gladly defend it against
charges of being bloated and slow.
SO5 is only 'bad' by Linux user standards, not Lemming standards.
We see it as TOO much like msoffice.
>Case in point: Netscape Communicator; Linux
Independent studies on the matter have not shown Netscape
to be significantly slower than IE.
>Case in point: Netscape 6.0;Linux
>Case in point: Mozilla; Linux
>Case in point: GNOME/Enlightenment; Linux
>Case in point: GNOME/Sawfish/Sawmill; Linux
You'll have to be a bit more detailed than that.
Besides, Linux user interfaces are not merely limited to the
whole of GNOME. GNOME can be used alacarte or even not at all
without loosing much if any application functionality.
>
>So, it's OK if Linux software runs like sludge, but Windows Explorer, that's
>evil. What a wonderful double standard you've fallen on.
>
>> > After all, if GUI is
>> > insignificant, why does themes.org do so well??
>>
>> How is this relevant to computer use? More like desktop dressing than
>> functionality.
>
>It goes to the UI genious. UI's are CLEARLY popular. Get with it.
They are not "clearly".
GUI's only came to Microsoft fulltime in 1995.
Prior to that, Microsoft was DOS.
Anything Microsoft only is popular because MS-DOS was popular
way back when it was competing with Macintosh, Atari GEM
GEOS and Amiga Workbench.
>
>> > Unfortunately Linux is no
>> > where near as user friendly as any Windows or Mac OS.
>>
>> Have you /used/ Linux lately?
>
>Ah, the typical defense of a Linu-nut. "Have you used it". "It" hasn't
...such a 'radical' idea: use what you're bashing.
>changed enough for anything in this post to be less true that it already is.
>Come on, there ARE advances clearly being made in Linux on the UI front, but
>they aren't as big as they could be, and they aren't catching on very fast.
Actually, they tend catch on a little too fast.
[deletia]
--
>> Yes. And the mailer should never hand off directly to a program
>> that allows the content to take control.
>
>Well most mailers can, so I guess they all suck too.
Yup.
Candy from strangers should be treated as such.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is easier to install than windows
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 07:07:11 -0000
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 06:15:05 GMT, Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >It just doesn't know what to do with them and therefore fails.
>> >IOW it doesn't work.
>>
>> No, you are just lying. It detects various Matrox cards
>> just fine, including the proper amount of onboard RAM.
>
>It isn't for HIS system. I have managed to reproduce this scenario with
He's a lying sack of shit.
So what is claimed for 'his' system doesn't count for much.
>Linux Mandrake, and the DrakX configuration system, but not with Matrox
>hardware... I was using a Creative Labs Riva TNT card AGP (old by today's
>standards...) and the memory on the unit was detected at 4096, and the
>display was dumbed down to low-color (can't remember the number) and
>800x600. Clearly DrakX has a BUG, and DrakX is PART OF THE OS In this
This is pure bullshit.
If X thinks your card has only 4M, you won't be limited to
indexed color in 800x600.
Your lies don't even stand basic mathematic scrutiny.
>distro.
>
>> It works just find on my copy of Mandrake 7.2.
>>
>> It worked just fine on my copy of Mandrake 7.1.
>>
>> It worked just fine on my copy of Redhat 6.1.
>>
>> It worked just fine on my copy of Redhat 6.0.
>>
>> It worked just fine on my copy of Redhat 5.2.
>
>RH6.2 didn't even come with an Xserver that supported AGP devices, which
>means you have upgraded your distro. Which means that the testing process
Nope. AGP devices are still accesable as PCI devices.
You just can't use the burst transfer features that AGP
is meant to enable. This is only an issue if you plan
on using software that uses 3D hardware acceleration
and a large bulk of textures.
>you have performed is tainted.
>
Nope, you just have no clue what so ever.
>You also just claimed that "it works for me, it works for me... You must
>be lying".
>
>An ideal you seem to have trouble desuading from; that it might not work for
>someone else.
>
>> Only an outside agitator with an agenda seems to be
>> having a problem.
>
>His problem seems to be real. Now YOU have a problem...
Not at all.
Those with a smattering of a clue can make up their own minds.
--
Having seen my prefered platform being eaten away by vendorlock and
the Lemming mentality in the past, I have a considerable motivation to
use Free Software that has nothing to do with ideology and everything
to do with pragmatism.
Free Software is the only way to level the playing field against a
market leader that has become immune to market pressures.
The other alternatives are giving up and just allowing the mediocrity
to walk all over you or to see your prefered product die slowly.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 07:08:43 -0000
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 06:15:07 GMT, Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >
>> > On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 20:05:37 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[deletia]
>> >
>> > Are you with me so far?
>> >
>>
>> If I read this right HE SAID GET A $2 CABLE!
>> Are you fscking illitereate?
>
>The users problem still persists. There IS a cable present, and FUNCTIONAL.
>
>Linux is not transfering audio through it.
>
>Put it togather genius.
Sure, just another lying sack of shit. (you and him)
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
