Linux-Advocacy Digest #864, Volume #32 Sun, 18 Mar 01 05:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: the truth about linux (Rex Ballard)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Edward Rosten)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rex Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: the truth about linux
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 09:49:27 GMT
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
==============C555E411331DA078697713E5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
"Public " wrote:
>
> Here are some humorous snippets from a site located at
>http://members.aol.com/erichuf/Linux.html
>
> Finally! somebody willing to tell the truth!
>
> Who needs who?
> Both Sun and IBM can run Internet routers; we do not need Linux for that.
Guess what, those routers are derivative products of Open Source code.
The BSD
license preceeded GPL by about 2 years, but UNIX was the original "Open
Source" product.
GPL simply used the ability to tie License terms to a copyright to
restrict the use
of dirivative products to create proprietary products from products
contributed to
the public with the intent of preserving the original copyright and
license terms.
Many of the original BSD authors published GPL versions of their
products, and AT&T and
other companies also paid premiums for prioprietary versions which they
could extend
(but which did not have any 3rd party contributions). One company even
tried to get
"certificates of authenticity" for an entire branch of MQSeries. Linux
> And all the applications we want are coming from non-open source people.
Are you sure? Many of Microsoft's products are dirivatives of open
source procured
under rather questionable terms. Internet Explorer is a direvative of
Mosaic,
which was an open source project contributed to the NCSA by, among
others, Marc Andreeson.
There were at least 5 NCSA institutions including Cornel, Stanford,
Irvine, MIT, and
Berkely engaged in the "Browser" project, including Lynx, Viola, Cello,
Mosaic, Arena,
and what eventually became Opera (a proprietary version of a W3C
generated XML based
standard implemented in Open Source).
> So what do need the open source people for?
Keep in mind that every part of the Internet, including what we now call
"The Web"
was created, nurtured, enhanced, and formalized from Open Source.
Microsoft has been
trying to come up with a "Better UNIX than UNIX" since 1990. This was
the promise
of Windows NT. Windows 2000 has many of the traits of UNIX, including,
perhaps, a
fair amount of Open Source source code. Microsoft has obtained nearly
all of it's
code from other, often questionable sources. And much of this code
originated as
Open Source code.
Supposed there had never been Open Source? Unix would never have been
distributed to
MIT, Berkeley, Stanford, Carnagie Mellon, and the other schools who then
created
TCP/IP, Sockets, windowed systems (Emacs), curses, web browsers,
streaming, mulitmedia,
3d graphics, gifs, jpegs, Limpel-Ziv compression, DES encryption, and
whole new breakthroughs
in reliability, performance, and security.
> What will they give us that we do not already have?
Sure, you take all the goodies and then you want to kill the goose that
lays
the golden eggs.
Consider what you would have had if there had never been UNIX or Linux.
We'd probably
still be using BSC-3270 terminals on DOS/VS, RT-11, MS-DOS 1.0, and
perhaps some hacked
up version of SmallTalk - complete with the massive corruption problems.
> Does the world really need Linux?
No, the world needs food, clothing, shelter, and in extreme climates,
fuel for
heat. We don't need telephones, cars, televisions, web browsers,
electricity,
refrigeration, or hundreds of other little conveniences we now take for
granted.
On the other hand, all of these "conveniences" have also played a
critical role in
improving the deployment of those other necessities. In many cases, the
unrestricted
flow of information has led to prolonged economic growth. The
automobile and the
Airplane triggered the boom of the "Roaring" 1920s, the Telephone led to
the boom of
the 1900s, the Television led to a boom in the 1950s and 1960s. The PC
triggered a boom
in late 1970s that lasted into the early 1980s. The UNIX system created
a boom that
fueled econmic growth from 1991 to 2001. Linux was a key player in that
growth, especially
from 1994 on.
When money was flowing freely, most people didn't want to put the stamp
of Linux
or UNIX on the front of the case. They found Madison Avenue buzzwords
like Internet
Servers, Web Servers, Intranet, Business to Business, Middleware, and
Appliance Servers
as terminology to describe the systems that Linux and UNIX literally
created.
Microsoft spent Billions to keep Linux and UNIX out of the media
spotlight. And may
have been involved in some "pump and dump" to discredit the Linux
movement. Ironically,
Linux is one of the fastest growing industries, but investors have lost
their taste
for companies that double or triple revenue every year while costs only
increase at
a fraction of the growth rate. They'd rather invest in companies whose
revenues go up
20% (or less) per year while the expenses go up 30% (or more) per year.
During the "Y2K Mania", corporations didn't want to introduce new UNIX
technology
into the corporation because they were too busy trying to fix all the
bugs in MS-DOS,
Windows NT, MVS, and VMS. They outsourced and let other companies do
the hosting.
With big companies willing to pay gigabucks to have other companies
manage their
"advertizing", web hosting services and companies like Yahoo and Amazon
were doing
pretty well.
With Y2K over, corporations are realizing that their internet system is
becoming an integral
and strategic part of their entire IT system. Many companies initially
spend billions on
Windows NT and Windows 2000 systems and were very disappointed in the
results. They
then began going after the industry leaders and discovered that the real
secret to success
in the IT/Internet/Web market required the use of UNIX and Linux. Many
companies actually
spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to have presentations and
evaluations of proprietary
products, only to discover that Open Source products were often a
critical element of
the overall integration strategy.
> Do we need the open source people?
Do you need them? Probably not. But if your most ruthless competitor
starts using them,
and you don't have them, you have a problem. With your competitor
spending the $2 million
he would have spent on Microsoft royalties on efforts highly leveraged
by Open Source
products (perhaps mixed with some proprietary code), he can get more
market share in less
time, and still maintain a strategic advantage.
You can have a great Database, even a good ERP and CRM package, and a
nicely established
legacy system, but Linux and Open Source will help you integrate these
systems more quickly,
more efficiently, more reliably, and more cost-effectively. Those Linux
consultants will
get the job done before your Microsoft consultants finish evaluating the
available GUI-centric
packages.
> Should we support or encourage them?
Could you afford to turn your back on the internet? Can you afford not
to take cash
orders via the web? Can you affort NOT to have a web site? Can you
afford to limit
your web site to advertizing which gives no opportunity for
interaction? Can you
afford to do without a telephone? Would you give up your Fax? Would you
go back
to typing on a mechanical (non-electric) typewriter? Could you do
without elecricity?
Could you do without trains, airplanes, traffic lights, even your
automobile?
Open Source plays a critical role in all of these products, services,
and commodities.
Linux distributions simply put the bulk of these Open Source products
together into a
single package. These are even the tip of the iceburg. The fact is
that nearly every
minute of your time is impacted and enhanced by open source products.
> The sad fact is that the world does not need the open source people,
> nor their lousy applications.
Quite the opposite. The world is discovering that Open Source people
are a critical
resource in very short supply. Most of us get 2-3 calls per day from
clients and
recruiters desparate to get some open source talent. Linux will play a
critical role
in providing that talent.
> IBM is spending so much time and money on Linux that they
> may as well just take control of Linux and finish developing it.
Actually, IBM is making a very safe bet that their $1 billion investment
will have
a $20 billion (or more) payback. IBM could never have afforded to
develop the
billions of lines of code that now exists in the SuSE Linux
distribution. The
availability of more Open Source code could boost the line even
further. IBM
has provided a number of products to the Linux community, and has also
contributed
a number of Open Source products of it's own such as Jikes and Postfix.
Linux has helped Sun sell millions of Solaris systems, and it has helped
IBM sell millions
of AIX systems. IBM is even hoping that the availability of Linux on
OS/390 will help
them sell a few thousand mainframes.
> Who knows if the open source people will ever finish Linux.
UNIX and Linux are evolutionary platforms. A great deal of effort is
focused on backward compatibility. At the same time new features are
introduced without losing the compatibility with older systems. The
same source code compiled on a BSD 4.1 system in 1984 can be
recompiled on an Alpha or PPC or Merced and run on Linux in 2001.
In some cases, the legacy code even produces an enhanced result. An
athena application
will now produce a 3D look because you can link in the Athena 3D linux.
> Why not just let IBM take over and quit encouraging this farce that
> open source will give us a new operating system?
Actually, Linux has prodided a remarkably good system. Furthermore, the
proprietary systems
such as AIX, Solaris, True-64, HP-UX, and others have reaped the
benefits of Open Source.
Most modern UNIX systems support BASH, PERL, Java, Korn shell, and of
course X11. All of
these were Open Source products.
> Or why not put our support behind Sun Solaris?
IBM, Compaq, and HP aren't going to be too keen on letting Solaris
control their operating
system. Sun, Compaq, HP, and SGI won't be too keen on turning control
over to AIX. IBM,
Compaq, Sun, and SGI won't be to trusting of HP. There have been
numerous attempts to
standardize UNIX, and each company tries to add their own proprietary
infrastructure.
Linux provides a common baseline. Open Source provides a common
infrastructure that
can be used on any number of platforms. It also makes it easier to
create software
that can be created on Linux and then be immediately ported to nearly
every flavor
of Linux.
> Why support these arrogant, obnoxious, and Marxist Linux people?
Arrogant - sometimes true. T. Maxx Devlin is a bit extreme.
Obnoxious - again sometimes true - the Kulkus 80 line signature is a but
much.
Marxist? Nearly everyone I know has a very realistic, and capitalistic
sense of
their own value. Bill Gates once owned 25% of the company while NT
programmers
worked 200 hour weeks in a series of "death marches" for a few hundred
shares
of Microsoft stock. An even larger body were hired as consultants and
got nothing,
not even the right to their own intellectual property. Stories of
Gate's totalitarian
rule are well-known.
We also have numerous examples of Microsoft's rather interesting
procurement and sales
techniques.
Most of the Open Source community consists of very well-paid
professionals, including
consultants, system administrators, and even members of corporate IT
development departments.
In many cases, intellectual property is traded for licenses and the
recipient then places
the product into Open Source.
> IBM could continue to provide Linux to the customers who insist upon it,
> but they should quit encouraging the open source movement.
Why? IBM is getting about $10 in R&D, promotion, information, and
support for every
dollar its spends on Open Source. They couldn't hire people that
cost-effectively.
Many of their own employees don't even have offices any more, they have
offices in their
homes, and go to client sites.
> Is progress slow with Linux?
> Linux was released in 1991, so it has been in development for almost 10 years.
Linux has been evolving for almost 10 years. And enjoyed the fruits of
nearly 30 years
of UNIX evolution. Each new release has both bug fixes (most of which
have already
been made available via the internet) and new features.
In 1991, Linux offered most of the same features as BSD 4.2, without the
restrictions
and patents. By 1992, it offered improved security, memory management,
paging, disk
management, and displays. By 1993, Linux offered the features of the
Sparc-10 workstation
costing over $25,000 in 1992. By 1994, Linux supported Plug-and-play
(on PCI, ISA, EISA, and
MCA), multiple desktops, multiple users, web browsers, web servers, and
all of the features
of Windows 2000 Enterprise Edition, including Back-office, in a box
costing less than $1000.
More important, Linux adhered to, and helped to define, the industry
standards used
in the Internet, Intranets, Extranets, the Web, EAI, and rapid
application development.
Microsoft has been playing "Catch Up" to UNIX systems who benefit from
the Open Source, since 1982. Microsoft has been playing catch-up to
Linux since
1993.
Microsoft had 2 advantages. The first, OEMs preinstalled Windows 9x or
NT which gave the illusion of making Windows easier to install. Linux
actually supported more products
and offered greater platform flexibility, but Microsoft did everything
they could
to keep Linux distributors from getting support from OEMs and IHVs.
Microsoft's contracts
are clearly illegal and Microsoft has repeatedly twisted the letter of
the law to
thwart the spirity and intent of the law.
Microsoft's other advantage was that they made Personal Computers easy
to learn and easy
to use. But even this is a claim of diminishing returns. FVWM-95
offered the same
user interface used by Windows 95, and users eventually dropped it
because it was
"obsolete" with user preferring AfterStep, GNOME, and KDE to the "9x"
interface.
Eventually, Microsoft adopted look-and-feel from Linux, much of which
has been implemented
on Windows 2000 and Windows ME. Even this requires custom
configuration.
Ironically, UNIX and Linux became so easy to use, that most people
didn't even know
that they were using it. The average PC user now spends as much as 60%
of their time
connected to UNIX and Linux based Internet and Intranet servers. Linux
fueld the fire.
> Is progress slow with Linux?
New Linux distributions come out about 8 times/year. Red Hat, Caldera,
SuSE, and
Mandrake usually release 2-4 releases per year per distribution. Each
distribution
usually leapfrogs the previous players. This week, SuSE 7.1 features
the 2.4 kernel
including enhanced USB, fire-wire, DVD, and multimedia support. You can
now run that
IBM webcam on SuSE 7.1.
Actually, Microsoft and it's partners have had to spend Billions just to
keep pace with
Linux. Many of the ISVs have even realized that they have a much better
chance of
surviving in a Linux market than they had in the Windows NT market. In
some cases,
strong participation in Linux has even yielded funding from Microsoft
(Corel).
> Or is Linux simply so advanced that it requires a lot of time?
Linux is a paradox. You can put a moderately experienced Windows user
in front
of a properly configured Mandrake Linux system and they will have no
problem
running Linux applications. Many will even LIKE StarOffice.
> Most of the people who work on Linux and Linux related software do
> not provide much information on their lives, but there are a couple
> of Web sites where some of the developers are interviewed.
Actually, many Linux people get paid, but not directly, for creating
Linux or
Open Source software. Many of us work as consultants or IT
professionals in
the corporate markets and have declared our participation in the Open
Source
Movement.
> At the KDE site some people describe whether or not they are paid for
> their work and how much work they do. Here is what I found:
> Not paid:
> Jing-Jong Shyue, Gregory Mokhin, Wolfram Diestel, Rinse de Vries,
> Stefan Taferner, Tink Bastian, Luigi Genoni, Lars Knoll, Sandy Meier,
> Rik Hemsley, Claudiu Costin, Cristian Tibirna, Lauri Watts
Not paid at all for anything they do? Are they independently wealthy?
Or perhaps
they do other things for money, and use Open Source products for their
own professional
benefit and give a little back in the form of Open Source.
> Some pay:
> Matthias Elter, Chris Schlaeger
I suppose Linux Torvalds would be in this camp too. His primary job is
writing
code for Transmeta. But he also makes a small income coordinating and
organizing
the Linux development team.
> Confused answers:
> Reginald Stadlbauer, Stephan Kulow
> Full time pay:
> David Faure, Waldo Bastian, Matthias Ettrich
>
> Not everybody at KDE has been interviewed yet, but so far it appears as if KDE has
>more volunteers than employees. Here are some of their remarks that I found
>interesting:
>
> Question: How much time do you spend on KDE?
I've spend an average of 20 hours/week supporting Open Source and have
done so since
1984 - including helping to draft the language of the first General
Public License
(and arguing against some of the "Bison" terms).
> Rinse de Vries: I try to limit the time to 1 hour a day.
> Stefan Taferner: approx. 4 hours a week or so
> Luigi Genoni: 2/3 hours per day at home at night (is that 2 to 3 hours, or .6667
>hours?)
> Matthias Elter: between 0 and 12 hours a day.
> Rik Hemsley: Probably between 20-40 hours a week
> Reginald Stadlbauer: the last half year I had nearly no time for it
> Wolfram Diestel: Some days several hours, other days none.
> Question: Are you being paid to work for KDE and if yes by who?
>
> Wolfram Diestel: No, at the moment I only get money from my wife for caring for my
>daughter
> Rik Hemsley: Unfortunately not. ... I'm looking for a 'real' job now.
>
> I find it amusing to visualize an IBM Engineering Laboratory
> where most engineers work only an hour or two a day,
Talk to some of the members of the Global Services Practices. Most of
them spend
several hours a week focused on "Intellectual Capital", this includes
documentation,
source code, and promotional efforts, for a number of different products
and projects.
This is just "standard fare" for many of them. With Open Source, they
can reach
a wider audience.
> most are volunteers, and many are students.
No, they are professionals who know the importances of maintaining "the
edge".
You don't get much demand for System 360 assembler these days. I know
one guy
who still does a little RT-11, but it's hard to make a career of it.
Windows practitioners have the pleasure of discovering that everything
they knew
for Windows NT 3.51 is now obsolete for NT 4.0. And even though NT 4.0
applications
run under Windows 2000, their certifications are no longer valid, their
rank is in
jeopardy, and they have to try and convince customers to convert to MTS
and MSMQ
even though the IBM products, CICS and MQSeries are in direct
competition.
Meanwhile, the UNIX people are using Linux on their laptops for
prototyping and
can quickly port to nearly any flavor of UNIX. IBM now offers versions
of
WebSphere, Domino, DB2, MQSeries, Visual Age for Java, ViaVoice, and
several
other utilities.
IBM isn't alone either. Sybase, Oracle, Seibel, SAP, Peoplesoft, CA
Unicenter, and
numerous other companies are offering Linux flavors of hardware and
softeware. Even Sun
now offers Linux (via it's Cobalt product line).
> This laboratory would be empty most of the day.
Actually, when you have 30,000 people remotely accessesing the lab 24/7,
your biggest
problem is getting in. Fortunately, you have software that lets you in
securely.
The great thing about Linux and UNIX is that you don't have to be
physically present
to operate the system. Furthermore, many users and many applications
can share each
UNIX or Linux system.
> Occasionally a volunteer engineer would come in to do perhaps an hour of work.
Actually, they might spend 10-12 hours working on problems which involve
open source
products, which are funded by the client. At the end of the day, the
contributor
mines intellectual property which he harvests and brings back to the
community. The
customers get better prices because consultants can leverage existing
intellectual capital,
and in return, they allow consultants to mine, sterilize, and archive
intellectual capital.
If clients don't want to do the "Giveback", the prices are higher.
> Then he would rush home to baby-sit his daughter or rush off to college.
Where he is doing a MSEE, MBA, or PhD and taking courses which require
state of the art
software which is only available (in an enhancable form) in Open
Source. Sure, he could
spend hours being "the parser", and maybe he could come up with
something useful under
Windows. With UNIX/Linux, he can take the source and tailor it to fit
his needs, or he can write a small perl script to go between some other
applications and get the results
he wants consistently.
Some of the contributors to the open source project are really focused
on finding oil,
mapping human Genes, predicting the path of hurricanes, or finding the
next hot stock.
But they happen to write some useful filters or components that can be
published without
"giving away the farm". Often, the difference between the specialist
function and a
generic one is only a few lines of source code.
> Some engineers would go months without entering the laboratory because
> they would be too busy with other things, such as their school work and
> their part-time job at a fast-food restaurant.
I suppose you have something there. UNIX does play a key role in the
control and
management of Burger King, McDonalds, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, and numerous
other
fast-food restaurants. Linux is being moved into these markets as part
of the
Caldera purchase of the services branch of SCO. Microsoft is still
bound by the
SCO contract because Caldera didn't take over the whole company.
Caldera did however
guaranteed SCO some money "off the top" (to make sure they couldn't be
bankrupted).
> Some of the engineers would not have a part-time job;
> their only source of income would be from baby-sitting their
> daughter while their wife works.
This is amusing. On the other hand, there are a number of working
mothers who love
the fact that they can create web-sites from their homes. They don't
have to leave
the house if they don't want to. They can even use a web-cam to have
"face-to-face"
meetings with others.
> Some engineers would bring the newspaper to work so they
> could look through the classified advertisements for jobs.
Actually, one of the biggest problems of most Linux consultants is that
they have
to "blow off" head-hunters and recruiters. It can be a bit embarassing
to leave
you cell-phone turned on, have it ring in the middle of a meeting, only
to be subjected
to a 90 second "pitch" AFTER saying "I can't talk now". What's really
bad is when you
have to wear your hands-free every time you are driving because you
could get a call
from a client, another consultant, or a recruiter, just as your about to
go through
a GSP toll-gate.
> I can imagine what the conversations might be like:
>
> “Hey Joe, why are you looking so serious?”
> “Oh, I was wondering if I should ask my wife for more money.
> She pays me only $7 per hour for baby-sitting our daughter.”
Funny, most conulting gigs run about $250/hour. Some of the junior
people get a bit
less - more like $180/hour. If you have an S-Corp, you can usually make
$100/hour
on "3rd party placements". If you have a good combination of Linux and
NT, the rate
goes up to nearly $150/hour.
> “And you're complaining?
> That is more than I make at McDonald's!
> I'd be happy to switch places with you.”
McDonalds pays SCO a pretty hefty sum for each store, and the
administrators almost NEVER
go to the franchise. With UNIX and Linux, everything can be done
remotely. In fact,
if someone does try to get to the computer, burglar alarms go off.
> “But you get a free meal, don't you?
> My wife charges me rent, and I have to pay half of the utility bill.”
This really is silly. If you're having problems getting a placement,
send me an e-mail.
I've got a list of about 30 recruiters who would love to talk to you -
if you have some
hefty Open Source experience.
> http://members.aol.com/erichuf/Linux.html
>
> ---
> This message did not originate from the Sender address above.
> It was posted with the use of anonymizing software at
> http://anon.xg.nu
> ---
--
Rex Ballard
It Architect
http://www.open4success.com
==============C555E411331DA078697713E5
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
name="rballard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Rex Ballard
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="rballard.vcf"
begin:vcard
n:Ballard;Rex
tel;cell:908-723-4008
tel;work:973-723-4008
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
fn:Rex Ballard
end:vcard
==============C555E411331DA078697713E5==
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 09:45:14 GMT
Rick wrote:
> So --dont use it-. What a concept. Go use your Windoze and quit whining
> here.
When Linux SuSE 7.1 is described as a "Windows Killer", you can expect a
reaction!
http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reviews/3052/1/
--
Pete
Running on SuSE 7.1, Linux 2.4, KDE 2.1
All your fly zone are belong to us
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 10:06:25 +0000
> >> Forgetting how people perceive Linux are we?
> >
> > Forgetting how people perceive a thread (based on the subject)?
>
> Linux Oopsie pretty much says it all.
No, GIMP or MDK Oopsie says it. Is it any wonder you get so many flames
with an attitude like this? This has _nothing_ to do with Linux. It can
happen under _any_ OS.
> >> Huh? How can any of the other OS's use the windows print system as
> >> standard? OpenVMS certainly didn't use Postscript internally, and neither
> >> did RISC OS.
> >
> > You seemed to be complaining that UNIX used PS as the standard printer
> > metadata format because it is not standard. I was pointing out that
> > there is no standard (by using a trivial example).
> >
> > So, Windows, UNIX, OpenVMS, RiscOS and MacOS al;l use different printer
> > metadata formats as standard on that platform. Why is UNIX worse for
> > using PostScript (as you seemed to be implying).
>
> It's not worse, it's just interesting that nothing else uses Postscript in
> that way.
Incorrect. Many high end printers use postscript in this way, as well as
a large family of operating systems.
But this not really interesting. If it was, it would be interesting that
Windows is the only system to use the Windows Print System. It would be
even more interesting that RiscOS uses its won print system.
Why is it interesting that UNIX is the only one to use PS for meta data
wen $OS is the only one to use $OS_PRINT_METADATA for its metadata?
It looks to me like you are using a very wooly argument in an attempt to
make UNIX look bas.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the oldest known rock is the famous |u98ejr
Hackenthorpe rock, which is over three trillion years |@
old? |eng.ox
-The Hackenthorpe Book of Lies |.ac.uk
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
