Linux-Advocacy Digest #18, Volume #34 Sat, 28 Apr 01 14:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: t. max devlin: kook (T. Max Devlin)
Re: IE (T. Max Devlin)
Re: there's always a bigger fool (T. Max Devlin)
Re: there's always a bigger fool (T. Max Devlin)
Re: there's always a bigger fool (T. Max Devlin)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (Bob Hauck)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Bob Hauck)
Re: Exploit devastates WinNT/2K security (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Shooting Medics and other Geneva Convention Violations (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Article: Want Media Player 8? Buy Windows XP (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: t. max devlin: kook
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 17:32:03 GMT
Said Peter Hayes in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 28 Apr 2001 00:20:24
>On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:16:35 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>> Said Peter Hayes in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 24 Apr 2001 19:44:36
><...>
>
>> >> One click on the icon to select the icon, one double-click to run the
>> >> app, that's what. The desktop is a metaphor, not just a cute-looking
>> >> menu.
>> >
>> >Whether you see the desktop as a metaphor or a menu is irrelevent.
>>
>> Irrelevant to what?
>
>Using the desktop. It matters not one whit whether we see the desktop as a
>copy of our Start -> Programs menu or some metaphor for our selected apps,
>the end result is the same.
That would depend on how, precisely, you are overloading the term
"matters".
>> I thought we were discussing using the desktop; I
>> would suggest how you use it might be relevant. (!)
>>
>> > It's how
>> >intuitive it is that matters.
>>
>> How intuitive something is must be considered a result, not a cause, or
>> the meaning of the term 'intuitive' simply vanishes, and you are left
>> with it's idiomatic meaning, "familiar".
>
>If it's intuitive, it'll be evident to the user.
There is no such thing, then. Nothing is evident to the user until he
learns about it. You have obviously not had the extensive experience
with new users that I have. There is nothing at all intuitive about ANY
computer interface. Not until it becomes familiar; then it is 'evident
to the user', and thus intuitive. Does that make my previous statement
more comprehensible? Intuitive is a result (it being evident), not a
cause (why it is evident), unless you use the term as a synonym for
"familiar".
>> >I know from many non-computer literate users
>> >who have difficulties with double-clicking that single-clicking is much
>> >better.
>>
>> And who should know more than people who don't know anything?
>
>They're ideal test subjects for the "intuitiveness" of a system, how
>quickly and easily they can get to grips with the basics and start doing
>useful work.
They are not. They're the worst possible test subjects for such a
thing, in fact. Useful work means production, so it is how productive,
not how intuitive, something is which should be measured. This means it
is far more important how efficient and effective an interface is, then
how easily a novice can dope it out on their own. Designing interfaces
which can be doped out without instruction by a novice results in "dumb
interfaces", not intuitive ones.
>Double-clicking just interferes with that process. Tell someone they can
>launch their app with one mouse click on its icon and they'll catch on
>instantly.
Sure, as soon as you explain what "launch" and "app" and "icon" mean.
>Tell them they've to click the mouse button twice within x
>milliseconds ("quickly"), and at the same time not move it off the icon
>between clicks and it'll take them anything from a couple of minutes to
>several days practice.
This is why we demonstrate it, rather than merely explain it.
>> People have "difficulty" with single-clicking, too,
>
>?
! <believe it or not>
>> and would prefer a TUI at
>> every turn (telepathic user interface), at least until the OUI
>> (omniscient user interface) becomes practical.
>
>Or the VCI (Voice control interface).
You are claiming that a voice interface would be on the order of a
telepathic or omniscient interface?
>> Until they become
>> familiar enough with the idea that the icons on a desktop are metaphors
>> for objects, and one can either just touch them (single click, select)
>
>Why "select"? I have 29 icons on my Windows desktop. Single clicking any
>one of them does nothing meaningful.
Depends on what you mean be "meaningful" and "does". It *selects* them.
Hit the delete key, they'll be deleted, hit the enter key, they'll be
opened, hit alt-enter and you'll see their properties....
>In KDE they're launched. What possible
>justification is there for a single click that does nothing and serves no
>useful purpose?
The icon itself serves no useful purpose, if it is merely a menu choice;
it might as well be on a real menu. An icon on a desktop is a
metaphoric object; you can manipulate it in various ways. Launching is
obviously one of them, and if double-clicking is just too much for you,
you can also usually right-click and choose Open, on most modern
systems. But having an app launch with a single-click on an icon is
just an invitation to launch the thing accidentally. You may claim it
causes no problem, you just close the app, but you are again thinking
like someone with experience, not a novice. A novice can be hopelessly
confounded by having a program suddenly leap onto their screen because
of an single accidental erroneous click.
[...]
>In a multi-user environment, one person's double-click window is someone
>else's 2-clicks-to-rename-something window.
I don't understand what "multi-user" has to do with it. I'm not a big
fan of the "click to select and then wiggle and then click again" action
used on a standard desktop to get a cursor for renaming, but I generally
just use the context menu, then. One of the things that Windows "does
wrong" is the lack of ability to rename an icon from the properties
window.
>Instead of renaming your file
>you launch it. OK, in a properly managed multi-user environment we can all
>have our own preferences, but for every one of those there'll be hundreds
>where there's one login for all, if there's a login at all.
You're swimming upstream, I think. This issue has already been sorted
out, which is why the standard desktop metaphor uses a doubleclick to
"open" an icon (launching an app or document), so it is "intuitive" to
everyone. KDE isn't the only one to muck this up; they actually just
picked it up from Microsoft, as KDE is generally a direct attempt to
re-implement the worst aspects of consumer GUIs on Linux.
>> You learned to walk, I think you can handle two clicks within a few tens
>> of milliseconds.
>
>It's not me I'm concerned about, it's the newbie, the newbie who perhaps
>knows nothing about computers but knows more than the rest of us put
>together about their chosen field.
The newbie learned to walk, too, and has become an expert in their
chosen field, perhaps. So I think they can handle double-clicking, too.
They may bitch and moan about having to learn something new, but like I
said; they'd prefer a OUI to begin with. Those newbies will thank us
later, I can assure you. I know this from experience; I have taught
complete novices how to use a PC, and years later they have thanked me,
and agreed with my general approach. Newbies might want things to be
easy, but they don't stay newbies forever, and then they'll want things
to be fast and efficient. Sometimes that's close to what "easy" is, and
sometimes its not. Regardless, though, it only becomes "intuitive" once
it becomes familiar, anyway, so there's no reason not to learn it
correctly the first time. Thus, 'correctly' is to accurately,
consistently, and practically implement the desktop metaphor with icons
as objects which can be manipulated, not merely have them act as an
array of menu choices for launching things only. Icons are not buttons,
unless they're just buttons, not icons.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 17:32:04 GMT
Said Michael Pye in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 27 Apr 2001 17:11:15
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>> >Until it collides head first with 'cola logic', at which point it will be
>> >summarily dismissed as troll bait.
>> >As most, if not all facts are in cola.
>>
>> As a long-time user of NS4, I would say it is definitely not troll bait.
>> Its just plain old bullshit.
>
>User? You can't comment until you have tried to develop for it.
You said it was an appalling bad browser; you didn't say it was a pain
in the ass for developers. It may be your presumption, as a "web
meister" that the latter equates to the former, but that's being
ego-centric.
>How do you
>know how the sites are supposed to look? You don't even know that you are
>getting the version that is stripped down at the server side to try and
>offset the inadequacies of your browser.
I like that; it is part of what makes Netscape a useful browser, despite
its rather questionable design. I don't care how a site is "supposed to
look"; I want the striped down version, because I want it fast, minimal,
and text-based, if I can get it. Whether that makes things easy for the
server or the developer is definitely something I don't directly care
about.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: there's always a bigger fool
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 17:32:05 GMT
Said Zippy in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 28 Apr 2001 14:08:32 GMT;
>>on x86, linux does use the bios to boot. pci and io-apic are set up
>>by bios. once bootstrapping is complete, you are right, bios is not
>>used again.
>
>that's a limitation of "pc architecture", rather than a feature. of course,
>things like the crusoe architecture seriously blur the lines. in most
>cases, the way an architectural platform sets up the hardware is what gives
>that hardware an advantage when the OS loads. this is why Sun computers
>boot Solaris and Linux so sweetly compared to a PC, same thing for a Mac
>(from what i've heard - i've never actually SEEN linux running on a Mac).
>
>>if you look at the description of the bios calls, you'll see that
>>basic means "low-level" or "general purpose" and does not refer to the
>>_language_ BASIC.
>
>good point, and thanks for answering a question i've always had. i was
>thinking of the int handlers reserved for the BASIC command interpreter,
>but i suppose those are set up by DOS and not the BIOS. you never hear
>anybody talking about the "BIOS" on a Sun, Alpha or Mac, though these
>machines have fairly sophisticated boot ROMs.
>
>regardless of it's specific meaning, the architecture is once again
>limiting rather than versatile. the pc "platform" (which has become fairly
>nebulous), with its 16 backward-compatible irq map and low vs. high memory
>problem, has become a prison that modern OSes have to break out of, rather
>than a wide playing field everyone can enjoy.
>
>think about it - i found out recently that PCI devices don't even require
>an IRQ to function! it's Windows DOS/9x that freaks out if a device other
>than a video card doesn't have an IRQ, so we have to have two sets of PCI
>cards in the world - one for x86 architecture, and another for Alphas,
>SPARCs, Macs and everything else.
>
>the IA64 is supposed to change all this, but initial users report excessive
>bugginess and 32-bit performance slower than a pentium. and of course, they
>still have to settle with intergraph.
That was a very nice analysis. Thank you.
I think this goes back to the original issue, of the Linux "platform".
I don't think it is any change in hardware which will fix these issues
you talk about; thus, the comments you made on the IA64. Linux alone
will be sufficient, once the monopoly is dealt with. Linux runs on any
hardware platform, practically, so the definition of a PC based on the
technical aspects of hardware will go away. A PC will be whatever
hardware you use as a "personal computer" and there will not be any of
the wholly artificial barrier between hardware platforms which used to
be the rule. Years ago, computer scientists realized that the same
programs can run on different hardware platforms. It is only the
existence of the monopoly which has prevented the market from realizing
the same thing.
Once the free market is restored, the obvious choice for most people
will be Linux. Once that happens, all distinctions between different
hardware platforms become simply alternatives in one big market. The
OEMs will be able to flush out old BIOS-based technologies like IRQs,
just as easily and effectively as they would have been able to, years
ago, in order to make their systems more competitive (cheaper or better)
if compatibility with the monopoly was not the controlling issue.
Without that controlling monopoly, any OEM can just build anything they
want and call it a PC, and see if it sells, because Linux can run on
just about anything. Sun and Apple and Dell will all just be different
computer manufacturers, and they will probably all make PCs, but there's
no need for their PCs to be similar in hardware (other than the market
efficiencies allowed by interchangeable components, of course), as long
as they run Linux.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: there's always a bigger fool
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 17:32:07 GMT
Said Johan Kullstam in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 28 Apr 2001
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Zippy) writes:
>
>> >on x86, linux does use the bios to boot. pci and io-apic are set up
>> >by bios. once bootstrapping is complete, you are right, bios is not
>> >used again.
>>
>> that's a limitation of "pc architecture", rather than a feature. of course,
>> things like the crusoe architecture seriously blur the lines. in most
>> cases, the way an architectural platform sets up the hardware is what gives
>> that hardware an advantage when the OS loads. this is why Sun computers
>> boot Solaris and Linux so sweetly compared to a PC, same thing for a Mac
>> (from what i've heard - i've never actually SEEN linux running on a
>> Mac).
>
>every machine has a boot ROM. the problem is that backward
>compatibility trumps any design improvement. the IBM PC was designed
>to compete with the Commodore-64. IBM didn't even think they'd sell
>many with floppy drives. they were wrong, of course. still, we
>suffer from the short-sightedness of that time.
Why?
>> >if you look at the description of the bios calls, you'll see that
>> >basic means "low-level" or "general purpose" and does not refer to the
>> >_language_ BASIC.
>>
>> good point, and thanks for answering a question i've always had. i was
>> thinking of the int handlers reserved for the BASIC command interpreter,
>> but i suppose those are set up by DOS and not the BIOS. you never hear
>> anybody talking about the "BIOS" on a Sun, Alpha or Mac, though these
>> machines have fairly sophisticated boot ROMs.
>
>sun, dec/compaq alpha, mac have a bit more control over their bios,
>cpu, and motherboard. they were also designed for larger computing
>jobs. either by virtue of being designed later, or because they were
>aiming for a more capable class of machine.
The only thing these things have in common would be they do not need to
run Windows. All of these also have several difference classes of
machine, and were designed at very different times.
[...]
>> think about it - i found out recently that PCI devices don't even require
>> an IRQ to function! it's Windows DOS/9x that freaks out if a device other
>> than a video card doesn't have an IRQ, so we have to have two sets of PCI
>> cards in the world - one for x86 architecture, and another for Alphas,
>> SPARCs, Macs and everything else.
>
>i dunno.
I do. Want me to explain it?
>ia64 has been coming real soon now for like 2-3 years. from what i
>gather from the net, ia64 has been totally blown away by recent clock
>speed advances in ia32. you can always re-layout ia64 for the smaller
>feature-size of todays process. however, my (totally wild-ass,
>unsubstatiated) guess is that intel will drop ia64 in its current
>form, take the lessons learned and make an ia64-2.
That sounds more like an inevitable occurrence, then a wild-ass guess.
:-D
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: there's always a bigger fool
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 17:37:10 GMT
Said Giuliano Colla in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 27 Apr 2001
>Ayende Rahien wrote:
>>
>> "Zippy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > actually, my system runs absolutely PERFECTLY. i'm a hardware tech with 9
>> > years' experience in the business, am relatively fluent in basic and C,
>> and
>> > am capable of solving any hardware problem on a Mac, PC or Linux box.
>>
>> There is not such thing as a Linux box.
>
>It's sad to learn such a thing. My customers will be bitterly
>disappointed when they'll learn that we've been developing for months on
>a number of non-existing boxes, and we will deliver them a non-existing
>box running the software they need!
You didn't understand, Giuliano. What he meant was that there is no
specific hardware platform, as in "Mac or PC".
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 17:43:44 GMT
On 26 Apr 2001 23:35:12 -0500, Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I mean, why is it that we hear the most noise from linux
> advocates about this anti-piracy effort - why would they care?
I think you are mistaken. Windows users are bitching. As a Linux
advocate, I hope MS succeeds with their silly copy protection schemes
and forces everyone to stop all casual copying. That would be the best
thing ever to happen to Linux.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 17:43:46 GMT
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 21:32:08 GMT, Daniel Johnson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 18:13:15 GMT, Daniel Johnson
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip- Windows built on CP/M]
> > I wonder if it would have been nearly as successful, MS not being able
> > to control CP/M and all.
> >
> > More likely, Digital Research would have been the one building a popular
> > GUI on top of their OS.
>
> I don't think so. It's not impossible, but I suspect
> it would still have been Microsoft.
Why am I not surprised?
[snip MS overcoming DR by superior engineering]
> It's all hypothetical, but that's how I see it.
You continue to believe that it was Microsoft's engineering prowess
that got them where they are today. I continue to believe that because
of the IBM deal and exclusive contracts with OEM's, all they needed
from engineering the ability to make products that didn't suck too
much.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Exploit devastates WinNT/2K security
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 18:00:45 GMT
Said Bob Hauck in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 26 Apr 2001 20:43:41
GMT;
>On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 17:55:38 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Said Bob Hauck in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 20 Apr 2001 16:11:22
>> >On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 15:38:16 +1200, Matthew Gardiner
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Microsoft love re-inventing the wheel over and over again. There was a
>> >> perfectly adequate file sharing protocol, called NFS which all UNIX's
>> >
>> >NFS is not really suitable for the kind of peer-to-peer file sharing
>> >that MS wanted to do. If you have root on your own machine, you can
>> >easily read all the other files off the NFS server.
>>
>> Horse manure.
>
>Why? I have a little NFS network here if you'd like me to demonstrate.
You would need root access on the NFS server first, to set the
permissions which would allow your demonstration to work. This is a
case of misconfiguration leading to a problem, and has nothing to do
with any weakness in NFS.
The "problem" with NFS is the same as the problem with almost any other
standard Unix component. It was NOT designed to be "suitable only" for
any particular thing. NFS itself is very sparse, ONLY identifying how
you "transfer" mounted file systems between computers. How you
administer them, how you secure them, how you operate on them, these are
things which implementors of NFS were supposed to build into their
implementations. As usually happens (compare SNMP, sendmail, and the
Web) the implementors took the easiest approach, simply using the
protocol specs (and generally the "free software" already implemented,
as much as possible) directly, without even a thought for the necessary
value add which might provide such things as security or ease of
administration.
NFS certainly wasn't a "perfectly adequate protocol for peer to peer
file sharing like Microsoft wanted", but only because it was 'too
expensive' in terms of resources. Modern PCs can run Unix, with full
services and including a complex X-based desktop. But NFS is too
complete, and too adequate for any kind of implementation, to be usable
for MS's "runt needs". It certainly wasn't any security concern issues;
what MS did use is twice as bad as NFS, in that regard, if only because
it did a bad job of handling security, rather than requiring external
operations (proper administration, in terms of NFS) to handle security.
But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles,soc.men,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.military.folklore
Subject: Re: Shooting Medics and other Geneva Convention Violations
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 18:00:49 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 26 Apr 2001
>Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>>
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > billh wrote:
>> > >
>> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis
>> > >
>> > > > > You are nothing more than a liar and a "war-hero" wannabe, KuKuNut.
>> > > >
>> > > > ANSWER THE QUESTION, COWARD!
>> > >
>> > > My, aren't you excitable today. Dance, wannabe, dance. LOL!!!
>> >
>> > NOTICE that BILL HUDSON IS SUCH A **COWARD***, HE EVEN SNIPS THE
>> QUESTION!!!!
>> >
>> > Bill, you have ZERO credibility until you ANSWER THE QUESTION
>>
>> I see. When someone expects _you_ to put up, it's "Jump!" but when it's you
>> asking _them_ to put up, well, hell, that's okay.
>
>Recompiling and re-installing my newsreader, for the sole purpose of
>UN-DOING the modifications I made for security purposes would be rather
>stupid, don'tcha think?
Pretending that's what you did, when in real life you are just posting
from a Win98 box, that's rather stupid.
>> You're a funny little man, Aaron.
>
>I think it's pretty funny how Bill Hudson, loud-mouth back biter,
>refuses to EVER answer any questions.
>
>Probably because the pathetic fool has NO answers.
Probably because he thinks you're a pathetic fool. I'm of a mind to
agree with both of you, to be honest.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Article: Want Media Player 8? Buy Windows XP
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 18:08:51 GMT
Said Todd in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:47:54 +0800;
[...]
>Well, see, with Windows XP, you have a choice. You can use the free Media
>Player, or you can use one of a bazillion different other media players out
>there... some of them quite good.
>
>You can choose whether or not to use XP or the media player. Just like you
>chose to use Linux. So where is the problem?
>
>Of course, all of the good media applications are for Windows, but hey, if
>you are fanatic about Linux, using substandard apps. is the norm.
Guffaw.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
