Linux-Advocacy Digest #92, Volume #32 Sat, 10 Feb 01 04:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: MS executives at LinuxWorld Expo (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Linux Servers require Weekly Rebooting (Cool Microsoft FUD and (CR Lyttle)
Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype (sfcybear)
Re: Interesting article ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Interesting article (Amphetamine Bob)
Re: Interesting article (J Sloan)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! ("Tom Wilson")
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Karel Jansens)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Karel Jansens)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS executives at LinuxWorld Expo
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 02:05:52 -0500
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Pete Goodwin wrote:
> > >
> > > R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> > > <95i0sr$p64$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >
> > > >Microsoft's assertion that Linux is not a technical thread is
> > > >actually absurd. Eventually, Linux will reach the mainstream
> > > >and executive desktops. When it does, Microsoft will be unable
> > > >to pretend that it has originated technology that was forged in
> > > >the cauldron of Open Source.
> > >
> > > They've had a long time to get there...
>
> Actually, Linux has only been doing Desktop User oriented
> systems since July of 1998. Up until that time the focus
> was on ease of installation and ease of server administration.
> I July of 1998, Linus officially challenged the Linux community
> to "Take the Desktop". One year later, KDE 1.0 was released.
> Two years later, KDE 2.0 was available. Star Office 5.2 was
> released along with many other Desktop User applications which are
> now part of the Mandrake 7.2 and SuSE 7.0 releases.
>
> Linux 2.4 will add some important features like USB support for cameras and
> scanners, but people who really wanted those features could get them with 2.3
> kernel patches months ago.
>
> Most of the other 2.4 features were focused toward servers, to give
> new features like 16 million terabyte files (63 bit seeks).
>
> Linux has already been offering a 64 bit kernel and clustering capabilities
> which have been further optimized.
>
> > > and they haven't quite made it yet.
> > > Instead they (KDE) appear to be copying Windows.
>
> Keep in mind that most Linux software is really "contributions from the Open
> Source Community" which are compiled into a Linux distribution. This
> "Anthology" is then distributed in easy to install packages that are
> configured to be installed in groups based on a relatively simple set of
> option selections.
>
> Expert users may want more control and want to specify which packages need to
> be installed. There are over 1600 packages and each package can install up
> to 300 files.
>
> > > What innovation Linux?
>
> Keep in mind that the real innovation is the open source community.
> Ironically, one of the first contributors to the X11 project was
> the Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) unit of Xerox. With Apple
> literally stealing SmallTalk80 and porting to to Apple's Pascal
> for the Lisa, the PARC team decided to port their constructs to
> C (C++ wasn't really available yet).
>
> The Athena Project included MIT (who still uses Athena products on campus),
> Xerox, IBM, Hewlett Packard, Dec, and Sun. The most well-known products were
> X11 and SGML, and more particularly HTML.
>
> Keep in mind that Microsoft purchased the rights to most of it's GUI
> technology from HP, who was one of the partners to the Athena project. They
> also got technology from IBM under the OS/2 Presentation Manager (which they
> eventually obtained through an out of court settlement).
>
> Linux has been the beneficiary of nearly all of the original contributors.
> In many cases, employees actually provided support for the ports to Linux.
> Initially, the employees contributed in their own personal names under public
> licenses such as GPL to minimize corporate liability.
>
> Because all of this technology was available under Open Source
> licenses, Microsoft could and often did attempt to steal the
> technology. Microsoft has quietly settled numerus lawsuits with
> cash settlements in exchange for sealed records and nondisclosure
> agreements to prevent revealing the nature of the plagerism.
>
> > I forget the quote, it was an admonishment of
> > Apple suing Microsoft for copying
> > the GUI, "Be generous with what you steal."
>
> Apple wasn't the only one upset with Microsoft. HP, IBM, Sun, and Xerox were
> all parties in certain claims against Microsoft. In addition to litigation
> and settlements, part of the retaliation included putting most of the
> technology under Public License agreements that would force Microsoft to
> "give back" any derivative products it created from Open Source software.
>
> Microsoft has been very cagey about avoiding these give-back terms
> by filtering information flow through highly placed executives who
> were the only members of the development team who knew that most
> of the design and implementation details for Windows were actually
> being taken from Open Source projects. Because the executives
> had no direct "hands on" participation in the project, the "clean
> room" environment was so well preserved that many of Microsoft's
> own developers thought they were actually inventing the technology
> themselves. Even today, Microsoft hires people familiar with the
> intimate details of Linux who "feed" these clean room projects.
>
> Of course, you can't prove anything because Microsoft's EULA
> forbids any form of reverse engineering, including investigation
> into copyright and patent violations.
This has GOT to be illegal. NOBODY is immune from investigation
for criminal activity...
I just can't imagine...a court saying, "Uh...for proving that
Microsoft once-again violated copyright and patent law...we are
going to award them $10,000,000 in damages"
In fact...I think in most jurisdictions, it has now standard
procedure for judges to throw out any claim of damages coming
from a party which was behaved criminally in regards to the case
at hand.
>
> > KDE may share some concepts with Windows,
>
> KDE is a product of X11 Windows. Microsoft's Windows 3.0
> and later were also dirivatives of X11. Microsoft had no
> interest in remote access and eliminated X-Wire. They also
> replaced the Xlib/Xserver with the DLLs. Since they didn't need
> to serialize the messages, the events could simply be put onto
> in-memory event queues.
>
> > but NO GUI environment stands alone.
>
> This is especially true with Microsoft Windows. Microsoft has
> repeatedly obtained software from the NCSA, Athena, and X11
> along with numerous other Open Source products through fraud,
> blackmail, and simple theft. In numerous cases, the lawsuits
> were quietly settled out of court to prevent the exact nature
> of this intellectual property theft from being made public.
>
> > --
> > http://www.mohawksoft.com
> >
>
> --
> Rex Ballard - Sr I/T Systems Architect
> Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
> http://www.open4success.com
> Linux - 80 million satisfied users worldwide
> and growing at over 9%/month! (recalibrated 01/14/00)
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: CR Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Servers require Weekly Rebooting (Cool Microsoft FUD and
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 03:53:17 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> =
> http://linuxtoday.com/stories/1946.html
> =
> http://www.tux.org/hypermail/linux-eepro100/1998-Dec/0011.html
> =
> You can also play around with a couple of sites here:
> http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=3Dwww.google.com (on the netcr=
aft
> site you can enter any web adr you want and it wil try and retrieve the=
> uptime stats).
> =
> Interesting about the above was: www.suse.com vs. www.microsoft.com
> =
> Anyway, I think you get the msg. The people at goinvest has obviously n=
o
> idea how to get a Linux system stable. I don't think we can blame an OS=
> for human stupidity.
> =
> Cheers
> =
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > First up a little gem from April 2000: Did you realise you have to
> reboot
> > Linux servers every week or two? In fact you need Windows 2000 to
> solve your
> > reboot problems:
> >
> >
> http://www.microsoft.com/WINDOWS2000/guide/server/profiles/goinvest.asp=
> >
> > "Supporting both the Linux and Microsoft=AE Windows NT=AE platforms w=
as a
> big
> > headache for Goinvest.com, an online content and applications
> provider. The
> > company decided to standardize its server and desktop environments on=
> > Windows=AE 2000 in order to have a single, reliable, easily supported=
,
> and
> > scalable platform."
> > ...
> >
> > "With Linux, we had to restart our servers on an average of once ever=
y
> week
> > or two," says Fenley.
> >
> > [President and CEO of Goinvest.com]
> > ...
> >
> > "Scalability with Linux was difficult-we couldn't add and load balanc=
e
> > machines without additional load balancing hardware," Fenley says.
> "With
> > Windows 2000, whenever we start experiencing increased loads we can
> add
> > another box very quickly."
> >
> > Cool. OK now some research. Check out the "Latest News and Press" at
> > goinvest.com:
> >
> http://www.goinvest.com/mods/gateway.cgi?code=3D00afe391&master_templat=
e=3DGI_ne
> > ws_and_press.html
> >
> > (you might want to follow the link from the home page)
> >
> > If you have a windows box you would be able to check out the video
> clip. In
> > it goinvest.com states (my transcript):
> >
> > "We currently get millions of hits on our charting package alone, and=
> on a
> > Apache/Linux mixture that would not be possible."
> >
> > The video _strongly_ promotes Microsoft solutions. It also promotes
> > Microsoft .NET
> >
> > Microsoft helped then design the entire data centre from scratch.
> >
> > Does this make you feel any differently about why the move to Windows=
> 2000
> > was made?:
> >
> > "Microsoft persuaded Goinvest.com Inc., a Santa Monica, Calif.,
> company that
> > resells financial data and online analytical tools to banks, brokerag=
e
> > firms, and Web portals, to dump its Linux servers and become a Window=
s
> 2000
> > shop by giving the startup "six figures" worth of free software and
> > services, CEO Jeff Fenley says. That's a hefty incentive for a compan=
y
> that
> > had no revenue last year and predicts only about $3 million in sales
> this
> > year."
> >
> > And even with all that free software and services, could goinvest.com=
> have
> > any regrets? Check out this page:
> >
> http://www.goinvest.com/mods/gateway.cgi?code=3D00afe391&master_templat=
e=3DGI_ne
> > ws_and_press_infojune.html
> >
> > 'Despite the advantages, Gonvest.com is having second thoughts about
> > deploying everything on Windows, and it recently decided to build an
> online
> > trading system on Java to cut the cost for customers that have
> invested in
> > Solaris or Linux, Rashid says. "Microsoft can come in and provide you=
> with a
> > low-cost solution, and you definitely have a leg up from before when
> you had
> > to buy your own transaction-processing monitor and message queue
> > [software]," he says. "It's great for companies that are starting up
> to have
> > that integrated environment." But, Rashid adds, the need to customize=
> > Microsoft products to work with customers' Solaris and Linux
> environments
> > "holds you back as you grow."'
> >
> > And here's a community college gem (last updated 2 months ago:
> November 13,
> > 2000):
> >
> > http://www.microsoft.com/TechNet/education/beacon.asp
> >
> > "The school was also amongst the first to move to the highly touted
> Linux
> > operating system."
> >
> > ...
> >
> > "But Adrian Evans - IT consultant on staff at the school - and the
> > administration knew that this infrastructure wasn't sufficient to kee=
p
> the
> > school in the forefront of IT use. In particular, the Linux Web serve=
r
> -
> > used as an external Internet proxy server, mail host and filtering
> system -
> > made it difficult for teachers, students and administrators to create=
> and
> > post documents to the school's intranet, and to synchronize that site=
> with
> > the school's public Internet site.
> >
> > "To post a document to the intranet, users had to go to the network
> > directory, find a list of shares, go to the correct HTML directory,
> and drag
> > files to the appropriate folder."
> >
> > LOL. I'd advise you to keep reading--it gets better.
> >
> > Anyway, if you want to check out what the "forefront of IT use" looks=
> like,
> > surf over to Beacon Community College's brand new web site:
> >
> > http://www.beacon.e-sussex.sch.uk/
> >
> > Regards,
> > Adam
> >
> >
> =
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
Perhaps we can't blame an OS for human stupidity, but can we blame human
stupidity for an OS? Otherwise how would you explain the existance of
W2K?
-- =
Russ
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 07:04:40 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon) wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote in
> <960adr$eol$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >In article <95vfk7$pf2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> That you take such delight in the personal misery of thirty human
beings
> >> says more about you than I ever could.
> >
> >Where did you get that from? Your imagination? Where in my post do I
> >"take such delight"?
> >
> >I was more interested in the CEO reconsidering the Linux business
model.
>
> The what?
>From what I can tell, the truth.
> --
> Nick
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 07:15:00 GMT
In article <pM2h6.6086$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Well, I'm fed up with tpc.org. It's a site handled by a number of
>> companies to advertise their products, and it has nothing to do with
>> "independent benchmarks". Only a clueless ignorant Windows supporter
>> could stop considering its useless data.
>> Leave it aside and try with another one.
>
>Another example of "Windows won the benchmark, so the benchmark must
>suddenly be wrong".
>
>It's really sad when you guys can't accept a major fact. Just because
>you don't like that Windows is the highest performing transactional
>processing OS doesn't mean that you can just throw it away.
>
Another example of Chad ignoring the answers he doesn't like so he
can complain about the other person "Changing the subject" away from
his original lie.
Chad when you ignore the answers to your questions instead of
refuting them then we all know that you know they were true and that
you are hoping, vainly, that we won't notice that your lies have
been exposed.
Don't they attempt to teach you not to make yourself so easily
recognized as a fool at the Sock Puppet briefings ?
--
How much do we need to pay you to screw Netscape?
- BILL GATES, to AOL in a 1996 meeting
------------------------------
From: Amphetamine Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 23:51:48 -0800
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
> 2 + 2 wrote:
>
> > The article compares OS/2 with the Win9x/Me code base in terms of
> > innovation.
> >
> > Microsoft's real innovation with its OS products was with Windows NT/2000.
> > And it competes with Linux and Unix.
> >
> > And OS/2 is no match for Linux in particular.
I know a ton of OS/2 users who have tried to go over to Linux. Almost
every single one of them has come back to OS/2. Most of those who do
not miss OS/2 every day. OS/2 exceeds Linux in the following ways:
speed, multimedia, resource use, multitasking, multithreading, TCP/IP
stack, GUI, Java and ease of use. Linux is better in a few ways,
especially stability. I think OS/2 could use the memory mapping and
symlinks, too.
> >>
> Well, in my experience, that depends:
> I've NEVER seen anything which comes even close to the
> speed of an OS/2 server if you use SMB protocol. OS/2 runs
> rings around Win(everyVersion) and Samba.
> OS/2 also has a quite decent implementation of TCP/IP, different
> from that MS-shit.
The TCP/IP stack is the best on Intel.
> The WPS is way better than the Windows-desktop. It is also
> better as a single-user-desktop than X.
> X is better in flexibility.
Dubious.
The windows desktop is good for nothing.
>
> IBM got lots right with OS/2, their marketing sucked big time.
Even the best marketing is no use against an illegal monopoly. That
is the real story here.
--
Bob - flipping the bird at 550 MHZ :). Wheeeeee! ;)
Are you sure you REALLY want to read this with Netscape?
[ ] YES Go to the Microsoft site and download Internet Explorer
[ ] NO Go to the Microsoft site and download Internet Explorer
[ ] LOCK UP Crash Windows and soft reboot
[ ] BSOD Crash Windows and hard reboot
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 08:08:38 GMT
Amphetamine Bob wrote:
> I know a ton of OS/2 users who have tried to go over to Linux. Almost
> every single one of them has come back to OS/2. Most of those who do
> not miss OS/2 every day. OS/2 exceeds Linux in the following ways:
> speed, multimedia, resource use, multitasking, multithreading, TCP/IP
> stack, GUI, Java and ease of use. Linux is better in a few ways,
> especially stability. I think OS/2 could use the memory mapping and
> symlinks, too.
Whoa, ease up on the amphetamines there, Bob!
Agreed, OS/2 was an advanced OS in it's day, and
was superior to windows in many ways. But let's not
get carried away here -
Speed, multitasking and tcp/ip stack happen to be strong
points for Linux, which provides a full set of Unix services,
along with the appletalk and pc-lan protocols, allowing it
to act as the glue between mac, windows & other Unices.
(Of course, that could be said of {free,net,open}bsd(i)*,
and it could have been said somewhat earlier). When OS/2
can match the 8 way specweb99 results, aw heck, if OS/2
could even match Linux' single CPU specweb results, I'll
agree that it's performance, tcp/ip and multitasking are on
par with Linux -
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 08:22:20 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9616o4$7b8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In article <95vvhb$67c$06$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >> Such a simple thing, setting up a printer.
>
> > I know, it looked that way at the time. I selected the correct driver,
I
> > printed a test page, it worked. Then I tried The Gimp and Oopsie!
>
> >> Ralph Miguel Hansen
> >> Using S.u.S.E. 5.3 and SuSE 7.0
>
> > SuSE 7.1 is coming out on Monday, with kernel 2.4. I might switch to
> > that considering all the trouble I'm getting with Linux Mandrake 7.2.
>
> > (PS. I see I'm not the only one commenting on trouble with Mandrake
here).
>
> Indeed. Its you and "flatfish". Fine company.
Actually, 7.2 does have its' "issues". I bought it on a whim after hearing
the problems Pete was having. Granted, they aren't as dire as being
reported. The installer is screwed up and a few packages that should have
been included (such as the base samba package) aren't on the "Complete"
version of the distro. Individual package selection at install time has
been abandoned as well. You have to buy the deluxe version to get that
functionality now. The whole thing looks prematurely rushed to market.
On the plus side, their hardware detection is absolutely incredible. It
detected and correctly configured each and every component, whether old or
bleeding edge. Very impressive!
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 00:44:38 +0100
"Peter T. Breuer" wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.misc Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ian Davey wrote:
> > But if I ask you: "Where does the universe come from?", what, pray,
> > will be your reply?
>
> Well, current theories say that it is a quantum happening that
> underwent a period of rapid inflation that managed to disentangle
> the major forces before it could pop back out of existence again.
> Roughly. Estimates are that we're about 10 years off the next theory
> of everything.
>
Amazing as it may seem, I usually manage to grasp the beginnings of an
understanding of about 5 to 10% of what is written in an article or
book about cosmology. I usually end up with the question: "Why?" (*)
There seem to be only two valid answers to this question:
1. Everything possible also happens, or the axiom of parallel
universes. If there really is an infinite number of them, the entire
question Why? becomes meaningless and the existence of God indeed
unnecessary (but see below).
2. There is a purpose to it all.
Against 1.: Serious cosmologists do not like parallel anythings at
all. They apparently muck up things to no degree. Besides, the basic
premises for the existence of parallel universes seem to preclude any
positive knowledge about them, so we're back to square one anyway. And
finally, a truly infinte number of parallel universes would
necessarily bring God back into play. Think about it.
2. Against 2.: It is not good science.
I like 2.
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
==============================
"Go go gadget linux." Zoomm!
==============================
(*) Why everything, obviously.
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 00:56:28 +0100
Donn Miller wrote:
>
> Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> > It's nothing like Windows. What you're saying is that The Gimp has its own
> > drivers for printers! Sheesh! Windows left that kind of nonsense behind a
> > while ago. If Windows, the inferior product, can do it, why not Linux?
>
> All unix apps have a unified printer model. It's called "Postscript".
> If you don't have a Postscript printer, then you just install the proper
> software PS intepreter, such as ghostscript. All unix apps produce PS
> output for printing. The output is piped to "lpr" for printing. In
> addition, all of the apps that pipe PS output to lpr allow you to
> specify extra parameters to lpr. For example, as long as the output is
> being send to "| lpr -Pauto1", all my apps give the correct output on
> that printer.
>
Actually, that is not completely correct. All linux apps _can_ produce
PostScript output (I am taking your word for the "all" bit), but many
of them come with additional printer drivers. Applix e.g. can print
directly to PCL printers, WordPerfect has a shipload of drivers and
even StarOffice does not depend on GhostScript alone for its output.
I happen to like this wealth of choice, but I can understand how the
less knowledgeable person might get confused.
> In fact, I'd be willing to say that Linux has a more unified printer
> model than Windows, because all apps print postscript output via a pipe
> to lpr. All you have to do is make sure ghostcript is installed
> correctly as a PS filter. That's it.
>
What I like is that linux gives me more flexibility: In Applix I can
choose to make the printer spew out copy almost faster than the
feeding bin can shovel the paper in, or I can take the lazy,
pretty-looking way. This is not as evident in Windows.
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
==============================
"Go go gadget linux." Zoomm!
==============================
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
