Linux-Advocacy Digest #923, Volume #32 Tue, 20 Mar 01 11:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Yet more XBox bogification... (Jim Naylor)
Re: What is user friendly? ("Craig Oshima")
Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism ("Shades")
Stupid error message (Neil Cerutti)
Re: What is user friendly? ("Craig Oshima")
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (Tuomo Takkula)
Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism (LShaping)
Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism ("Shades")
Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism ("Shades")
Re: What is user friendly? (John Fereira)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim Naylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yet more XBox bogification...
Date: 20 Mar 2001 14:52:16 GMT
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Phil B) wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rick
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Jim Naylor wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rick
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Edwin wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Jim Naylor wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Edwin
> > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jim Naylor wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > > > > > Edwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [snip]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There's no "lying" going on at all. I've
> > > > > > > > seen protypes from other game companies.
> > > > > > > > This is common practice.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Edwin
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "I have never outrightly lied on this group
> > > > > > > > in spite of whatever you think to the
> > > > > > > > contrary. Alright I lied. But except in the
> > > > > > > > case of Macsbug and DONK nobody had me dead
> > > > > > > > to rights. I lied. So sue me." -- EdWIN
> > > > > > > > Thorne
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jim Naylor once again trots out his
> > > > > > > cut-and-paste creation. He wants to make
> > > > > > > certain no one will ever mistake him for one
> > > > > > > who pocesses morals or ethics.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hey EdLOOPS, what's a protype?
> > > > >
> > > > > Go get an education.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Using words you dont (and nobody else does)
> > > > undestand? Tch, tch.
> > > >
> > > > > > "I have never outrightly lied on this group in
> > > > > > spite of whatever you think to the contrary.
> > > > > > Alright I lied. But except in the case of
> > > > > > Macsbug and DONK nobody had me dead to rights.
> > > > > > I lied. So sue me." -- EdWIN Thorne
> > > > > >
> > > > > If Jim can do it, so can I:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I see you are a liar again.
> > > >
> > > > > -- I'm a pedophile. I've been locked up for
> > > > > years for molesting little boys, but I just can't
> > > > > stop. I wish somebody would kill me. -- Jim
> > > > > Naylor
> > > >
> > > > You might want to ba a little careful about this
> > > > quote. It seems very close to libel.
> > >
> > > I know you realize that the above construction is not
> > > a quote, Rick. But your observation is absolutely on.
> > > My first reaction was to simply point out the
> > > absurdity of it. After sleeping on it, however, I'm
> > > wondering if that is adequate with this collection of
> > > personas, which behave collectively as if they have
> > > total freedom to emerge, lie, duck down while a new
> > > one pops out to deny, then pretend that nothing has
> > > happened.
> > >
> > > I'll be getting some legal advice today. Free speech
> > > does have its limits, no how many "faces of EdWIN"
> > > there are.
> > >
> >
> > Libel is not free speech. Good luck with the legal
> > advice.
> >
>
> I'm no lawyer, but FWIW, here are some general guidelines
> on (US-American) libel law:
>
> http://www.hg.org/communiintro1.html
>
> Of possible relevance is also an article about libel law
> in the context of public Internet forums such as Usenet:
>
> http://www.wsba.org/barnews/tech/greypunkfeb99.html
>
> Here is the conclusion from there:
>
> <quote>
>
> Conflicting holdings notwithstanding, what you find when
> you look under the sheets is that parties who are libeled
> on the Internet are remarkably like public figures in
> traditional libel settings. When they are libeled in
> public forums, unlike their private predecessors, they
> are not victims of lack of access to the media. In fact,
> they can (and frequently do) quickly respond with lengthy
> point-by-point refutations of the accusations by invoking
> the Supreme Courtıs preferred method of defense. Further,
> by "thrusting himself into the vortex" of public debate,
> the typical poster crosses the threshold from private
> into public figurehood[6] and bears the heavier burden of
> proof of the "malice" element of the tort, a standard
> that is difficult to meet. It is here that we find the
> answer to why there are so few libel cases arising from
> Internet discourse.
>
> <end-quote>
>
> From these (extremely cursory...) readings, it seems to
> me just off the top of my head, that one key question
> would then be whether Edwin's posting the offending
> statement twice, and cross-posting it to three newsgroups
> in the process the second time, would satisfy the legal
> definition of 'malice' in tort law or not, if this
> condition in fact must be met in cases involving the
> Internet as a decidedly public arena.
>
> There is also the aspect, even in light of the second
> article's findings, IMO, of there being at least a
> perceived distinction between the usual name-calling via
> the second person (e.g., trading epithets such as 'you
> moron', etc...) on the Internet and the attribution of an
> alleged quotation to someone using the first person
> singular with their name falsely attached to it, since
> this would tend to more strongly suggest some kind of
> factual accuracy or authenticity to a casual observer
> (e.g., that a given 'quote' can be found via Google text
> string searches...), rather than it being a simple
> expression of opinion about another person, however
> negative, offensive, or vile such an opinion may be, or
> seem to be, which far more clearly has its primary source
> in the person uttering the insults, typically.... Whereas
> most of us typically 'consent' to the ritualistic
> name-calling, however tacitly, by simply participating on
> these forums (and in many cases returning fire in kind as
> we do so...), the latter is correctly perceived, I think,
> as being a potentially much more serious matter, given
> that it is a potentially damaging misrepresentation of
> fact, not merely a verbal insult.
>
> Even there, though, the question of whether a person's
> name has simply become the equivalent of a virtual mask
> in the context of Usenet, to which ultimately no serious
> legal harm may ever be done here, is one I suppose a
> defense lawyer might wish to raise, in the spirit of an
> extreme nominalist skepticism trying to create 'probable
> doubt' in a jury's mind, even when referring to real,
> time-stamped posts, sent under real names from real news
> server locations. IOW, Usenet is the 'world' where people
> earnestly debate over whether the sky is blue, we must
> force ourselves to recall in such contexts; in theory,
> then, it might take forever for the prosecuting attorney
> to even establish that 'Edwin' is indeed a legal person
> or entity named 'Edwin', who bears full legal
> responsibility for all his actions [and is not someone
> who is criminally insane, for instance...], and etc.,
> under such and such circumstances on the 'Net... Sorry,
> I'm getting a bit dizzy now; but trying to emulate the
> thought patterns of lawyers without the proper training
> will do that to anyone after awhile, I should think...
> %-)
>
> -- IOW, seriously, when was the last time anyone took
> anything that was said on these forums seriously?....
>
> The risk of civil damages, as I believe Jim has already
> noted in the other CSMA-only thread where this happened,
> seems to be more that the alleged 'quote' might be taken
> out of context by lurkers or virtual passers-by (perhaps
> even including Jim's boss, or others upon whom his
> societal existence relies...) who _may_ mistakenly
> believe Edwin was actually publishing a real quote
> 'signed' by Jim, and etc., and view him with unwarranted
> suspicion thereafter, without a full knowledge of the
> circumstances (e.g., that Edwin was intentionally posting
> a blatant lie...), or worse (e.g., if a vigilante group
> ever were to show up on Jim's doorstep prepared to commit
> assault against the immoral person they mistakenly
> believed him to be as a direct result of reading Edwin's
> astonishing display of inauthenticity on Usenet... Even
> the thought in Jim's mind that this _might_ happen as a
> consequence of Edwin's posting such an evidently blatant
> falsehood about his character, however unwarranted or
> even 'paranoid' it may seem at the moment, is enough to
> plausibly establish a certain degree of 'emotional
> distress' in such a case, perhaps; and it's my
> understanding that the libel and slander laws are at
> least partly intended to help protect citizens from that
> sort of 'subjective' consequence or 'perceived injury',
> regardless of whether the initial action was unintended
> [or 'negligent'] or openly malicious, too... But then we
> get into free speech issues, the consequences of 'too
> much political correctness', and all sorts of explosive
> Usenet topics, don't we?... Hmmm, better not go there,
> after all... <g>).
>
> There are some indications (in: Melvin Belli/Allen P.
> Wilkinson, Everybody's Guide to the Law, NY: Harper Publ,
> 1986, p. 300f.), however, that at least in certain
> situations outside the Internet, it may not matter
> whether anybody actually believes a libel or a slander is
> true, in order for its object to have cause for a case in
> court (so-called 'slander per se', e.g., where a false
> statement is patently injurious and offensive to one's
> character or social standing, resulting in some degree of
> 'emotional distress', at a minimum...), although the
> damages one may claim to one's reputation in such cases
> are typically of a lesser degree, needless to say,
> particularly if the one uttering a slander or libel is
> widely recognized to be nothing but an ignorant fool (and
> at least according to King Solomon's wisdom in Proverbs
> 10:18, that is always the case when anyone utters a
> slander, regardless... YMMV...).
>
> It seems to me (an ignorant layperson....), a more
> general aspect of the law as it relates to this virtual
> world we call the Internet (and Usenet, in
> particular...), might well be the very basic one of legal
> jurisdictions within the established court system.... I
> note, for instance, that Edwin is posting from a news
> server in Germany these days, whereas IIRC, Jim lives
> somewhere in the USA. Even if Edwin is an American
> citizen, and US laws concerning libel would ultimately
> hold sway, where would Jim have to start the appeals
> process, such that his claims would be able to 'stick'?
> How does anyone properly prosecute libel 'across state
> lines', as it were, given the current circuit and
> district court appeals processes in the US, that would
> normally have to precede any federal or international
> jurisdiction or appeal at all? (X-ref:
> Kafka.Franz_The_Trial... <g>) Maybe this is not such a
> fundamental issue in the law, since I believe there can
> be real-world libel suits brought against individuals
> making injurious statements in media from other
> countries, and etc., presupposing local authorities'
> willingness to cooperate (and adding a whole other level
> of administrative complexity to the legal proceedings, no
> doubt...), but I also have to wonder to what extent the
> location of the ISP is, or can be, an issue at all, in
> properly determining which court should hear such a case
> in the first place, if at all (and also to what extent
> any ISP could ever be held liable for the proliferation
> of this sort of dreck, as distinct from a legally
> responsible editorial staff at a newspaper, or whatever;
> thus far, at least, the ISPs all seem rather
> well-protected by comparison to other 'media providers',
> such as publishing houses, newspapers or television
> stations, and necessarily so, given the nature of the
> 'content' so much of the time, I suppose...)
>
> And etc.
>
> -- Just my long-winded way of saying, 'Go ahead and talk
> with a real lawyer and heed his professional advice,
> Jim'.... I'd be interested in learning what he had to
> say, too, to supplant the above ramblings with more
> informational content on the subject.
>
> :-)
>
> I also think the wider issues and questions are still
> quite fascinating to consider, though, e.g., do the laws
> of the land regarding torts (incl. libel) still apply in
> cyberspace? And, even: _ought_ they to apply here, ever?
>
> 'Net Libertarians of all stripes might very well argue
> that these laws (er, statutes...) should not apply, for
> instance, as they have so argued in the past, IIRC, viz.
> that the pragmatic solution to such complex legal matters
> is simple, i.e, never use your real name when posting to
> Usenet so that no one can ever mis-use it in the first
> place; this being followed naturally by a potentially
> slanderous 'Duh'... Or words to that effect.
>
> And so, yet another off-topic free-for-all on **.advocacy
> is launched... <*cough*> inadvertently, of course
> <*/cough*>
>
> ;-)
>
> > > -- Jim Naylor
> > >
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > -- Rick
>
> Cheers,
Thanks for the links, observations, thoughts, and analysis,
Phil. While you may be a lay person in the legal world, it's
apparent that you're _far from "ignorant." Lots of food for
thought there. Thanks again.
--
Jim Naylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Craig Oshima" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Craig Oshima" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What is user friendly?
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 06:51:14 -0800
"Salvador Peralta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:98esq6$cd8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Anonymous quoth:
>
> > no, personal experience.
>
> I think you meant "no personal experience."
>
> > a generally impassable learning curve = user hostile.
>
> There is little to no learning curve with modern gui desktop
> environments on linux. KDE should be easier than a mac for the windows
> user who decides to upgrade to linux.
Ha ha ha!
>
> > i was using windows to get work done ten minutes after installation.
> > u can't touch this
>
> Anyone can. The difference is that 10 minutes after getting their
> installation done, the windows user still has hours ahead of him
> installing the hundreds of other programs he needs whereas the linux
> user already got them with their distribution.
Most users (including hackers) do not use hundreds of other programs. A
dozen is probably more than most people ever use. However, the fact that
the average cost of any given commercial application is 100 USD or more is a
good reason to cheer on Linux.
> A couple of days ago I upgraded from kde 2.0 to 2.1. I installed some
> rpm's using the graphical package manager front end. Every library
> that came with the kde system plus a ton of applications were upgraded.
> Once I completed the installation, I ended the x session and then
> typed startx. No reboot necessary. Bam! totally upgraded desktop
> environment. You can't just upgrade your desktop on windows like that
> without a complete recompile of the kernel. had i not liked the
> upgrade, i could've simply switched back to no. No hassles whatsoever
> involved.
What you just described might seem like "no hassle" to you, but I guarantee
that you just left 90% of the world behind. (That includes a lot of smart
people--doctors, scientists, writers, artists--basically everyone that
doesn't want to have to be a computer engineer to use their computer.)
--
Craig Oshima
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Shades" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 09:59:20 -0500
"Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:997q97$k65$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Shades <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> 8<SNIP>8
>
> First of all, Aaron R. Kulkis is considered a
> blithering idiot by both COLA and COMNA
> participants. Secondly, if you think that
> there are no irrational, childish, idiotic
> NT advocates, then you might want to lurk
> about on some of the various IRC nets.
>
> Trust me, NT nutcakes are in plentiful
> supply. Oh, and you might want to observe OS/2
> and Mac users as well. You'll see, they all
> have their fair share.
I agree there are NT wackos out there too but at least from working with
people from both camps, I have found that the NT wackos "generally" are a
lot less wacko, or at least a lot less vocal about it. Both camps do have
both good professional people it is far easier for MS to tell a customer on
the fence about moving over to Linux why they shouldn't. Especially if this
company got burned in the past by similar types of people...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Neil Cerutti)
Subject: Stupid error message
Date: 20 Mar 2001 15:18:32 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The name specified is not recognized as an
internal or external command, operable program or batch file.
Is there any other operating system in the world with such a
stupid and needlessly verbose error message?
--
Neil Cerutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"The Analytical Engine weaves algebraic patterns just as the Jacquard
loom weaves flowers and leaves." -- Lady Lovelace
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Craig Oshima" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Craig Oshima" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What is user friendly?
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 07:20:22 -0800
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Anonymous wrote:
> >> > unix: user hostile
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> Microsoft propaganda.
> >
>
> It's absolutely true that Microsoft is spreading propaganda
> about Linux being user unfreindly and incapable of doing
> business functions.
>
> It's also equally clear that Linux is running 50% of the WWW
> as well as being the core engine on every BW Supercomputer cluster
> in the world. Every new record being broken these days is being
> established with a Linux super cluster.
I wouldn't go so far as to say Linux is incapable of business functions, or
of being user friendly. But to believe that it's user friendly today is to
live in denial. Its success on the server (without getting into whether
Linux is, in fact, running half the servers on the Web) has no bearing at
all on its fitness as an end-user environment. And as long as the community
clings to the traditional user-hostile attitude (such as implying that
non-computer-engineers are "clueless boobs"), Linux will fight an uphill
battle on the desktop.
> Linux not only IS doing it, it's actually beating Windows
> on the desktop. W2k professional or ME appears like a pancake
> peice of low performance shit when you compare it to a modern
> Gnome or KDE2.
Uh huh. Do you have some reliable source for these "statistics", or is it
really just your opinion?
> Xwindows has had such a powerful affect on Microsoft they
> are trying to emulate it with their BRAND NEW XBOX product.
>
> Now what the fuck are you going to say?
Um, isn't Xbox a game console? Are ActiveX, Windows XP, and Office XP also
evidence that Microsoft is emulating Xwindows?
> >> Not only that, but Unix is very very very consistant; in contrast, DOS
and Windows
> >> both have lots of arbitrary rules with even more exceptions.
> >
> >why, if that is the case, are they so much easier to use?
>
> They aren't Jones. This is a figment of your imagination.
>
> I predict in another 5 years, Microsoft will finally come up to
> the standards of today's Gnome or KDE2. It's going to take them
> that damn long now that they are copying us.
Ha ha ha! That's pretty funny!
> This is an undeniable fact now that they've posted this was their
> intention on THEIR web site.
> If THEY AGREE they are copying Gnome and KDE2 functionality, then
> surely you agree.
Reference?
> Why don't you run a real operating system and run Linux.
I will switch to Linux as my main OS the day Linux succeeds in respecting my
time and desire to do things effectively, without needing to understand in
gory detail how the OS works. I'm confident this will happen long before all
Linux advocates care to recognize that the other 90% of the population
actually exists, and most of them are not idiots.
--
Craig Oshima
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Tuomo Takkula <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: 20 Mar 2001 16:39:11 +0100
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > And how do you verify that the code you got is the code that was used in
> > the build?
>
> Simple you idiot...****YOU***** COMPILE IT.
>
> Stupid little shithead...
>
That makes you sound real stupid. The compiler is provided by ?
-- Micro$oft. Remember the login() hack due to Kernighan (or was it
Ritchie?)? Who can guarantee that the violating code is not in the
compiler or in the linker, or just some stub which is linked
dynamically against to some library that gets replaced with the next
service pack? Heck, it might come with the next update of M$ Word!
No Aaron, there is no way to guarantee that closed software of the
size of Windows is safe. It is difficult enough with open source since
you basically have to check the complete system, including compilers,
linkers, libraries. Thinking of that, some surprises might well be
hidden in the hardware as well...
Cheers
Tuomo
PS. Your sig is too long.
___
"Microsoft OS's are good because they encourage Intel to produce
faster CPUs for the rest of us to run Unix on."
George Dau
------------------------------
From: LShaping <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 15:38:17 GMT
"Shades" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Can anyone imagine, let's say a CTO of a large multinational company, the
>kind Linux advocates would love say they beat MS in, jumping into one of
>these newsgroups and reading the "professionalism" expressed in this
>group(see below)?
>Shades
Professionalism? Presented by someone who does not know that he has
started a new thread?
Hello (and good-bye) troll,
LShaping
------------------------------
From: "Shades" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 10:58:21 -0500
> Please don't confuse Unix and Linux advocates. Read comp.unix.advocacy
> for a much more saner advocacy group (except for the C.O.L.A.
> crosspostings).
Yeah I went there. The largest subject by far is titled: "KULKIS IS A
MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT". What an advocacy group :-)
------------------------------
From: "Shades" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 11:00:20 -0500
> Professionalism? Presented by someone who does not know that he has
> started a new thread?
> Hello (and good-bye) troll,
> LShaping
No, I did it on purpose. The subject was completely different and I was
using the original posting as an example. Nothing more.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Fereira)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What is user friendly?
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 15:57:38 GMT
In article <9962jk$kgj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Shades" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"John Fereira" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:995png$nsh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <995m23$t8n$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Shades" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >
>>
>> >Well this is all true but creating a multitasking OS and having hardware
>to
>> >support it on was way too expensive for companies to put on someones
>desktop
>> >in even the early 80's.
>>
>> When I was a unix systems administrator in the early 80's I had an
>HP9000/900
>> on my desktop. Not only was it multi-tasking but it was running a real
>time
>> O/S (RTE-A). Everyone else in my department was running the same machine
>> on their desktop as well. One of them wrote a significant portion of that
>> O/S. I left that job in 1984 to become the unix systems administrator
>> resposible for the first four unix machines that Hewlett Packard owned and
>> subsequently set up their first tcp-ip network.
>>
>
>
>I believe you but you are probably at a University or an Engineering firm
>(Ok I am just guessing and I could be wrong).
I'm at a University now (16 years later) and, yes, I was working for a little
Engineering firm called Hewlett Packard (at their workstation division) back
in 1984. The department that I was working in was responsible for all bug
fixing and enhancements on three of their proprietary operating systems. I
left that department to join the group that was developing the first
implementation of HPUX. I was actually the second unix systems administrator
at that division, but was also developing the HPUX source code product
(version 1.0), so that customers could build a binary version of HPUX from
source code.
John Fereira
Ithaca, NY
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
