Linux-Advocacy Digest #573, Volume #32 Thu, 1 Mar 01 03:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Amphetamine Bob)
Re: NT vs *nix performance ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The Windows guy. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: What the hell is MS thinking? (mlw)
Re: KDE or DOJ ? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: KDE or DOJ ? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: M$ doing it again! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments.... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: M$ doing it again! (Klaus-Georg Adams)
Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
WEB: "Indrema Informer" (William Kendrick)
Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: MS Price Strategy (was Microsoft Tax) (WarpKat)
Re: Hijacking the IP stack ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 23:15:41 -0800
Gary Hallock wrote:
>
> In article <3a9ddd65$0$38526$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jan Johanson"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Interesting - a friend of mine working at IBM faxed me a memo that
> > essentially said that W2K was the prefered OS for ALL IBM desktop
> > machines
> > ... hmmm.
I really do not know. The directive was that Win2K was to be banned
on all machines not used for testing purposes. Whether this directive
is being followed or not is up in the air. I believe what you are
referring to is that IBM recommends Win 2K for all of the desktop
systems *that it sells to other people*. If the directive was a false
rumor it would have been quickly taken apart in the OS/2 groups, where
all such rumors about IBM are quickly demolished. No one has stepped
forward to challenge it yet. Has the directive been superseded by
another saying that Win2K is ok? I do not know; all I know is that
the directive was issued sometime about a year ago.> >
>
> Not surprising. That memo, no doubt, came from upper level management.
Yes. A lot of IBM's top management is very pro-MS. :(((((((
> Management directives such as this have never worked in the past and are
> not likely to work in the future. Of course, it wastes tons of money
> buying W2K licenses that will just be thrown away, but that's what must
> be done in the real world to get our jobs done.
Yes, actually a number of studies have been done and the average TCO
of running OS/2 vs. running Windows was considerably less for OS/2.
However, these studies were done about 3 years ago. I think an OS/2
box was $5-15,000 a year while a Windows box was $8-20,000 per year.
With a disastrous TCO like that, why do folks switch from OS/2 to
Windows? Such a move suggests financial insanity. Yet you see this
all the time. The IT industry has completely lost their minds!
--
Bob - shooting the bozo bit at 550 MHZ :). Wheeeeee! ;)
Microsoft "Tech Support".
1) Re-boot
2) Re-boot
3) Re-install all your software
4) Buy the new release (again)
5) Go to 1
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 01:32:52 -0600
"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >I'm not using an argument from ignorance. MS has stated quite clearly
that
> >no conversion was attempted, much less a failed one. It's an anonymous
> >source in a less than credible news site versus the actual people that
would
> >know. You choose to believe the anonymous sources because you want to.
> >
> It is not as if we don't know they lie when it suits them.
>
> Bill Gates said in an interview "Our software has no significant
> number of bugs that people want fixed."
No, now you are lying. What he really said was "There are no significant
bugs in our released software that any significant number of users want
fixed."
http://www.cantrip.org/nobugs.html
The meaning is entirely different from what you tried to claim. He's not
saying there aren't significant bugs or that nobody wants them fixed if
there are. He's saying there aren't any significant bugs which affect a
significant number of users to the point that they demand they be fixed. In
other words, he's saying there are significant bugs, but they effect a small
fraction of the users, and are thus statistically not worth fixing
specifically for those users.
What you claim is that gates is saying there are no significant bugs or if
there are, nobody wants them fixed, which is a preposterous statement.
> >> And unrefuted.
> >
> >What exactly do you call the MS official statement that the rumors are
> >false, if not a refutation?
> >
> Spin ? PR ? Covering up ?
>
> You pick, they all fit.
So you are also trying to say that the claims in the article are unrefuted?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 01:41:22 -0600
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:97kca1$enc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> : news:97jp4h$ice$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> :> NO. Running code is NOT a program. Running code is a process.
> :> The word "program" refers to the image in its static form, either
> :> as an executable file (and the associated execution library files),
> :> or as a loaded bunch of code in RAM. It doesn't become a "process"
> :> until it is running. Here's an analogy: Program is to screenplay
> :> as process is to movie.
>
> : Well then, I fail to understand your refusal to clasify running DOS code
as
> : a process then.
>
> I fail to see why you think that's what I've been saying, King Strawman.
> Running DOS code IS a process, I even SAID that DOS is a single
> process that never dies, right in this very thread. The pertinent
> point, that you keep missing, is that it is ONE, count them, ONE process.
> Inter-process requires that there be actual processes (plural) to
> talk to each other. One process talking to itself using a temp
> file is not "interprocess" by any stretch of the imagination.
Then tell me, how is it that TSR's can run concurrently with DOS
applications? Are you going to claim that the TSR and the DOS application
are the same process? Clearly, they're not. The TSR runs in the context of
the interupt handler, while the DOS application runs in the context of the
shell (command.com).
Further, what about DOS task switchers and multiaskers, like Dosshell, or
DesqView? Many people, including mlw have stated that these are still just
DOS, despite being managed by a memory and V86 manager.
Finally, you can use pipes to talk to yourself. Using a named pipe, I could
open the same pipe for reading and writing in the same process. It's still
IPC, despite the fact that it's talking only between one process.
What say you to these things?
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What the hell is MS thinking?
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 02:38:52 -0500
Joel Barnett wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Joel Barnett wrote:
> > >
> > > "Johannes Bauer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > >Why ?
> > > > Because you can prove to the world that Windows is the "superior" OS
> > > > thus increasing the number of people who buy it thus increasing the
> > > > money MS earns thus increasing the support Windows will get by
> > > > Microsoft. "Make a better world"
> > >
> > > I have no interest in promoting Windows, nor do I believe it is superior
> to
> > > Linux. I need the functionality that W2k terminal server offers and I
> know
> > > of no equal or better alternative.
> >
> > This must be some really strange set of requirements. I can't think of a
> single
> > application for which terminal server would be appropriate, which another
> > alternative isn't a better choice. Please enlighten me, why do you need
> > terminal server?
>
> A remote sales office has 5 users who nedd to do the usual sort of stuff,
> input customer orders, run sales reports, check customer order status, etc..
> For this they need to be able to use the application we have for this. This
> app, (inhouse developed), and it's database reside on a Netware 4.x server
> at our main office. The terminal server allows the remote users to connect
> via a VPN, and do their work. They also use a contact mgr., (Goldmine), over
> the terminal server. The remote office has a peer to peer network of W2k
> workstations, a router, firewall, and a fractional T1 line.
>
> Basically, the TS allows the remote users to work as if they were in our
> main office. Instead of being connected to our LAN via a cat5 cable, they
> are connected over the internet through a VPN tunnel.
I still don't understand why terminal server makes sense here. You already have
a VPN, why not use the regular LAN protocols over the VPN? If your VPN is
configured correctly, everything should just work as if you are local anyway.
The only way TS may be a performance gain is if you have a database application
which does not use a database "server," i.e. some sort of file shared x-base
system where each program locks and updates blocks on a set of files via a file
sharing protocol. These systems are inherently bad when multiple concurrent
users are active. If you have that, I would suggest that it be written to use
some kind of database client/server model, preferably SQL.
If you are using a database server like SQL, then it will be much more
efficient to use the VPN to relay packets of data instead of the Windows
desktop ala terminal server.
Running TS they way you are describing sounds like the worst possible idea one
could have.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >I don't need to visit a website to know how well our W2k terminal
> server
> > > is
> > > > >working.
> > > > But maybe you'd need one to show you the clear facts: For every one
> > > > Windows-server that runs stable (high uptime) there are dozens (if not
> > > > hundreds) of Linux-servers (well, Linux, Unix, BSD, etc.) that run
> > > > stable. Point proven?
> > >
> > > I am not denying the validity of the information you are referring to.
> > >
> > > You asked why someone would run a Windows server OS. I have told you why
> I
> > > do. If there is a better alternative for me, I would like to know.
> >
> > What is your criteria, and let us have a whack at it.
>
> The criteria is do what we are doing currently. I would like to know if
> there is an alternative. Our Netware 4.x servers (file & print services)
> will be replaced by Linux boxes running samba & Netatalk. For this purpose I
> see no reason to use W2k server or even Netware 5.x. Linux will do the job
> as good or better at a better price.
No problem there.
--
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time.
The terror of their tyranny, however, is alleviated by their lack of
consistency.
-- Albert Einstein
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE or DOJ ?
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 01:44:53 -0600
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 18:15:05 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > Have you used KDE extensively? It's not bad, but it's not the
> > Explorer killer that you seem to think it is. It's still way to
> > complicated to configure (have you actually tried looking through the
> > configuration settings?)
>
> Is this one of those things, like your criticism of OS/2, whereby one
> system having features or options that another doesn't is a strike
> against the first on the grounds of it being "too complicated"?
Not just too complicated, but confusing, inconsistent, prone to failure and
slow. The KDE panel configuration tool is an exercise in futility. I spent
days trying to add panels in Mandrake 7.2, and they wouldn't appear. I
thought maybe I had to restart KDE for them to be visible, but no go. The
panels appeard in the panel editor, but didn't appear in the menus. It was
just goofy. (this was KDE 2.0 upgraded to the release version).
Now, you're right. I'm talking about 2.0 and not 2.1, but I can't imagine
it's changed that much in such a short amount of time.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE or DOJ ?
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 01:45:45 -0600
"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Is this one of those things, like your criticism of OS/2, whereby one
> > system having features or options that another doesn't is a strike
> > against the first on the grounds of it being "too complicated"?
>
> No, this is Erik just blowing smoke. KDE 2.1 has been out for only 2
> days. There is no way he has even tried it, let alone extensively.
I used KDE 2.0 quite a bit. I can't imagine that 2.1 has changed it that
radically in only the last 2 or 3 months since 2.0 was released.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: M$ doing it again!
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 01:46:42 -0600
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "Klaus-Georg Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > For instance, sys_geteuid16 is a syscall that's completely
undocumented
> > > > other than it's uncommented source code.
> > >
> > > I'm pretty sure this syscall will be documented better in glibc, the
> > > user of these syscalls. From the name alone and some context knowledge
> > > I can deduce what it does, without ever looking at the source.
> > >
> > > Linux 2.4 has 32bit uids, while in 2.2 they were 16 bits. This must be
> > > the call to provide binary compatibility for old apps, compiled with
> > > 16 bits uids. The glue around this is provided by glibc.
> > >
> > > So duh, it is selfdocumenting.
> >
> > Self-documenting only works when the programmer knows the context of
which
> > to look at it in. If I didn't know what an uid was, much less the
> > difference between a 16 bit or 32 bit one, how would I know what that
> > function does?
> >
> > Claiming something is self-documenting only works for people that
already
> > know what the code is for and does.
>
> Ignorance and an antipathy toward learning, does not mean something is not
> documented.
The purpose of documentation is to teach and inform. How can it do that if
you have to already know what it does before it can document itself?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 01:53:40 -0600
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > The way most people by OS's is pre-insstalled on a new system.
>
> Therefore the OEM prices are applicable for most sales.
>
> >Bought that way, the price is a higher than than $180, and a lot higher
than
> >the $50 you quoted..
>
> No, it is not. Search pricewatch for pricing on OEM versions. (Note that
an OEM
> version *cannot* be an upgrade, and "OEM upgrade version" is an oxymoron.)
Not completely true. MS has made a habit out of creating OEM upgrade
versions at the beginning of the release of a new OS. OEM's can give users
upgrade coupons if they buy before the new OS is released, thus when the OS
comes out, the user sends in the coupon and get's an OEM'd "upgrade" CD that
allows them to install over the previous version. MS stops selling these
shortly after the OS is released though.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments....
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 02:00:08 -0600
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> The term MONOPOLY is a legal term assigned companies who've violated
> >> the publics trust.
> >
> >Hmm.. Black's law dictionary (pretty much the final word in definitions
in
> >the law world) states:
> >
> >legal monopoly
> > The exclusive right granted by government to business to provide utility
> >services that are, in turn, regulated by the government
> >
>
>http://www.lawoffice.com/portal/index.jsp?pageID=consumer1&nav=Home&subnav=
n
>
>ull&dcp=blacks_definition.jsp&load=false&path=\www\Dictionary\Dictionary10\
B
> >LD19703_I332C7504C9EF4C9D83E9BA7F83D09B4E.xml
> >
>
> If you'd read the half dozen links I've made, you'll
> see it was the Judicial system which put the term
> for the penalty in the books after the Standard Oil
> breakup occured.
You claimed that one should look up the term monopoly in a legal dictionary,
which I did. You claimed there was no such thing as a legal monopoly, I
proved you wrong by providing a link to *THE* legal dictionary which defines
it.
> >> Please read the legal definition for the term MONOPOLY I've posted
> >> a half dozen times on this thread.
> >
> >And posted wrongly.
> >
>
> How do you post a link wrongly Erik?
You asked for the legal definition. I provide a link to the defacto legal
dictionary which defines "legal monopoly".
> Are you saying the 6 links I've posted are crap?
>
> Is this going to be another EF against the world night?
Are you saying that Black's is wrong?
> >> MONOPOLY power is assigned to those companies who have violated public
> >> trust in the marketplace.
> >
> >Yes. But that is not the only way the term is used.
>
> Now wait a minute. Hold the phone here.
>
> You just finished telling me I was full of shit.
Yes, you are full of shit that there is no such thing as a legal monopoly.
You are not full of shit that one of the definitions of Monopoly is what you
gave.
> That term isn't a generic term you can just throw around
> like "WAZUP".
Well, I'm sure Black's would love to know that you know more than they do.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux?
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 02:02:37 -0600
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I was wondering if you would answer a simple question for me.
> I'm appearently too stupid to answer it.
Apparently.
> When your installing FreeBSD 4.2, how can I get XF86Setup?
> Where is it on the menu's?
Assuming you've installed X, /usr/X11R6/bin/XF86Setup
> Why do they force you to setup /dev/sysmouse first?
They don't. You only need /dev/sysmouse if you are using moused.
------------------------------
From: Klaus-Georg Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: M$ doing it again!
Date: 01 Mar 2001 08:50:43 +0100
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Klaus-Georg Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > For instance, sys_geteuid16 is a syscall that's completely undocumented
> > > other than it's uncommented source code.
> >
> > I'm pretty sure this syscall will be documented better in glibc, the
> > user of these syscalls. From the name alone and some context knowledge
> > I can deduce what it does, without ever looking at the source.
> >
> > Linux 2.4 has 32bit uids, while in 2.2 they were 16 bits. This must be
> > the call to provide binary compatibility for old apps, compiled with
> > 16 bits uids. The glue around this is provided by glibc.
> >
> > So duh, it is selfdocumenting.
>
> Self-documenting only works when the programmer knows the context of which
> to look at it in. If I didn't know what an uid was, much less the
> difference between a 16 bit or 32 bit one, how would I know what that
> function does?
If you didn't know what an uid was, you'd have no business programming
in nor using Unixlike systems at all, and if you worked for me, I'd
send to you a library to get some education.
Then, after you come back, I'd ask you why you had to snoop in the
kernel if you are writing userspace programs. That's what the libc
headers and documetation are for.
If you try to program a kernel module otoh, you don't need to know
syscalls. You need to know the kernel-internal API to the module you
are trying to whip up.
So duh, it is selfdocumenting for the intended audience.
--
kga
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux?
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 02:09:24 -0600
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> As long as we're going to read this, what does FreeBSD 5.0 bring
> us in the future. That's supposed to be out in the fall sometime
> with 4.3 being released at the end of next month.
Well, my understanding is that they're completely overhauling the SMP
support, and the threading models. They're adding kernel threads, better
pthread support, tighter security/auditing (probably more in line with the
NT event system and DAC's), direct support for Alpha, ia64, and possibly
PowerPC and ARM.
You can read more in the main branch release notes:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/~checkout~/src/release/texts/i386/RELN
OTES.TXT?rev=1.215&content-type=text/plain
------------------------------
From: William Kendrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: WEB: "Indrema Informer"
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 08:01:16 GMT
"Indrema Informer" is a site dedicated to the Indrema Entertainment System,
an upcoming Linux-based set-top video game console and entertainment system:
http://www.newbreedsoftware.com/bill/indrema/
The site includes information about the Indrema's features,
notable quotes from company officials (mostly answers to
developers' questions), links to over 70 news articles regarding Indrema,
links to other Indrema-related sites, and a glossary of technical terms.
For those unfamiliar with the Indrema, their first product, the L600,
will be a 600Mhz x86-based system, running DV-Linux. It will have a
DVD drive, ~10GB harddrive, HDTV support, six USB ports, and
built-in Ethernet.
The systems will include MP3-, audio-CD- and DVD-video- playback software,
Gecko-based web browser, a POP-based e-mail client, and "Personal TV"
features (a la TiVo and RePlay services).
The company provides two kinds of software certification for game
designers- one for commercial developers, and one for "freeware"
developers.
The Indrema SDK is free, and is already available. It is based on
OpenGL, OpenAL, and OpenStream APIs.
-bill!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.newbreedsoftware.com/bill/
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux?
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 02:11:44 -0600
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > FreeBSD and OpenBSD are quite a bit more secure than Linux due to many
> > process they adoped quite a while ago. Buffer overruns are a rarity,
and
> > almost always in a port rather than the core OS.
>
> True of OpenBSD, not so true of FreeBSD.
More so than Linux. For instance, the FreeBSD team adopted policies on the
use of strncpy, etc.. and have changed all source to follow the same
standards to prevent this from being a cause of buffer overruns.
------------------------------
From: WarpKat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: MS Price Strategy (was Microsoft Tax)
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 08:04:18 GMT
I've actually asked a full $180 (or whatever the cost of Windows currently
is) to be deducted from a laptop that I had no intention of running Windows
on. The sales person laughed at me. I hung up. 'nuff said.
David Brown wrote:
> Here is a fascinating site, which includes links to back up most of its
> claims:
> http://www.vcnet.com/bms/departments/dirtytricks.shtml
>
> A quotation from it is applicable to the Microsoft Tax thread:
>
> We have increased our prices over the last 10 years [while] other
> component
> prices have come down and continue to come down.
>
> JOACHIM KEMPIN, Microsoft Senior Vice President
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd.misc
Subject: Re: Hijacking the IP stack
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 02:13:56 -0600
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> You know! I'm thankful that there's one more person on this planet
> who's realized this.
>
> Microsoft STOLE the code for the stack from BSD.
How can you steal something that is given away freely with the express
intention for you to take it and do whatever you like with it without
restriction?
That's like Max saying "Here Erik, take this $20. Take it. Do whatever you
want with it." and then having you run up and saying "Erik STOLE that $20
from Max".
Wait.. I guess that is something you would do, isn't it?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
