Linux-Advocacy Digest #630, Volume #33 Sun, 15 Apr 01 16:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Has Linux anything to offer ? (webgiant)
Re: NT is stagnant while Linux explodes (Mafoo)
Re: Microsoft gets hard (Dougie Richardson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (webgiant )
Subject: Re: Has Linux anything to offer ?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 19:56:53 GMT
On Wed, 11 Apr 2001 03:11:53 GMT, Rex Ballard
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Some of these questions may have less than obvious answers.
>
>Peter wrote:
>>
>> Has Linux seriously anything to offer the average desktop user?
>
>Absolutely. Especially the "Power User" and the "Customer Service
>Agent". More to follow.
If Linux came home with the computer when you bought the computer at
the store, then the serious offerings apply to *all users*.
>> Is it really a full operating system for the desktop?
>
>In many ways it's too full. A properly installed and configured Linux
>desktop can be learned in a matter of a few minutes. At the same time
>a fully configured Linux system has over 2000 packages. Just imagine
>bringing your computer home with 2000 of those cute little VCR size
>"shrink wrapped boxes".
>
>The good news is that there is a massive amount of software
>available. The bad news is that there is a massive amount of
>software available.
>
>> Does it boot up and shut down quicker than other operating systems?
>
>No. The other operating systems have minimal services, in fact even
>Windows 2000 Professional limits you to 20 TCP/IP connections. The
>number of services and threads started initially is very small, typically 3-4
>services, and even these must be custom installed.
>
>Linux on the other hand starts about 300 processes because it
>functions as both a client and a server. Much of this it inherits from
>Sun's "The Network is the Mainframe" concept. Windows has very
>limited pseudo peer-to-peer capabilities such as Chat and messaging.
>This is a bit like comparing the busy-wait multitasking of Windows 3.0
>with the true preemptive multitasking of Windows 2000. Linux has a
>complete set of packages designed to make peer-to-peer systems safe,
>reliable, and effective.
>
>> Is software for accessing the Web, Email and Newsgroups the best there is
>> available?
>
>There are numerous packages. In many cases, the components are
>actually superior to comparable capabilities available under Windows.
>Windows has limitations on the number of concurrent processes that can
>run concurrently (this is less of a problem with Windows 2000, but requires
>nontrivial rewrites to exploit and only works on Microsoft's smallest market
>share product).
>
>In Windows you HAD to have a bundle ware package such as Lotus Notes
>or Outlook which could store files efficiently in the 32k clusters of FAT-16 file
>systems. FAT-32 improved things somewhat, but Linux was designed to
>efficiently use very large disk drives from the start. Windows NT 4.0 and
>Windows 2000 offer NTFS file systems that are more efficient, but are also
>more expensive.
>
>Because Linux supports free-standing components, and supports multiple
>desktops, you have less need for MDI, this means you have less need for
>OLE, DDE, and COM/DCOM style "binary linked components". Again,
>Windows 2000 does have better support for free-standing DCOM services,
>but applications have to be written specifically for this product - most aren't.
>On Linux, most are.
>
>> Are there more software programs written for the home user in Linux than any
>> other system?
>
>It really depends on what the home user is looking for. Ironically,
>Linux is more of a professionally oriented machine. If you are a student
>who would like to learn the principles of UNIX, if you are the secretary
>of a non-profit and want to put up a web-site, or if you just want to chat
>and e-mail, Linux has some really great tools to do this.
>
>Ironically, the ease with which one can add a product to the core
>Linux distribution has lowered the barriers to entry. To get a
>shrink-wrapped box onto the shelves of CompUSA, you need to have
>over $1 million/month in front-money and capital, along with over $1
>million/month in revenue - and that's just the ante.
>
>With Linux, there is very little "up front" marketing investment.
>Users can "try before they buy". Many users will start with an
>application on the CD, and then buy the books, register at the web
>site, and get the helpful goodies.
>
>PERL, Python, PHP, and other scripting languages, combined with KDE
>and GNOME components have made it very easy to obtain programs that
>can be packaged quite creatively. In many cases, the programs have
>multiple user interfaces. You can use the built-in web server and browser
>and run the application as a web app. You can use the CORBA components
>(KDE, GNOME) to create custom GUI dialogues, or you can use Java.
>
>As an end-user, this means that you can choose from a library so vast
>that it's not even possible to catalogue.
>
>> Do games and graphical programs run faster and better than on other systems?
>
>This depends. In some cases, DOS games can actually be run on the
>Linux DOS emulator and will run faster than the Windows versions. In
>other cases, the games are driven by OpenGL engines, many of which
>can run quite quickly, some are even faster than Windows, depending
>on the graphics chips used.
>
>Windows does have the ability to use DirectX to program to a
>lower-level chip interface, but this does limit the market to DirectX
>capable machines.
>
>A good video game machine costs about $100-300. A good
>Windows 2000 computer (closest equivalent to Linux) costs over
>$3000, and over $6000 when you include software, utilities, and
>development tools.
>
>> Are CD-R and CD-RW easier to configure and use with Linux?
>
>This depends or your system. Linux sports multiple "toasters", and
>the set-up for the read-write is a bit more involved. On the other
>hand, the EZ-CD Creator used on most Windows CD-ROM burners
>costs over $100 retail.
It is interesting to note that the SCSI emulation which is performed
by the Linux kernel--and often why you have to recompile the kernel
for CDRW drives--to permit the use of IDE CDRW drives, is performed by
the Windoze EZ-CD Creator software. From this the natural question
arises: if the Linux OS is on the computer you purchase when you buy
it at the store, what is the difference?
>> Is the support for Display Cards, DVD, Sound Cards, Large Hard Drives and
>> Printers better?
>
>For the products that advertise Linux compatibility, the support is
>usually quite good. In many cases, you can exploit features that aren't
>available on Windows (like 1100x800 resolution). Support varies with the
>distribution. SuSE and Mandrake have very good support. Red Hat 6.1 is probably
>not a good "beginner's machine".
>
>Keep in mind that when Crashes are reported to Microsoft, the drivers
>are usually blamed. For Windows NT and Windows 98, where crashes can
>happen several times each month, one can't really say that driver support is
>all that great.
>
>Conversely, While Linux supports a smaller subset of devices, the
>support is excellent and the drivers generally don't take down the
>system. Linux is notorious for being able to run from months between
>reboots.
>
>> Is there a really must have program for the home user that is only available
>> in Linux?
>
>Probably not for the home user. On the other hand, it really depends
>on what your interests are. Because of the lower cost of entry, many
>special interest applications are available for Linux that are prohibitively
>expensive on Windows. For example, StarOffice for Linux is about $50, Microsoft
>Office professional edition retails for nearly 10 times that price.
StarOffice for Linux, after Sun Microsystems bought out StarDivision,
is FREE for the home user.
>When the choice is a new refrigerator (or school clothes for the kids)
>and Microsoft Office, Linux offers a few little advantages.
Given that you can get StarOffice for FREE, Linux offers quite a bit
of an advantage!
>> Is the fact that Linux is free and used by people who do not want to pay for
>> anything the only reason it is used?
>
>No.
>
>Some people like it because they like having the power and stability
>of a UNIX system. They use UNIX at work, they design web sites, they
>work with larger corporate systems. They want to be able to work on a laptop,
>at home, in the hotel, or anywhere else that makes overtime more palatable. At
>the same time, they need the full power of UNIX, including all of those
>wonderful utilities.
>
>Other people just like having a machine that doesn't play host to
>every little worm, virus, and trojan horse that seems to show up and
>play havoc with Outlook users. Linux includes it's own firewall, it's
>own web server, it's own DNS server, it's own mail server, and it's own
>SMTP relay server. As a result, you don't have to worry about leaving this
>fat repository of personal e-mail sitting on some public web server to be read
>by anyone who feels that your personal e-mail is their privileged information.
>
>Other people just have lots of things they need to do and people like
>to interrupt them, or they need to deal with people who have
>unexpected needs. Web browsers are nice when you only have one or two
>pages and you can keep them in cache, but when you have multiple
>expert systems and they are on numerous different systems, including
>UNIX, MVS, Windows, and perhaps VMS or Tandem, it's very nice to be
>able to hop from system to system without having to wait for new
>connections.
>
>People also like having a single desktop that can give them a
>consistent working environment whether it's a stand-alone system or
>a multitiered cluster.
>
>> Finally where would the sales of home computers be today if the only
>> operating system was Linux?
>
>Actually, you'd see two patterns. First of all, since Linux
>distribution upgrades come out early and often, manufacturers could
>avoid the "Beta/GA Crunch" that has plagued Windows releases.
>Microsoft announces a new release, OEMs order capacity quantities of
>RAM, ROM, hard drives, and the fastest chips available. The suppliers,
>unable to keep up with the demand charge much higher prices, often
>3-5 times original price, but can't produce enough to really exploit the
>higher prices.
>
>Then the Microsoft release is late - more shortages, more inflated
>prices. Finally, the release does come out and instantly, everybody's
>machine is "obsolete" - including the machines purchased 3 weeks
>ago at the hyper-prices.
>
>For about 3-6 weeks, there is a huge rush of "suckers" who try to
>upgrade their old machines. In many cases, Microsoft finds some
>creative ways to turn beta users into shipments reportable under SEC
>filings to make it look like 1 million copies were sold in the first week/month.
>
>Then, it's business as usual. The OEMs even find that they have a
>hard time selling the new system (which they MUST install on every
>machine) to customers who are justifiably paranoid after being burned
>by Windows 3.5,
There was a Windoze 3.5? I thought it stopped at 3.11!
>Windows 95, Windows NT 4.0, Windows 98, Windows 2000, and
>Windows ME (all of whom had very "bumpy" initial releases.
>
>Now, with OEMs sitting on $billions in commitments for RAM, software
>licenses, and advertising, the machines sit on the shelves, unsold, for
>most of the christmas season. Eventually, the prices are dropped,
>creative financing through "internet obligations" to providers who
>charge as much as $1200 for 4 years of service generously offer a
>"rebate" of $400, if you will obligate yourself to 56k dial-up service for
>4 years.
>
>Meanwhile, your old machine is useless. You can't trade it in, you
>can't sell it, you can't even use it as a server to the newer machine.
>You can't even use the old machine to leverage the new machine.
Maybe in the conventional business model, but if you are prepared to
take a loss--or not, more later--you can in fact sell your old machine
on the more traditional "classified ad" and used computer store
market.
You can also get rid of it for 100% of value as a tax deduction by
giving it to some tax-deductible charity.
Or you can run Linux on it. :)
>--------------------
>
>And then we have Linux. With it's "early and often" releases and new
>distributions, the OEMs don't have to put the entire inventory on
>hold. The suppliers can get more stable prices on demand they can
>usually fill. The demand flattens to a moderate but relatively regular
>150%/year growth rate (historical growth rate of Linux over the last
>4 years exceeds this).
>
>This in turn provides a more stable growth rate for PCs in general.
>In addition, because Linux runs on older, smaller boxes, they can be
>traded in, resold to low-income families, or shipped overseas. That
>Pentium 100 may not be fast enough for speed-freak Westerners
>who want 1 GIPS machines and Gigaflops performance, but it's plenty
>fast for a web site for that mom-and-pop shop down the street, or that
>little village in Nigeria.
You seem to be forgetting that the games market is what drives up the
CPU speed, not the Internet and not the home user. The bottleneck on
Internet use is the ISP connection, not the home system. Pentium 100s
running on a 512kbps connection get the Internet a lot better than a
1GHz Pentium 4 using a 56kbps Modem.
Most people who want to use the Internet and type a report or two
actually function quite nicely with a Pentium 100. If their kids want
3D Games, get them one of those game-only consoles like the Sony
Playstation.
>Microsoft's approach to the PC market is very similar to changing the
>type of gasoline used every 2-3 years. This would assure that
>everybody had to buy new cars every 4-6 years, but would accelerate
>the depreciation rate on those vehicles, making it harder to finance
>and harder to resell later.
>
>The Linux approach is more standards-based. The internal design may
>change radically, but the core standards, the fuel, the road, the positioning
>of the steering wheel, remain the same. At the same time, Linux provides
>much more customization capability. Millions of people purchased
>Harley Davidson motorcycles BECAUSE the dealer would create a very
>personalized machine for them, and they could add additional "personality"
>later. In the extreme cases we had choppers with ape-hanger handlebars,
>seats that were designed as much for their erotic benefits as for their
>style and comfort.
>
>Linux users are quite proud of the astonishing things they can do with
>their machines. Many Linux users don't just throw away machines.
>They simply purchase a new "front end", and then use the established
>standards to leverage the existing systems into the newer system.
>
>Linux isn't for everybody. About 30% of all Windows users love
>Windows and wouldn't even think of using anything else. Another 20%
>really don't care what they are using and will probably use whatever comes
>with their machine.
And if Linux "comes with their machine..."?
>On the other hand, there are a substantial number of Windows users who
>have lost thousands of dollars in productivity due to Windows failures. In
>many cases, the machine crashes and they have to work overtime to meet the
>same deadlines - with no compensation from either Microsoft or their
>client/employer. These are the hottest candidates for Linux. If they can get a
>properly configured Linux system, they are willing to spend a few
>extra hours to fully exploit it.
>
>On the flip side, there are those whose first experience of Linux will
>be attempting to install an arcane version pulled from some poorly
>managed archive site, who will attempt to install it on the latest USB
>machine. They will try to use FIPS to repartition a 40 gig drive, and they
>will wonder why things didn't go so well. They will then blame Linux, even
>though they never called for help, they didn't even ask their vendor
>if the machine was designed to run Linux, and they didn't even bother
>to talk to a friend who could help them configure Linux.
The same is often true for Windoze. Up until last year, those Linux
users didn't have the option that "problems installing Windoze" users
had: give up and go to a store where the OS was already installed on a
machine.
Don't throw in the towel on the "failed install" Linux users. They
can run by Dell or IBM and get a PC with Linux pre-installed, rather
than reverting to Windoze.
>Bottom line - suppose Linux only gets 40% of the currently installed
>windows base over the next 2-3 years. This would only be 400 million
>machines sold over 2-3 years. Microsoft on the other hand has to
>convince their users that the 1 billion machines sold over the last
>3-5 years are actually worthless pieces of junk and should be dismantled
>into their component parts (at $400/machine) rather than being resold
>as Linux machines. Furthermore, they have to convince the public that
>they really will deliver capabilities far superior to Windows 2000 for the
>price of a Windows ME machine. Finally, they have to convince users
>that giving up their privacy, security, and future purchasing choices will
>be worth letting Microsoft have unrestricted access to their machines.
>
>And finally, Microsoft will have to convince all of those users that
>they have a better Linux than Linux.
>
>Keep in mind, all Linux has to do is "be different". People who
>really like windows will probably stay with what they already have.
Or continue to use the Linux server that, through Samba, honestly
looks like a Windoze NT server. <snicker>
>Not too many people see any real benefit to upgrading from a 900Mhz
>machine to a 1.2 Ghz machine.
>And an upgrade to yet another Microsoft operating system that offers
>such features as "Compatibility mode" with Windows 9x and ME,
>sounds almost as risky as Linux' WINE or Win4Lin or VMWare.
>
>Linux just has to convince people who took windows because that was
>what was shoveled onto their machine (no real commitment behind it),
>that Linux is worth a few hundred bucks for a new machine.
>
>Microsoft has to tell their own customers (OEMs and Corporations) to
>tell THEIR customers that they were idiots for using Windows ME/2K in the
>first place and that what they REALLY need to do is throw that old
>$2000 boat anchor into a deep lake (avoiding EPA enforcement at all
>possible costs), and purchase brand-new Windows XP.Net boxes, and
>give Microsoft the access codes to their most personal, confidential, and
>strategic data.
>
>You see, if all Microsoft does is convince you to buy a new machine.
>You still have the old machine. This machine, now worthless in the
>windows market, becomes a Linux machine.
>
>What the OEMs have to decide then, is whether to pay Microsoft a
>premium in royalties to have a crack at a saturated market and a jaded
>customer base, or whether to take a shot at selling a few million Linux
>machines as the "latest and greatest new thing". Keep in mind that the
>"obsolete machine" will probably require some skilled entrepreneur who
>is willing and able to make the conversion quickly and efficiently. Dell
>can either install Linux themselves, perhaps with last year's version of
>Windows (for Lin4Win) and make a few bucks on each box, or they pay
>Microsoft 30 cents/share and let some two-bit outfit remanufacture the
>discards.
>
>Perhaps Dell could even have the best of both worlds. By leasing
>machines to corporate users, Dell can bring the machines back, put
>Linux on them, and then resell them as Linux workstations. The kids
>would love these cheaper machines. They'd of course grow up with
>Linux, and would want the latest 20 Ghz RISC machine capable of
>running Linux and real-time 3D animations of complex structures - similar
>to the combat simulators SGI makes for the Military - to do applications
>we haven't even considered yet.
>
>Of course, a Kid who grew up with Linux' component structures would
>even think differently, much the same way that the fido/usenet crowd
>and the UNIX crowd were thinking in terms of "The Web" back in 1993,
>and took 20%/month growth rates in stride as if it just "the usual". They
>worked with modest tools like Apache, Solaris (remember all those UNIX
>boxes in the Universities?), and PERL - they didn't have to be spoon-fed
>using high-gloss/low-productivity tools.
>
>Imagine what could happen when you have a generation of kids, many of
>whom are just now graduating, who have cut their teeth on GNOME, KDE,
>Python, TCL, PERL, and PHP, as well as Java, who can combine these
>tools and components as easily as our web-hosting developers put together
>CGI scripts. We could see these kids tracking and identifying key movements
>and percentage gains on the entire Wilshire 5000 AND every ticker on
>every exchange, including options, for the most strategic buys - in a matter
>of 3-6 seconds. Imagine one of these kids at the treasury department - tracking
>economic growth of nearly 200 million accounts, accurate to within 30 seconds.
>
>And consider the possibility that these vundakinder would be working
>fewer hours and making more money than their Windows wielding
>grandparents.
>
>You see, the Baby boomers of 1945-1955 will be retiring over the next
>20 years. The "Boom-II" boomers of 1980-1987 will have to be even more
>efficient, more productive, and more competitive.
>
>The ability to put a server in your pocket - rather than just the
>client that accesses the server, will be a pivotal advantage.
>
>I look at some of the kids in the "Linux Generation" and it's pretty
>amazing. They are running around with Cell-phones that they use
>constantly, wireless PDAs that they use like terminals, and wireless
>modems tied to mini-notebooks that run Linux. Linux makes it
>possible to run "on-line" for hours without having to suspend or
>hibernate.
>
>Yes, I even see the Transmeta chip redefining not only laptop and
>portable computers, but perhaps even leapfrogging the 64 bit market
>and pushing us into 128 bit processors with 256 bit video chips.
>
>These guys will be people you want to know.
>
>Unfortunately, much as Bill Joy was virtually unknown in 1987, and
>Marc Andreeson was unknown in 1992, there are probably 30-40
>interesting characters who haven't quite made it to "overnight
>success" who will be household names in a few years. Linus,
>Richard, Maddog and Sam Palmisano may be among them,
>but the field is by no means saturated.
>
>Creating computer systems that negotiate, that enforce complex legal
>agreements, and that do business the way business does business will
>require more custom code, and less of the "Productivity Software" that
>Microsoft is famous for.
>
>Can you imagin Microsoft trying to create a "one size fits all"
>application for an insurance company. Just the U.S. version would
>require the ability to remain constantly in compliance with over 400
>regulatory bodies in 50 states, plus the federal government. What's
>worse, the software would have to be updated for each regulatory
>action. And to make things even worse, the customer would
>have to trust that every single upgrade was safe for production work.
>
>Imagine Microsoft writing banking software. Not only do you have
>regulatory agencies, but you have national and international standards
>which cannot be subverted. Would you really like your checks and
>finances running under Outlook?
>
>Even look at how many large projects are managed in the Windows
>environment. Consultants spend as much as 80% of the project life-cycle
>telling you - in Microsoft Word and Powerpoint documents, how wonderful
>this system is going to be. And they spend hundreds of hours making it
>look really pretty. Then absolutely NONE of this pretty documentation
>can be used to generate even 2 lines of useful code without serious
>rework.
>
>This very pretty specification is turned over to highly paid
>professionals who then "play video games", essentially cut/paste,
>drag-drop, and "connect the dots", and push the right set of buttons
>in the right order to EVENTUALLY come up with something that might
>actually reflect the documentation.
>
>At least with something like Rational, you get design specifications
>that then automatically generate source code - for UNIX or COBOL.
------------------------------
From: Mafoo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT is stagnant while Linux explodes
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 20:03:32 +0000 (UTC)
In alt.destroy.microsoft Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>The number of bugs _found_ is less than in Windows... but is the number of
>>bugs that _exist_ less? What are the comparitive number of Unix systems
>>(server and client) in use compared to the number of Windows systems (server
>>and client) in use? Doesn't Windows clock in with just a few more
>>installations?
considering most of the code is open source, and thus people can actually see
the bugs, as opposed to trying to generate them... you make your mind up
>>This strikes me as akin to the argument "Since New York had 8 murders last
>>year, but Podunk only had 2, Podunk is safer" - ignoring the niggling little
>>detail that Podunk, having a population of 2,000 compared to New York's 8
>>million, makes it 1,000 times *more* likely you'll get murdered in Podunk.
>>
> And, or course, if you're going to compare Windows bugs with Unix bugs,
> then you need to compare Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows CE, Windows 98,
> Windows 98 2nd edition, Windows NT SP1 SP2 SP3 SP4 SP5 SP6, Windows 2K Pro,
> Windows 2K Server, Windows NT Server, etc. bugs with Unix bugs.
SP6 - that was a laugh!
also, the different versions of NT5 (aka Win2k) are all the same apart from a
few registry keys anyway - same goes for IIS and PWS ;)
--
Matthew Slowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
If something doesn't work, hit it;
95% of the time, it's just being obnoxious
------------------------------
From: Dougie Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.arch,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Microsoft gets hard
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 21:07:11 +0100
unicat wrote:
> (The folowing are the editorial opinions of the author,
> no more no less...)
>
> I recenly saw rumors on some internet chat pages that Linux hackers are
> already
> porting Linux, and Apache, to the Microsoft X-box using Xbox developers
> kits....
>
> And suddenly, as the ghost of David Bowman says in '2010', "You see, it's
> all very clear to me now..."
>
> Microsoft must have realized that Windows is dying, and they are building
> the basis for their future as a hardware company. They have to walk a
> tightrope for now, because they can't afford to alienate the other
> hardware vendors quite yet. If they tip their hand prematurely, someone
> else might be the first to come out wih a cheap Linux desktop box and beat
> Microsoft to market.
>
> But just think of the rumors we have heard recently, with MS recruiting
> for Linux developers, and "sightings" of MS Office for Linux being repored
> all over the place.
>
> What a brilliant strategy. MS releases a $300 intel PC with 64MB RAM and
> an 8GB hard drive. Perfect for a home PC. But they swear up and down that
> it isn't a PC because they will NEVER put 'real'
> windows on it.And besides, a TV isn't a PC monitor (just ignore that HDTV
> port on the back) Nyah-hah-hah. And then.... As soon as the Linux
> community does their dirty work for them, MS will just shrug its
> shoulders, and say, "Well shucks, we didn't MEAN for this to happen, but
> now that it has, they will start shipping MS Office for the new Lin-Xbox,
> and suddenly Microsoft becomes Microhard.
>
> And Dell, Gateway, and Compaq take it in the shorts for not having a $300
> linux box to compete.
>
> Of course there's a name for companies that trusted Microsoft as a
> busniess partner...extinct!
>
> "Somethings about to happen.... something wonderful!"
>
I agree with this up to a point, however I think that the reason Microsoft
is so into the Xbox thing is twofold - firstly they know there's money in
games and have been trying to get into it for years, and secondly the Xbox
is more of a warning shot over Sony's bow.
There was talk of the PS2 having home office apps developed for it as well
as add ons such as modems - so then browsers and mail clients. This is a
typical MS strategy - through money at a product that probably wont take
off long enough to steal the competitions thunder.
Incedently, it could be simply sour grapes over the PS2 development
system...
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
