Linux-Advocacy Digest #549, Volume #31 Thu, 18 Jan 01 12:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: you dumb. and lazy. (Craig Kelley)
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (Craig Kelley)
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (Craig Kelley)
Re: Dell system with Linux costs *more* than with Win2K ("Lloyd Llewellyn")
Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows
Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$% (Craig Kelley)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Re: I just can't help it! (Craig Kelley)
Re: Some things are easier in Linux
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Kevin Ford)
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? (Kevin Ford)
Re: Why Hatred?
Re: Windows 2000
Re: you dumb. and lazy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Date: 18 Jan 2001 09:13:23 -0700
"Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > It doesn't matter, does it. Maybe if Linux had it's configuration files
> > > documented like FreeBSD does, I MIGHT be willing to waste my time
> dealing
> > > with the text files, but I'm not. What most important, I SHOULDN'T HAVE
> TO.
> >
> > They're documented much better than any M$ shit.
>
> You've never actually READ any books from Microsoft, have you?
Yeah, they're full of stuff like "Terracorp wants to make a new web
page, so they clickity-click on the FrontPage(c), Integrated Web
System(c) and connect it to their ODBC datasource using Microsoft SQL
Server, which authenticates against the Microsoft NT Server, utilizing
more Microsoft Technology....." and it goes on and on and on about
how well Microsoft stuff works with Microsoft stuff.
They never seem to mention any other software, or cooperating with any
other types of systems.
--
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: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Date: 18 Jan 2001 09:17:23 -0700
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > "Aaron Ginn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > is that we really don't care whether or not Linux supports all their
> > > > shiny new hardware with X,Y, and Z features or that their favorite
> > > > application 'foo' is not available for Linux. It's not that we're not
> > > > willing to help people that ask for it, but we also don't care when a
> > > > Windows user comes in here and says "Linux sux because it doesn't do
> > > > blah, blah, blah" or "Linux blows because there isn't a port of
> > > > 'insert random Windows application here'".
> > >
> > > I think your logic is flawed. If you didn't care, you wouldn't answer.
> > > This very post is a categorical denial of caring, which of course
> indicates
> > > that you do in fact care.
> >
> > So, Erik, you've joined the denizens of Windows advocates that read
> > COLA then?
>
> I've been reading COLA for a long time, because (until last week) a Linux
> user as well. Now i'm back to using FreeBSD.
Thanks for not responding to anything I wrote, it just re-affirms it
all.
I'm glad FreeBSD works for you, but I find it strange that you loathe
Linux so much at the same time...
(Most Linux users have no problem with BSDen)
--
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: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Date: 18 Jan 2001 09:23:29 -0700
"Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Maybe because MS doesn't *sell* their server OS for $200?
Yeah, it's more:
http://www2.warehouse.com/product.asp?pf%5Fid=NT8305&cat=pc
(US$3299.95 for 25 users)
[snip]
> I just saw Whistler beta 2 and it is gonna be great.
We've heard that before.
[snippage]
--
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: "Lloyd Llewellyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Dell system with Linux costs *more* than with Win2K
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:25:21 GMT
> Stats?
Low-end desktop systems - try configuring a couple Optiplex GX100's.
> I did a lookup on small & medium sized servers, and the same hardware with MS
> SBS is $600 - $2500 more expensive than the same server w/Redhat
>
> http://rcommerce.us.dell.com/rcomm/cat_mini.asp?brand_id=PEDGE
>
> Flacco wrote:
>>
>> I just configured two systems on-line at Dell's website - one with Linux and
>> one with Dell - and the Linux system came to $64 *more* than the same system
>> with Win2K.
>>
>> Where is the logic behind that? MS flexing muscles again?
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:41:08 -0000
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 05:52:08 GMT, Lincoln Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Probably true if you consider Solaris or VMS, but who can afford the
>price of the software and specialized hardware?
Anyone that can afford a Dell Server.
>
>On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 00:39:38 GMT, "Stuart R. Fuller"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Charlie Ebert <charlie> wrote:
>>: Linux has the BEST uptime record of any operating system in the
>>: world.
>>
>>Well, between Windows and Linux, that might be true. However, there's more to
>>the world than Linux and Windows.
>>
>> Stu
>
--
Freedom != Anarchy.
Some must be "opressed" in order for their
actions not to oppress the rest of us.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$%
Date: 18 Jan 2001 09:44:21 -0700
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Milton wrote:
> >
> > It is pathetic on so many levels:
> >
> > (1) Win2K can't compare for stability to any of its server competition.
> > (2) NT, despite Microsoft's claims, sucked as bad as we said it did.
> > (3) Microsoft is "proud" of these numbers, which tells you they have no
> > idea of what an operating system should be.
>
> No, it means that MS is being realistic. Linux fails too, and I'd bet it's
> MTTF is about the same as Win2k's, that is if you'd bother to be realistic.
> Claiming that it's mean (remember, that's average, not extreme) is
> indefinate is a flat out lie.
>
> So, if it's not indefinite, what is Linux's MTTF?
When was the last time FreeBSD failed on you?
What's FreeBSD's MTTF?
Since you love FreeBSD, and because most every Linux user shares your
sentiment (including myself), then let's talk without your irrational
hatred for Linux blinding your arguments. You claim that FreeBSD is
stable -- is it more stable than Windows 2000?
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:45:13 -0000
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:22:27 +1300, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >In fairness to the winvocates, very VERY few of them have claimed that
>> >Win9x was any good. Any that do you can quite safely consider based
>> >outside of reality.
>>
>> Flatbrain claims that all the time actually...
While that is an aphorism, it's not so far off to be unrecognizable
considering the posting volume of the user in question.
>
>Sorry, I'm not familiar with the name... is that a who or a what? But of
>course, I left myself a way out... I said 'very few' ;)
>
>The majority of winvocates have all rallied behind Win2k, because it
>actually runs for a while.
--
The ability to type
./configure
make
make install
does not constitute programming skill. |||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I just can't help it!
Date: 18 Jan 2001 09:50:41 -0700
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The whole Win2K, NT, 98 MTTF study, funded my Microsoft, touted by
> Microsoft as proof of improvement, just proves what we have been saying
> here for years. Not only that, the MTTF hours in the test mirror very
> closely what we have been seeing.
>
> So, I'm going to take this time to happily gloat.
>
> Win2K: MTTF 2893 Hours? (120 days)
> NT: MTTF 919 Hours? (38 Days)
> Win98: MTTF 216 Hours (9 days)
>
> No responsible OS company would advertise these numbers, they are a
> disgrace.
>
> Can you imagine the U.S.S. Yorktown having to reboot every 120 days? (60
> To be the lower boundary of the mean.)
>
> These numbers are so bad, so indicative of the crap that has been sold
> by Microsoft, that it is almost a joke. The irony is that Microsoft,
> being the crap fest company that it is, thinks that these are good
> numbers.
>
> If Sun had these numbers on Solaris, it would probably take corrective
> action on its kernel team. I'm sure the same can be said of any
> competitive OS vendor. Microsoft has a monopoly on the OS, this is
> almost "smoking gun" proof. If there were real OS competition, Microsoft
> could not get away with this.
>
> The proof of Microsoft crap has been provided by Microsoft itself!!!
And the real kicker is the score that NT4 recieved.
We've been saying this for *years*, but the blind Widows advocates
would beat the "anectodal evidence" drum and point to all the slavish
PC (er, I mean *E*) Week articles that trumpetted the second coming of
Windows, the Greatest Operating System Ever.
We'd complain about scheduled reboots of NT4, and the response we got
was "Get a better administrator" -- now, it turns out that we were
correct. NT4 needs to be rebooted about every week in order to have
it function reliably (ie, no UNPLANNED downtime). It fails every 38
days, which means there is a good chance it will fail at shorter
intervals; rebooting every week alleviates this problem.
Just the fact that Microsoft needed 50+ machines to run their website
should have been a wakeup call.
Perhpas "Whistler" will manage to stay up for 180 days.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Some things are easier in Linux
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:55:04 -0000
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:45:48 +0800, Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 21:01:08 +0800, Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >
>> >"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Todd wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > For me, when I subscribed to cable modem, they installed the network
>> >card
>> >> > and turned on the machine.
>> >> >
>> >> > I was expecting to have to configure *something*, but Windows 2000
>> >> > automatically installed the network card, *and* detected and
>configured
>> >the
>> >> > network settings, in this case DHCP.
>> >>
>> >> Sounds a lot like my Red Hat system -
>> >
>> >I have RedHat 7.0... still trying to get my ethernet card up and
>running...
>>
>> Either it has the driver available or it doesn't.
>
>I'm sure it must... it is a 3Com card that is fairly standard.
>
>>
>> 'Ease' isn't the problem, vendor support (most likely) is.
>>
>> NT5 would give you the same problem if you had a logitech
>> usb webcam.
>
>Well, we weren't talking about NT5 or webcams, but rather how this popular
>ethernet card isn't being recognized or automatically configured for use
>under Linux.
There is 'popular' hardware that isn't recognized under NT either.
Your attempt to wave it away doesn't change the fact.
[deletia]
Also, there was VERY popular network hardware that wasn't immediately
recognzied under Win98 either. It's only a function of how old the
vendor support is relative to how old the OS distribution is.
That, and if you actually named the 3com card in question there
would probably someone who had it working with something like
Redhat 5.
--
Section 8. The Congress shall have power...
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for
limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries;
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:58:34 -0000
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:01:55 +0800, Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Aaron Ginn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> is that we really don't care whether or not Linux supports all their
>> shiny new hardware with X,Y, and Z features or that their favorite
>> application 'foo' is not available for Linux. It's not that we're not
>> willing to help people that ask for it, but we also don't care when a
>> Windows user comes in here and says "Linux sux because it doesn't do
>> blah, blah, blah" or "Linux blows because there isn't a port of
>> 'insert random Windows application here'".
>
>Actually, that doesn't 'burn' me, nor do I think Linux sux because of the
>above reasons.
>
>> Maybe Linux isn't quite ready for my mom to install and use out of the
>> box,
>
>it sure the hell ain't
Neither is NT5 or Win98, so get over yourself
[deletia]
>Linux *can* be used as a server, but then so could the Max OS (not OSX) if
>you really tried.
>
>Those hundreds of built-in apps. are small little command line programs that
>are usually built into Windows 2000 anyway.
Like xcdroast? Like xmms? (no, media player doesn't count)
Like Gimp? Like Gnumeric? Like gnucash?
>
>> I can't even _pay_ $200
>> and get a server-class OS from Microsoft.
>
>Maybe because MS doesn't *sell* their server OS for $200?
I think you're trying to refute the wrong part of the assertion
here. Like many Lemmings, you can't see the really important
things.
[deletia]
--
>> Yes. And the mailer should never hand off directly to a program
>> that allows the content to take control.
>
>Well most mailers can, so I guess they all suck too.
Yup.
Candy from strangers should be treated as such.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 17:09:33 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <93596.84756$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:c2k149.i32.ln@gd2zzx...
>
>> "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > Except the problems found commonly in Mandrake are common (or relitively
> so)
>> > in OTHER distro's as well. It's a LINUX wide problem being so damn hard
> to
>> > configure, install software with, and just generally manage. Software
>> > companies ARE working on the problem, but damnit, what's the point in
>> > releasing version after version of nothing but minor bugfixes (or even
> major
>> > security holes) when the UNDERLYING problem still exists? Isn't this
> what
>> > you keep lambasting Microsoft for?
>>
>> Yet more FUD and lies. Do you have no conscience at all?
>
> Are you even reading the post? Or are you just running a script that
> auto-replies that line to all of my posts?
>
>> > Really? Last I checked, Adobe still owned the rights to Photoshop.
> They
>> > COULD port Photoshop to the Linux/UNIX platform (and send The GIMP into
> The
>> > TOILET) in a heartbeat. But they don't want to. Hmm, it is that little
>> > liscense snafu involving opening up the source code to do so?
>>
>> Once again FUD and downright lies as you know full well this is
>> not so. Is the source code for applixware, db2, wordperfect open?
>> You are really pathetic.
>
> As near as I can recall, the Source code to Applixware is available, I think
> it's available for Db2, and WordPerfect is available for anyone who wants to
> buy a controlling share in Corel software.
Well you recall wrong. They GPL'd SHELF. See yet more FUD and
ingnorance. You said 'Hmm, it is that little liscense snafu involving
opening up the source code to do so?' You are wrong. Please
admit it and give up lying.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin Ford)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 14:42:00 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chad Myers once wrote:
>
>"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers wrote:
>> >
>> [snip]
>> >
>> > When you're done with your adolescent ad homonim attacks, please
>> > post a URL for a c't article praising MS for something.
>> >
>>
>> Do you honestly believe that MS can be praised for something, except for
>> an unattained ability to violate all the ethics of commerce?
>
>Hmm...
>
>- MS has one of the best security response time to discovered exploits.
> Even better than Red Hat in most cases. And MS even tests their patches
> and then does a full regression test each Service Pack, something
> Red Hat doesn't do.
>
>- Active Directory Services is the most advanced directory service
> architecture out there. It harnesses many open standards including
> X.500, LDAPv3, SMTP, Kerbers v5, X.509 certificates, etc.
>
ROTFLMAO!!!! (<--- I've never even written that before)
MS has good security response in cloud cuckoo land maybe.
Where is the Love bug fix for Exchange server? hmmm?
Active Directory is just about as good as Netware 6 years ago and is no
improvement on LDAP.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin Ford)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 14:47:15 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Edward Rosten once wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> >This get's back to the install.
>> >Everything you mentioned is supported but you have to know how
>> >to install it.
>>
>> I don't have to do a thing under Win2k.
>> It all works perfectly.
>
>Welcome to the world we've been enjoing for the last few years already.
>
I'd like to correct the point before. I've got a bunch of noname NICs and
Soundcards in my three systems that Win2k doesn't support. Linux just
detects them and carries on as normal. Also I'd further like to add IA-64
again just in case no-one heard it the first time around.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 17:01:30 -0000
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 00:51:21 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >So I think E.F. is right -- today. Tomorrow might be another matter,
>> >especially if Java takes off (it's doing pretty darned well already).
>>
>> I think its just as likely you're talking yesterday. ;-)
>>
>> There are no "issues" which need to be "addressed"; this is a market,
>> not a project! There is production and purchasing and complaining and
>> changing that needs to go on, sure. And that will start happening as
>> soon as there is a free market. In fact, its kind of automatic. Until
>> a monopoly shows up to point it out, we hardly even notice it.
>
>No "issues" eh?
>
>Let's take file sharing. Setting up your system to share with someone else
>(outside of ftp and such). If that's a Windows machine, you use Samba, and
>configuring this isn't too bad, but way out of reach of the average user of
>today. God forbid they should want to change what they share.
Since when is pointing and clicking on menus outside of the
reach of today's users?
>
>No, it's not rocket science, but it's still too much for most users.
No, you're just indulging in slander.
Besides, many users wouldn't get how to share files under
Windows even with it's current shiny happy tools anyways.
That's one part of the situation Lemmings like you just fail
to admit; that even Windows isn't quite suited to Microsoft's
current target userbase.
--
The LGPL does infact tend to be used instead of the GPL in instances
where merely reusing a component, while not actually altering that
component, would be unecessarily burdensome to people seeking to
build their own works.
This dramatically alters the nature and usefulness of Free Software
in practice, contrary to the 'all viral all the time' fantasy the
anti-GPL cabal here would prefer one to believe.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 17:06:07 -0000
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 03:24:27 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 17 Jan
>2001 02:57:20 -0000;
>>On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 02:34:48 GMT, Bones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>>> I wrote:
>>>>> I always like to go back and leaf through this old hardware manual
>>>>> where they theorized that it would be completely and utterly impossible to
>>>>> move past 28.8kbps on analog modems...
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>> On some line's 28.8K isn't attainable. Also, 28.8K is pretty
>>>> near the theoretical upperbound allowed for common copper
>>>> wiring and US FCC regulations.
>>>
>>>Well, I believe V.34 and V.34+ can go over the same wire with the same
>>>signal level. The extra speed is gained by better data compression.
>>>Obviously fitting more data per time unit would result in greater data loss
>>>per time unit if the quality of the line stinks, so it makes sense for the
>>>modems to negotiate a lower speed.
>>
>> Doesn't the extra speed also come from restricting the length
>> of the line?. I imagine that those older estimates are with
>> more pessimistic assumptions.
>
>You're thinking DSL, though you always have a greater likelihood of
>negotiating a better speed with a shorter line length.
Well, I know it's a hard requirement for DSL. However, I thought
it might also help the older type of serial modem that the only
copper left in the phone network is on the "last mile".
[deletia]
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 17:08:09 -0000
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 10:37:48 GMT, Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> If you can't relate the comparison between Linux's orgy of "library
>> revisions" and the painfully complicated methods to which they are kept (or
>> not kept) and Window's DLL hell, then your just not thinking.
>
>I guess I am not. Could you point out concrete examples where you (or
>others) have been burned by problems with Linux library revisions? I
>am aware of a couple of incidents, where certain distributions have
>been too eager to ship new libraries, but it sure isn't any DLL hell,
>by a long way.
The only really visible example I can think of is when
they were doing the libc5->libc6 switch and star office
still only supported a newer version of libc5 than
certain distributions were shipping at the time.
They were being a tad too Caldera centric.
The 'fix' was merely to install that newer copy of libc5.
[deletia]
--
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
