Linux-Advocacy Digest #58, Volume #32 Thu, 8 Feb 01 15:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: "Linux is Going Down" says Microsoft (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: The Wintrolls (chrisv)
Re: OK, How do I get a debian distribution that supports 2.4.1? (John Travis)
Re: Microsoft Small Business Server 2000 versus Linux comparison ("Robert Morelli")
Linux fails to deliver on the hype (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype (Bob Tennent)
Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: What's EF's explanation on this one? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux 64 bit and Windows 32 bit ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The Wintrolls ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The Wintrolls ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Erik Funkenbusch")
OT: Atheism, anarchy and amorality (WAS: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else) ("D
F")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (spam)
Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype (Pete Goodwin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: "Linux is Going Down" says Microsoft
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 18:11:58 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Matthew Gardiner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 08 Feb 2001 06:22:02 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>oooooooooooooooo, Microsoft has spoken, I am really shaking in my boots,
>scared of the almighty NT. 10 years NT has been around, and still it
>has not defeated UNIX. Give up Microsoft, you will never win.
Microsoft has already won the desktop market (although that's because
of Windows, not because of NT). Linux will have to fight an uphill
battle to get a significant piece of that market.
That said ... I think Linux can do it. (For me, it's not much of an issue;
I've been using Unix, variants of Unix, and X since I first got my
hands on it -- Unix in my college days, and X since the late
1980's, when it was first offered as an add-on to Apollo workstations :-)
(what I was using at the time). Besides, I use fvwm. :-) )
>
>Matthew Gardiner
>
>Adam Warner wrote:
>
>> "MS Exec: Linux is Going Down"
>>
>> http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,41527,00.html
>>
>> For the intellectually challenged, the mere act of me posting this piece
>> doesn't mean I support Microsoft's stance.
>>
>> But I am enjoying the new refreshingly frank Microsoft. The quotes are even
>> better today than a few days ago.
>>
>> I proposed that Microsoft might be running scared a few days ago. To
>> continue the analogy, I now think we're in supersonic territory :-)
>>
>> Regards,
>> Adam
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 3d:05h:26m actually running Linux.
Microsoft. When it absolutely, positively has to act weird.
------------------------------
From: chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Wintrolls
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 18:11:14 GMT
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>---- How to build a Linux kernel ----
>cd /usr/src/linux
>make menuconfig
> --> Use menus to select your kernel (including the processor type).
>make bzImage
>---- End ----
Too bad that doesn't work.
>MUCH more involved? Hmmmm.
Yes.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Travis)
Subject: Re: OK, How do I get a debian distribution that supports 2.4.1?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 17:59:31 GMT
And spicerun spoke unto the masses...
:OK debian gurus,
<snippage>
Grab the potato ISO and install 2.4.1? Just grab the source deb for modutils
from woody and compile it on your potato system. Then install said kernel as
usual.
jt
--
Debian Gnu/Linux [Sid]
2.4.1|XFree4.0.2|Nvidia .95 drivers
You mean there's a stable tree?
------------------------------
From: "Robert Morelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Small Business Server 2000 versus Linux comparison
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 08:56:50 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Adam Warner"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I just found this on Microsoft's site:
> http://www.microsoft.com/SBSERVER/productinfo/linux.htm
>
> No mention of the publication date, but it appears recent and it is
> copyright 2001.
>
> Microsoft again says Linux is more risky. But this is a very impressive
> piece of spin:
>
> "The open-source nature of the product means that many Linux deployments
> are
> somewhat unique and custom built with various solution pieces pulled
> together. Thus a small-business customer becomes highly reliant on the
> technology provider who designs and implements the Linux-based network.
> If that technology provider is not available to continue to provide
> support, there is not likely to be another provider who can easily step
> in and have the knowledge to take over support of that custom-built
> network."
>
> In other words, Microsoft is now saying don't use Linux because you will
> then be tied to a single technology provider! (Newbie alert: this is
> false).
It seems quite transparent to me what's going on. In classic
FUD, they face a competing product from a competing business with
a less secure future than their own. In that situation, it's easy to
generate the fear that customers will be left with an unsupported
product. With open source, they're fighting a different sort of thing.
Since an open source project doesn't depend on any one business or
set of individuals, you can't really kill it. In fact, it can't really die.
So MS faces the puzzle: how do you create FUD about something
that can't die? Well, they claim that the particular way the network
is configured might be specific to a vendor and impossible for anyone
else to decipher.
I suppose some people would see this as impressive spin. Personally,
I consider the argument implausible, and really laughably weak.
If you're really dealing with open source, nothing is hidden, so anyone
with sufficient expertise can pick it up and support it.
> It's very hard to find new material on Microsoft's site because its
> search engine does not allow you to sort by date.
>
> Regards, Adam
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux fails to deliver on the hype
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 18:06:48 GMT
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/16736.html
Staffs cuts in the USA and CEO recosidering business model.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Tennent)
Subject: Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype
Date: 8 Feb 2001 18:34:20 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 08 Feb 2001 18:06:48 GMT, Pete Goodwin wrote:
>http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/16736.html
>
>Staffs cuts in the USA and CEO recosidering business model.
What you mean is that SUSE failed to cash in on the hype generated not by Linux
users but by unrealistic investors and unscrupulous investment advisors. Linux
is delivering. Even SUSE is making money in Europe. Their failure in North
America won't slow down Linux at all.
Bob T.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype
Date: 8 Feb 2001 19:22:14 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/16736.html
> Staffs cuts in the USA and CEO recosidering business model.
I guess the massive layoffs which are occuring all over the
tech world in the united states right now ALL have to do with
linux not delivering on the hype.
You damnable moron.
=====.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What's EF's explanation on this one?
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:33:01 -0600
"CR Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > This is an artifact of the DOS compatibility, floppy disk access goes
> > thorugh the bios (this is what allows IDE floppies to be used without
> > special drivers, since the newer BIOS's automatically patch the int13
> > vectors to deal with it). BIOS drive access provides very poor
performance
> > because of the I/O bound locking. The same happens when the IDE drives
run
> > in "compatibilty mode", but since hard disk writes are so much faster
than
> > floppy writes, you don't notice the degradation as much (but you can
sure
> > see an order of magnatude slower disk access).
> So you now admit that Windows 98 is just a GUI over DOS! It uses the DOS
> calls to do everyday tasks like formatting floppies and accessing hard
> drives!
It uses the BIOS calls, not the DOS calls.
Also, I said it only uses the BIOS when accessing the hard drive when
running in compatibility mode, which is a misconfigured machine.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux 64 bit and Windows 32 bit
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:47:28 -0600
"CR Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Clearly you were talking about simply recompiling for a different
bitsize,
> > and were asking why a port would need to be done.
> >
> Nah. I'm talking about hacking code together with microprocessor
> specific "optimizations" and then loosing the process.
What? This statemend doesn't parse. What exactly is "loosing the process"?
The port to Itanium wasn't just "microprocessor specific optimizations",
there were many major changes. Diff the sources to the ia64 directory of
the kernel source sometime.
> > Hell, Linux needed a new version to support Itanium too. The 2.4
kernel.
> >
> 2.4 kernel has lots more than Itanium support.
>
> > > Well, it did take Mad Dog about 6 months to get the first Alpha
running.
> > > Linux doesn't need x86 support for existing binaries. Just rebuild the
> > > application for the target. Sell the new binaries to your existing
> > > customers who finally get decent computers.
> >
> > So where are those Itanium versions of Netscape 4.x?
> >
> Netscape version 6 runs on Itanium *and* 133 mhz pentiums under Linux.
That won't help you to make sure that your web site runs properly under
Netscape 4.x, now will it?
Fact is, you can't run Netscape 4.x on Itanium under Linux. But you'll be
able to run it under 64 bit Windows due to the emulation layer.
> > > So why doesn't MS just do a rebuild for the new target? Why can't MS,
> > > with billions of dollars and thousands of elite programers do with
> > > Windows what one man did with Linux for zilch in 6 months?
> >
> > How long did it take them to port Linux to Itanium? Quite some time.
> >
> Less than a year to develop Itanium specific code. The whole release was
> about 2 years, but I am pretty sure they didn't do any Itanium specific
> stuff until about 9 months ago.
The same is true of Windows. They were using the Alpha to develop the 64
bit code initially, then switched over to Itanium once the simulators were
ready.
> > Do you really think they just "rebuilt for a new target" and suddenly
> > Itanium worked without any code changes?
> >
> Mostly. There is the need to add some #ifdef ITANIUM switches and a bit
> of Itanium specific code before doing the rebuild though. As soon as
> that was done several thousand applications came over with Linux.
"a bit" of itanium specific code. Diff the sources once. A lot of major
changes there. Remember, different processors have different memory
management systems, different interrupt handling, different page swapping
requirements, different I/O systems..
> > No, for instance the Alpha port of NT and Win2k (until it was canceled)
used
> > 8k pages as well. The point I was making is that it's not as simple as
> > recompiling with a 64 bit compiler.
> >
> So Linux was able to get an Alpha version running in about 6 months, and
> Win2k still doesn't run on Alpha.
There were publicly available betas of Win2k on Alpha, actuall up to RC1 if
I recall correctly. Compaq decided to drop support.
> > > Do you realise your answer makes MS look really stupid?
> >
> > No, it makes you completly incapable of sticking to your own topic,
since
> > you've contradicted yourself twice.
> And what were the contradictions?
> I maintain that :
> 1) MS Stupidly hardcoded their OS for 16bit microprocessors, had a
> difficult time getting them to run on 32 bit processors, and an even
> worse time with 64bit processors.
NT was originally written on the MIPS processor line, then ported to x86.
It was not "hard coded for 16 bit processors".
> 2) Linux ports to new processors in about 6 months, max. That time is
> getting shorter as the experience level with Linux grows.
Then explain your comments about "requiring a new version rather than just a
build option".
> 3)Linux does not have to dumb itself down to support binaries of
> existing applications. The Linux model pretty well isolates applications
> from the underlying hardware. So most applications just have to do a
> rebuild and link to the new libraries.
Not entirely. For instance, anything that stores data in a binary format
needs to be very careful about changing bitness. Reading in an int on a 64
bit platform from a file that was generated on a 32 bit platform screws your
data. Yes, many applicaitons use text data for files, but not everything.
RPM doesn't, for instance.
> 4)MS operating systems have lots of ways for applications to get
> directly to the hardware. Applications that take advantage of those
> holes, have to be rewritten to port to another platform.
NT doesn't allow you to get "directly to the hardware" in any way but device
drivers, and then you just need to rewrite the driver. Period.
> 5)MS Office products make generous use of the holes in MS operating
> systems and therefore have to be re-written to port to another platform.
MS Office products use assembly code quite a bit. That's why they need
porting.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Wintrolls
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:50:37 -0600
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > >
> > > > For instance, with the FreeBSD kernel, there are internal options
for
> > each
> > > > processor that's supported. By removing options for the 386 and
others,
> > you
> > > > increase the efficiency of the kernel.
> > >
> > > So how is that in any way different from the Linux kernel?
> >
> > Here's how you configure and compile a FreeBSD kernel:
> >
> > cd to /sys/i386/conf, copy GENERIC to whatever name you choose. Edit
the
> > new file and comment out or add options that are fully documented in the
> > LINT file, cd to /usr/src and type make buildkernel.
> >
> > Configuring your linux kernel is MUCH more involved.
>
> LOL
>
> ---- How to build a Linux kernel ----
> cd /usr/src/linux
> make menuconfig
> --> Use menus to select your kernel (including the processor type).
> make bzImage
> ---- End ----
>
> MUCH more involved? Hmmmm.
I doubt this process gives you even a fraction of the configurability of the
FreeBSD model. FreeBSD also offers menu driven options for a generic
kernel.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Wintrolls
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:51:46 -0600
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
> > > So, why not stick with RPM 3?
> >
> > Because I needed RPM 4 to install XFree86 4.0.2 to try and fix my video
card
> > problem.
>
> Eh?
>
> So, download xfree 4.0.2 from xfree.org - what on
> earth does that have to do with your version of rpm?
Have you actually TRIED to build XFree from source? That's a nightmare.
their whole imake process is a pain to figure out.
> > > All rpm packages contain tarballs, so that's nonsense.
> >
> > No, all RPM packages do not contain tarballs. Where do you get this
form?
> > SRPM's include source, not RPM's.
>
> Yes, of course I meant all SRPMS, good catch.
SRPMS are not that common.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:57:21 -0600
"spam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> 2. By controlling the specification of .NET, MS puts itself in a
> >> position to squeeze out competing platforms that it doesn't like.
> >> Again, this is exactly what MS claims about Java, that by controlling
> >> the standard Sun is using it as a weapon against MS. That MS has got
> >> ECMA to rubber-stamp their spec means little, and I think you know it.
> >> What's really different here?
> >
> >If it means so little, why did Sun refuse to let ECMA "rubber stamp"
Java?
>
> Why isn't MS submitting the CLR to ECMA?
Well, I don't know if they will or not. Clearly they can't submit it yet
because it's not done yet, DUH! C# and the CLI are quite finalized.
> >> 3. Given #1 and #2 above, why should anybody who isn't already an MS
> >> slave support .NET? All the FUD that MS has put out about Java applies
> >> equally to .NET even if you leave out all the licensing nonsense.
> >
> >Not even close. MS is putting an orders of magnitude more effort, money,
> >and skill into .NET than Sun ever did for Java in the entire 5 years of
it's
> >history.
>
> Evidence please?
Microsoft has over 20,000 developers including contractors, nearly all of
them are focused on some form of .NET.
How many developers does Sun have working on something focused on Java?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 19:23:00 GMT
On Thu, 08 Feb 2001 18:06:48 GMT, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/16736.html
>
>Staffs cuts in the USA and CEO recosidering business model.
>
>--
>---
>Pete
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com
>http://www.deja.com/
...and the troll comes from under the bridge, shakes his fist,
snickers, and slinks back under.
quux111
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 14:01:44 -0600
"Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:95u0gf$4kq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : Well, since C# and the CLR are now ECMA standards, this is a possibilty.
>
> I find no evidence of this on ECMA's Web site.
>
> Have these products even been *submitted* to ECMA yet?
I made a mistake in my post, it's the CLI, not CLR, but Yes.
http://www.ecma.ch/ecma1/memento/tc39.htm
This is the only current public page that refers to C#, however they had
some comments on their news page about 3 months ago stating that they had
been submitted and that work had begun.
------------------------------
From: "D F" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: OT: Atheism, anarchy and amorality (WAS: MS to Enforce Registration - or
Else)
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 14:57:36 -0500
Aaron R. Kulkis wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>The prefix "a-" for "not-" implies "anti-", not
"without-"
Aaron,
I'd have to say that I'm largely on your side in this
discussion but the statement quoted above, I'm afraid, is
abjectly false. The prefix "a-" is entirely homologous with
the prefix "un-", both of which mean "without". If someone
is "unsympathetic" does that mean they are "against
sympathy" or "without sympathy"? Would you say that an
agnostic is "against" knowledge (gnosis)?
Consider the term "amoral". One might be said to lead an
amoral lifestyle. Simply put, this means a lifestyle
_without_ morals. It does not mean that the person is
"against" morals. Similarly, the Greek gods were said to be
amoral. Evidence of this is that there was a god of
pickpockets, for example (whose name escapes me at the
moment.) Or Bacchus, the god of debauchery. This does not
imply that the gods were against morality, only that they
did not, necessarily, observe any moral code themselves.
Similarly, a period during which there was no ruler (archon)
of a city-state was known as a period of anarchy. This does
not mean that people suddenly became opposed to rulers, only
that there wasn't one during that time.
Now, it is true that all of these terms have been somewhat
morphed over time. Anarchists, nowadays, are considered to
be against rulers, and that's the way the term has come to
be used. But, the fact remains that the definition of the
term anarchy does not include any judgement on the
desirability of rulers. It just so happens that those who
desire no rulers (== against rulers) have come to be labeled
anarchist because they _advocate_ anarchy.
What I'd like to offer, though, is this:
1. "I don't believe in the faeries." is equal to or
approximately equal to "I believe that faeries do not
exist." which is equal to or approximately equal to "I
believe there are no faeries." (save, perhaps, for some
semantic gerrymandering of convenience.)
2. "I don't know if there are faeries." does not equal
"I believe there are no faeries."
And, if we substitute gods or three-legged spiders or
whatever for faeries, the relationships of (near) equality
or inequality still hold. In the case of gods, those who
subscribe to statement 1 in any of its variants are, by
definition, atheists. Those who subscribe to statement 2 are
agnostics. This much is a certainty. We may choose to use
other definitions in common parlance, but we would be well
served to keep in mind that these are the root meanings of
these terms. If there is a dispute about meaning, reference
to the origins of a term are sometimes all that we have to
settle such a dispute.
I think we can all agree on these four points:
1. Atheists either believe there is no god or they don't
believe there is a god. Since both of these are,
essentially, equivalent, it amounts to the same thing save
for some semantic gerrymandering one might wish to make
solely for the sake of convenience.
2. Agnostics are uncertain if there are gods. They have
chosen to remain "on the fence", as it were. Really,
agnostics are all from Missouri!
3. Neither of these positions is absolute, inasmuch as
they exist on a continuum. There are those who might say
they are atheists but are willing to consider the
proposition that there might be gods. For them, the default
is "no gods" but they remain open to the possibility that
they may be in error. These might be said to be atheists
with an agnostic streak...
4. Theists are much less likely to be open to the
possibility that their belief may be in error. ;-)
Hope this helps
Dave Fluri North Bay, Ontario Canada
(After an analysis by spectral decomposition, I'm announcing
that my opinions are orthogonal to those of my employer.)
------------------------------
From: spam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 12:12:00 -0800
On Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:57:21 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>"spam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> 2. By controlling the specification of .NET, MS puts itself in a
>> >> position to squeeze out competing platforms that it doesn't like.
>> >> Again, this is exactly what MS claims about Java, that by controlling
>> >> the standard Sun is using it as a weapon against MS. That MS has got
>> >> ECMA to rubber-stamp their spec means little, and I think you know it.
>> >> What's really different here?
>> >
>> >If it means so little, why did Sun refuse to let ECMA "rubber stamp"
>Java?
>>
>> Why isn't MS submitting the CLR to ECMA?
>
>Well, I don't know if they will or not. Clearly they can't submit it yet
>because it's not done yet, DUH! C# and the CLI are quite finalized.
I see, the CLR spec isn't done but the CLI's is? That doesn't jive
with your the "CLR is just a implementation of the CLI" misinformation
now does it?
----
Glenn Davies
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype
From: imekon@$$$REMOVE$$$.freeuk.com (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 20:09:57 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <95url6$7og$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>I guess the massive layoffs which are occuring all over the
>tech world in the united states right now ALL have to do with
>linux not delivering on the hype.
>
>You damnable moron.
How the hell would I know? I live in the UK.
--
Pete Goodwin
---
On that unstable much loved system known as Windows 98 SE.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
