Linux-Advocacy Digest #53, Volume #34 Mon, 30 Apr 01 10:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 14:06:56 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 29 Apr 2001 22:32:30
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >>
>> >> Why? Sun was getting its ass kicked for more than a decade by MS
>> >> shenanigans.
>> >
>> >Would it have done better or worse without a network protocol
>> >that interoperated with a large number of other vendors' products
>> >and a set of applications that worked identically across platforms?
>>
>> What is that supposed to mean? Still trying to convince people that
>> without the ability to profiteer on other people's code, the software
>> industry would not have occurred?
>
>There are plenty of examples of software that developed without any
>concern for interoperating correctly with other vendors or with
>sharing and helping to improve a reference base of code.
Yes, I know this, and it again fails to address the point.
If you are going to call Microsoft's illegal activity "improving the
reference base of code", I'm going to have to call you a liar.
>The
>industry clearly could have gone entirely that direction.
According to who's imagination? Seems to me that software that doesn't
interoperate is simply not worth as much as software that does, and so
there's no reason to suppose that the industry would somehow embrace
lack of interoperability simply because they would have to actually
WRITE SOFTWARE, instead of just profiteer on what they use for free.
>The only
>thing I am trying to convice anyone about is that we are all better
>off that it didn't, and that instead the Internet developed around
>open TCP/IP instead of some protocol owned by a single vendor.
Yes, that's what I said, you have a fanciful idea that without the
ability to profiteer, software wouldn't exist. There is no particular
value in TCP/IP, Les, though it certainly has certain engineering
advantages. Also has an outrageous number of flaws and inadequacies,
many of which have been dealt with over the years. Just as any other
protocol would have been improved, yet still not be perfect. There's
nothing holy about TCP/IP; its just the way we ended up doing things. A
matter of contingency, and laying it all at the feet of the BSD license
is pure fantasy.
>This is just the most obvious case, but in every case where a
>working, well-tested reference code base is shared without
>restrictions everyone involved comes out ahead.
Depending on how pointedly you're going to ignore the many victims of
monopoly crapware, of course.
>Only the GPL
>claim otherwise, yet I don't see any of them backing away from
>using the Internet that developed precisely because there were
>no GPL-like restrictions on sharing the reference code.
This would explain why Linux is doing much better against Microsoft's
illegal monopolization than FreeBSD is, even though the latter had a
larger installed base.
[...]
>> Your comment is incomprehensible to me. How could the GPL "prevent"
>> something which is not possible under the GPL?
>
>By definition - what it does is prevent sharing.
Depends on your definition of "sharing" then. Yours is obviously
stupid, since it has nothing to do with sharing the GPL software, but
some other code you've based on the GPL code that you'd like to
profiteer on, for all I know.
>> You would like to
>> imagine many things which "would have" occurred "if not for" the GPL,
>> but it seems to me like you're trying to use a time machine, again.
>
>No, we can easily see the things that have developed from code without
>the GPL restrictions. Yet the GPL proponents claim that their
>restrictions
>provide some sort of benifit by preventing similar development of covered
>code. It has not been a benefit to me, or to you either, so I don't
>understand
>your defense of it.
Your ability to grasp abstractions, I'm afraid, is again evident.
Windows was developed from the code without the GPL restrictions.
Hardly a shining example of your principle, but still it is a very
common example, and one you seem averse to dealing with.
>> >I keep pointing out the very real example of BSD TCP/IP and you
>> >are the one pretending that it doesn't clearly demonstrate the advantage
>> >of allowing vendors to provide competing variations of a freely
>> >available reference version.
>>
>> I am not pretending anything: the existence of TCP/IP does not provide
>> evidence of any random supposition about what characteristics might have
>> been necessary for it to exist.
>
>I can only observe relationships that exist: the reference BSD code
>developed into products both free and commercial that help us all
>today. The GPL specifically prohibits that proliferation of useful
>development on covered code. There is no supposition involved.
Everything you derive from those facts is supposition. And much of it
is baseless supposition.
>> You act as if to deny your conclusion
>> is to deny that IP exists in the form that it does. Meanwhile, I can
>> point out that the source code to Windows no doubt still includes 1980s
>> era code, clearly destroying your argument that there is some benefit of
>> quality to profiteering.
>
>What does that have to do with the GPL's restrictions on the way code
>may be shared?
There are none. In the way you are trying to use the concept, you don't
have the right to share code, because you do not own it. It is covered
by copyright. You are bitching and whining about the restrictions on
how you are allowed to COPY it, and whether they mesh with your
metaphysical understanding of copyright. But you can't cheat the law,
though you might well be able to find a loophole that you can pretend
means your arguments are valid. Its somebody else's code, not yours.
Now, if you're going to use the abstraction 'software' on a different
level, then of course you can share GPL code to your heart's content,
and the license specifically ensures that this is true. What you can't
do is tell the people you share it with that they can't share it.
Your constant abstraction error on this point is tiresome. If you
didn't keep hitting this note, over and over, I might honestly think you
had a valid argument against GPL.
>> >> Forgetting, again, that, yes, commercial sale of
>> >> licenses is precisely what the GPL is INTENDED to accomplish.
>> >
>> >You are imagining things again.
>>
>> What?
>
>The GPL has nothing to do with the commercial sale of licenses.
So that would be why it prevents you from making money on them. Another
abstraction error, your "has nothing to do with".
[...]
>> >Yes, but I prefer products that work over ones that need service all the
>> >time.
>>
>> Then why on earth would you prefer closed-source code to GPL?
>
>Free products often work well for the purpose intended by their authors,
>but that may not be exactly what you need. Commercial products often
>cater to the needs of the customers.
Hardly. Commercial software products have no need to work for the
customer at all, as long as it works for the producer and they can
monopolize enough to make it profitable.
Free software has no reason to do anything but provide functional value,
and they don't really care if its the author or somebody else that runs
them.
>> >> >Let me know if you actually come up with an example where you
>> >> >think GPL'd code was used in something that could have prevented
>> >> >the monopoly from developing. I can't think of a single one.
>> >>
>> >> Actually, you've already cited dozens yourself, I would say, by
>claiming
>> >> that BSD availability of fundamentally important codebases (any
>Internet
>> >> protocol, for starters) DIDN'T contribute to the development of the
>> >> monopoly.
>> >
>> >Dozens of what?
>>
>> Dozens of what you claimed to be unable to think of a "single one".
>> Examples would probably be the easiest word to use. Doh!
>
>I asked for examples of GPL'd code that was used in something that
>could effectively compete. I didn't name any, and you haven't either
>so what are you talking about?
You weren't careful enough with your grammar, then. What you asked for
was examples of where GPL code could have prevented monopolization. I
realize you meant to stress the "GPL code was used in something", but I
didn't feel compelled to care, considering you were being so
metaphysical to begin with. You cannot have an example of where
something didn't happen, nor was GPL used in much code previous to
Microsoft's monopolization, and obviously they would avoid using it
themselves so I can't see how its presence could by itself have
prevented anything.
>> >> No code no matter how designed could have "prevented the monopoly from
>> >> developing" to begin with, this is a fantasy which you have but I don't
>> >> share. The 'development'* of the monopoly is not a matter of software
>> >> and code, it is effected by anti-competitive strategies quite distinct
>> >> from any technical or commercial merit of the product itself.
>> >
>> >Yes, but the anti-competitive strategies revolved around specific
>> >products and worked only because there were no equal or lower
>> >cost equivalents to provide competition. The GPL had a hand
>> >in preventing existing code from being used in competitive ways.
>>
>> I'm afraid the first sentence there clearly demonstrates your
>> insufficient grasp of the abstraction "anti-competitive". An
>> anti-competitive strategy only works when there is no competition? Do
>> you see the problem?
>
>Yes I see the problem, and as I keep pointing out, the GPL prevents
>covered code from being used in competitive ways.
Yup. You keep pointing it out, I keep agreeing, and you keep failing to
understand why it is a good thing. Code can be used in too many
anti-competitive ways to allow it to be used competitively, I'm afraid.
Fact of life. Sorry.
>> The GPL was designed to be anti-competitive, but not monopolistic. Your
>> observation that it works to restrain trade is an accurate one, but I
>> believe it is consistent to say that this is a reasonable restraint of
>> trade, no more grievous than is necessary to accomplish the ironically
>> pro-competitive effects of the anti-competitive license, not the
>> unreasonable restraint of trade made illegal by section 1 of the Sherman
>> Act. So this problem with GPL of "the code that won't be written
>> because of GPL" that you imagine is, practically speaking, only in your
>> imagination.
>
>No, the current result I have pointed out is very real and we all have
>to live with it. You are the one imagining it could be otherwise.
Your fanciful idea about TCP/IP and BSD is just hindsight and
second-guessing, Les. You want current results, you have to explain the
monopoly.
>> Right along side your metaphysical substance of copyright.
>
>My interpretation is that something has to be copied to violate
>a copyright. Not necessarily literally, but a copy of something
>has to be made. I see no way to relate this to dynamic linking
>to a copy of a library that you obtained separately and have been
>given the explicit right to use.
I'm not trying to harp, Les, because despite any perceptions you have of
me, I've been entirely straight and honest with you, and regardless of
how hair-brained you may think my theories are, they are reasonable
whether you agree with them or not. I say this because you have just
provided a perfect example of something I've been saying a lot lately,
because I think it will help clear things up concerning the current
world we live in, as individuals and as a society.
Copyright is not a metaphysical substance. To say that "a copy of
something has to be made", but yet claim this isn't true (not
literally), you illustrate what I mean by that. This "metaphysical
copying" is, in your mind, what drives copyright law. Protecting this
"thing", its "integrity" and the characteristics of its substance,
becomes a reason for statute and law. Its a silly idea.
Copyright is book-keeping. It was created, along with patents, to
ensure that authors are encouraged to assist in the development of the
sciences and useful arts, by ensuring they have an exclusive right to
profit from their work. Once they've profited, though, there is no
metaphysical "thing" being bought and sold by consumers and producers.
The things being sold are just objects, and physical production is the
only issue involved in the commercial transactions involved. Now, all
of this can be rhetorically re-arranged using contracts and licensing,
but the fact remains that the root abstraction of copyright is whether
the author is getting paid, not whether someone is making copies.
So, yes, the kind of applications of copyright the FSF advocates, still
untested, ARE in violation of your metaphysical concept of copyright.
But because the FACT of copyright law is as I suggest, the very fact the
FSF's claims are untested indicates they are correct, no matter how
contradictory YOU may think they are in comparison to previous
applications. Should they be proven incorrect by some future action, it
will be because there will be a change in the circumstance, of whether
authors are being rewarded for their work adequately, not because of any
change in the metaphysical nature of copyright.
--
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: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 14:06:57 GMT
Said Stefaan A Eeckels in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 29 Apr 2001
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 29 Apr 2001
>>>On Sat, 28 Apr 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>>> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 27 Apr 2001
>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 17:55:56 GMT, T. Max Devlin
>>>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>> So any random arrangement of code will support any API you imagine?
>>>>>>> Somehow, this doesn't seem like its going to work. Somehow, I think the
>>>>>>> implementation details are related to the API, if it is written first,
>>>>>>> and the API reflects some of the implementation details, if it is
>>>>>>> documented last. In other words, an API is a sketch of the facade, not
>>>>>>> an architectural diagram, however complex that facade may be, and
>>>>>>> however it may limited where the beams can or must go.
>>>>> T. Max, implementation has rarely anything to do with the API.
>>>> Obviously, this statement would require some rather tortuously
>>>> restricted sense of "having to do with".
>>>
>>>Not at all. You're just too ignorant to know reality.
>>
>> Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha.
>>
>>>>> Consider this code:
>>>> [...]
>>>>> How do I implement this system is irrelevent.
>>>> Then how is it that you have written code to implement it?
>>>
>>>He hasn't. He's written the API for it. It's definitely not
>>>implemented.
>>
>> Well, it looked like code to me, and he said "consider this code:".
>> What does that say to you?
>
>That you don't know anything about programming. A declaration
>is not an implementation, just a formal definition of the
>class. It tells you the name, the class(es) it's derived
>from, and the members of the class (variables and methods).
>It is certainly possible to have many implemenations of
>such a declaration.
So what's the point? "That I don't know anything" is bullshit rhetoric,
not a point. You can save your insults for someone who gives a crap
about your opinion, thanks.
[...]
>In the real world, the only time an application needs to know
>anything about the entrails of the functions it calls, is when
>the function has been
>a) badly designed and/or implemented
>b) badly documented.
Well, in the real world, there is no such thing as bug free software, so
I'm afraid we've just proven my point, yet again.
>I've been writing code for UNIX since 1980, and I've _never_
>had to know anything about the system libraries that wasn't
>in the man pages.
Yet you've never written a program for a library that doesn't exist
based only on an API, either, have you? I mean, not one that didn't
turn out to be
A) badly designed and/or implemented
b) incompatible with the code of the library, even if it is
theoretically correct for the API
Whether it is one or the other, I suggest would be determined by whether
you are trying to insult someone else, or make excuses for your own
failures.
[...]
>Well, one of my colleagues is writing an application to a Java
>.jar that's not yet implemented (I finished the spec, he started
>on his application after about the third draft, when we felt it
>was stable enough). I'll have the classes implemented when he'll
>start testing. Hint: writing a program != coding. There's a lot
>to do before the first line of code is written, or before the
>first test is run.
That's like saying "writing a book != authoring", and illustrates
clearly why everyone gets so confused by software copyright.
--
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: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 14:06:58 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 30 Apr 2001
>"Stefaan A Eeckels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
>> > In the real world, an application program ROUTINELY needs to know more
>> > about a function than the API documentation itself can provide. This is
>> > not a fact which magically goes away because you wish really hard.
>
>I can't think of a single case off handly.
>What you need to know about an API, or any function, for that matter, is:
>A> It's name & parameters.
>B> What it does.
>That is true for any programming languages that I've used.
>
>*How* it does it is totally irrelevent.
THAT it does it is not in any way irrelevant, and is the entire basis of
the argument.
[...]
>T. Max, you really need to get out more.
Oh, please.
[...]
All these coding examples are meaningless and uninteresting (not just to
me, I mean), and I'm beginning to suspect you just jumped in late into a
discussion you don't really have a handle on.
--
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:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 14:07:00 GMT
Said Edwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 29 Apr 2001 17:06:01 -0500;
>"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Edwin wrote:
>> >
>> > "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:9bolc7$a8u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > > The problem is not that Windows or Office are bad software. They
>aren't.
>> > > > Windows and Office are both fabulous.
>> > >
>> > > Hahahahah!
>> > >
>> > > Windows and office are _appauling_ products!
>> > >
>> > Of course. That's why so many people buy them, because they want to be
>> > appalled.
>> > >
>> Thats why so many people use drugs. Even though they might die because
>> of aids or OD, they still take them. Apply that logic to Microsoft
>> products + the fact that most users are complete and utter morons, then
>> you have the answer.
>>
>> Matthew Gardiner
>
>The only answer I see up there is the for the question "why do Mac advocates
>have the reputation of being arrogant jerks?" Windows and Microsoft
>products are in no way analogous to drugs. People use them because they do
>the job, and do it well, for a price they're willing to pay. No amount of
>your insults or ego is going to change that.
Well, it's spring, so a lot of gardens need fertilizer, anyway, so
thanks for the post, Edwin.
--
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: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 14:06:59 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 29 Apr 2001 21:44:24
GMT;
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >>
>> >> I don't play troll games, Les, because I'm not a prick.
>> >
>> >Then what do you call your months of content-free postings touting
>> >a bizarre opinion with no facts to support it?
>>
>> Participating in discussion, despite the fact that my opponents are
>> hardly worthy of the effort, given their spewing of meaningless rhetoric
>> in leu of analytic argument.
>
>You have provided nothing to analyze and ignored any mention of
>facts by anyone else. All you have done is promote someone else's
>flawed and self-serving opinions.
Keep spewing, lamer.
--
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:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 14:07:01 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 29 Apr 2001
[...]
>> This was started before Windows and continued throught he early releases
>> of Windows. They were contrived to make it more expensive to ship
>> anything except M$ OS's
>
>Sure. It's not like volume pricing is anything unusual.
Microsoft has never offered volume pricing. Saying "we will double the
price if you don't buy 120% of last years sales" to ensure that 100% of
systems have monopoly crapware is not a volume discount.
--
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:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 14:07:02 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 29 Apr 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> I think you are mistaken in ignoring the impact of Microsoft
>> force-bundling Windows with DOS, the very behavior that MS signed a
>> consent decree to avoid ending up in court.
>
>Did they get one about that?
>
>Anyway, I didn't ignore it: I observed that it would have
>been possible even if CP/M had won out. It would have
>been a little more awkward, but the basic strategy of
>promoting Windows into a 'full' operating system would
>still have worked.
"Theoretically" possible, but you only believe this theory because you
are trying to discount their illegal activity to ensure that they didn't
have to be so 'awkward' as to have to compete.
>They'd have needed their own CP/M clone or something
>more elabroate- but that's clearly not a big problem.
No, it's simply non-sensical. DOS already was in many respects a CP/M
clone.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 14:08:02 GMT
Using nix on a server is fine. Virtually nobody, outside of the
eggheads in R+D, in the company I was speaking of is using
Linux/Aix/*nix on the desktop.
Flatfish
On Sun, 29 Apr 2001 23:57:10 -0700, GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Gary Hallock wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Better get used to Win2k Gary because by year end, it will be the
>> > standard pre-load within a certain company replacing the Win95 that is
>> > currently pre-loaded.
>> >
>>
>> You're behind the times. I never use W2K. Yes, it came installed on my
>> Thinkpad. Yes, all the new Thinkpads coming in have W2K installed. But
>> we are rapidly moving to dual boot with Linux. No one wants to use W2K.
>> It servers no useful purpose. The only thing that anyone ever uses W2K
>> for in that "certain company" is running Lotus SmartSuite. And there
>> are alternatives to that. In a company where Unix is already dominant
>> on the desktop and servers, it only makes sense to go with a Unix-like OS
>> on laptops.
>>
>> Gary
>
>Ya know, I wonder if flatfish thinks that his ISP provider (att.net) is
>run by MS stuff?
>AT&T is UNIX. He should be glad he can get on with reliability. He
>should try an ISP that uses Win2k. Maybe that would change things?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 14:09:14 GMT
Exactly.
Flatfish
On Mon, 30 Apr 2001 23:57:29 +1200, "jim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I've noticed on my faster machine (400MHz PII) Linux + XFree86 doesn't
>play
>> MPG files very well. On Windows 98 SE they work just fine. Overall
>graphics
>> on thius system performs poorly compared to Windows 98 SE.
>>
>
>Here Here!
>
>MPEGS look like crude flip-frame animated GIFS under Linux - BEOS does a far
>better job. Well ummm Windows - even better. No wonder Bill is rich.
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
