Linux-Advocacy Digest #318, Volume #34 Tue, 8 May 01 09:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Now push hard ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Microsoft's move away from perpetual licensing proves that the (jtnews)
Re: Linux and MP3s (Craig Kelley)
Re: Where can I find a Linux Badge? (Craig Kelley)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (JamesW)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Karel Jansens)
Re: the Boom, Boom department (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Linux and MP3s (.)
Re: Linux and MP3s (.)
Re: the Boom, Boom department (.)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop ("Edward Rosten")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Now push hard
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 11:48:36 GMT
"pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> pip wrote:
> >
> > Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>
> > > For small utilities and applications, such as a media player, or a
image
> > > viewer, Java is more than adequate. However, the excriment really
> > > starts to hit the fan when you try to create large, complex
> > > applications. The evidence is shown in Wordperfect Java Edition,
slow,
> > > unstable, picky about what browser you used, it was a ticking time
bomb.
> >
> > To be fair: WP in Java was a load of sh*t. They could have used any
> > programming language and made it THAT bad.
>
> I should also point out that Java applications such as JBuilder, Forte,
> that word processor who's link I can't remember (something office),
> ArgoUML, even parsable is the pdf acrobat reader - all run quite well
> and they are certainly "complex" applications. The problem is that
> people just don't optimise their GUI work and probably come from a C++
> background with bad habits and preconceptions and then wonder why things
> don't work the same (also the GUI api is "over designed" imho). Also
> remember that only _now_ are JVM's getting properly optimised and decent
> JIT's integrated. Just like Linux on the desktop: watch this space :)
I'd like to see that happen. Java is a nice, clean, and well thought out
language (from what i've seen).
------------------------------
From: jtnews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft's move away from perpetual licensing proves that the
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 11:56:13 GMT
Adam Warner wrote:
> That's just a problem with never being satisfied with a very profitable
> business that is already fully servicing the market. Microsoft's wants to
> keep growing and growing.
But the inherent problem with all software is
that you have to maintain it on an ongoing
basis as technology progresses.
As a market saturates, a company only has
two choices with a closed source product,
come up with a new version and get people
to buy the new features, or get them to pay
for "maintenance". Since the company is the
only one with the source, they are the only
ones with the ability to adapt the program
to new operating environments. They must bear
the full cost of all future maintenance
and charge for those services.
If the company's cost structure continues to bloat,
they will be increasingly pressured to increase
the price of maintenance, to the point where
the fees become more expensive than the cost to
do the R&D of the product itself! Essentially,
you're forcing the entire community to pay
for a bloated software engineering staff.
Well the commercial company could cut its staff,
some might say. But anyone who has ever worked
for a commercial software company will tell you,
software engineers will almost always continue
to add new "features" regardless of whether the
user community needs them or not, only to justify
their own existence. It's simply human nature.
Note that under the closed source model, it's possible
that the total maintenance or subscription costs to
be dramatically higher than perpetual license model
over the lifetime of the product. What makes it
even worse is that it makes it impossible to predict
how much a piece of software will cost. Companies
can arbitrarily raise subscription fees at any point
in the future and any users will be forced to pay
if their business model is dependent on that piece
of software for doing business.
For example, suppose your entire company uses Microsoft
Outlook and is dependent on it for daily operations,
and Microsoft decides to charge $40/user/year
to use Outlook. Suppose you have 100 employees,
right, there you're out $4000/year! And you MUST
pay it immediately or else what are you going to do?
Stop using email?
What if the subscription cost
suddenly rises to $100/user/year? Even if the cost
is ridiculously high, your options with closed source
software in the near term are severely limited.
You will essentially be forced to pay up until you can
change to another competitor. And as every MIS director
knows, getting users to change their habits on a dime
is nearly impossible. In the meantime,
you'll continue to pay ridiculous prices for
subscriptions.
If you want to see a software market where
the subscription model is carried to the extreme,
take a look at the electronic design automation (EDA)
market. EDA tools are software programs used in
the design of semiconductors. The subscription
costs in that market for a single piece of software
can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars!
This is largely because the R&D requirements to support
the technology in that business are very high mostly
because the closed source model keeps the intellectual
property and ability to simply change one line in
the source code in the hands of the EDA companies.
Thus, once they've got the semiconductor companies
hooked and locked in and they can charge whatever price
they want.
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux and MP3s
Date: 08 May 2001 06:10:24 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) writes:
> Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) writes:
>
> >> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > There are several. When you do the install, they'll be available
> >> > on the appliations menu.
> >>
> >> Uhh...wrong. The default xmms install (assuming that you do not have
> >> gnome installed) drops everything in /usr/local/bin, but not into any
> >> "applications menu".
> >>
> >> Unless you are *specifically* using mandrake,
>
> > ... or any other distribution's packaging system.
>
> Really? Where is it under blackbox on my debian system? (hint, I do not
> have an applications menu)
That's not Debian's fault -- it has a standard method for all menuing
systems.
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Where can I find a Linux Badge?
Date: 08 May 2001 06:14:44 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ivory Bones) writes:
> Using the CD's on a book cover, I managed to install RedHat 7.0 on an old
> 486. Then I got a deal on a Pentium class machine built from parts, and
> Installed the same CD's on it.
>
> Well of course all you people out in Linuxland know that I have discovered
> a really nice OS and will soon be leaving Bill's land behind.
>
> I live in the Florida panhandle. There are three major bookstores in town,
> and all have Linux sections. There's got to be some other local users and
> it would be nice to chat with them, and maybe form a local user's group.
>
> A badge advertising Linux would be a nice way to get started. I searched
> the web and came up with a coffee mug which won't work, but the idea is
> right.
>
> Anyone know where to find a badge?
www.thinkgeek.com has a ton
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: JamesW <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 13:13:21 +0100
I'm braindead too - it's begin-space-space not space-space-begin
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[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!
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 18:52:27 +0000
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 04 May 2001
> > >"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > [...]
> > >Microsoft at this point decided they had had
> > >enough of IBM and informed them that they
> > >no longer wished to collaborate. They wanted
> > >to pursue Windows instead.
> >
> > This is where your telling goes awry, I think. MS kept the industry
> > supporting OS/2, sometimes quite forcefully (or at least forcefully
> > excluding them from developing on Windows, insisting that OS/2, not
> > Windows, was "the replacement for DOS".)
>
> MS did not exclude anyone from developing on
> Windows. They *encouraged* it.
>
... but only if the developers promised to phase out the OS/2
equivalents. Ask Borland (ObjectVision, anyone?)
> They did not keep the industry from suppoting OS/2;
> for a while they were in fact advocating that very thing,
> but the industry was not listening.
>
> After the divorce, they changed their tune.
>
Microsoft started "downplaying" OS/2 quite a while before the split with
IBM (the "divorce"). They obviously thought they could swindle more
money out of the gullible public by paddling an inferior O/S, rather
than invest R&D money in OS/2.
> > >They knew a good thing when they saw one, and
> > >they weren't about to go down with OS/2, no
> > >matter what they'd said about it in the past.
> >
> > OS/2 was a clearly superior product, but lacked the necessary feature to
> > gain "market acceptance".
>
> ... DOS compatibility. :D
>
Rather: per-processor preloads and predatory, illegal business tactics.
> But actually, OS/2 wasn't so clearly superior at the time.
> That was around the time of OS/2 1.3, whose services
> (GUI, printing, etc) were about the same as Windows 3-
> but it used quite a bit more memory, too.
>
> OS/2 2.0 would put on a better showing, but it
> was still vapor then.
>
IBM produced OS/2 2.0 rather soon after the split. Frankly, there is no
comparison possible between OS/2 2.xx and Windows 3.xx, and certainly
not between OS/2 3 and 4 and Windows 9x. Infact, OS/2 was the perfect
workstation O/S that Windows would like to be.
> > Microsoft had a monopoly in DOS, and OS/2
> > wasn't DOS. Windows could be DOS (but yet pretend not to be DOS, even
> > to the point of not being DOS, but being a VMS-like thing specially
> > created to not be DOS, without being anything else other than whatever
> > OS Windows needs.)
>
> Now *that* the most tortured rationalization I've
> seen all day!
>
> > >At this time IBM and MS had their intellectual
> > >properties rather tangled up, but they sorted them
> > >out, assigning bits to each company.
> > >
> > >One gets the feeling IBMs lawyers were asleep
> > >at the switch on this one. You're not going
> > >to believe how they split this stuff up.
> >
> > Lawyers aren't businessmen, goofball. Businessmen, not lawyers,
> > negotiate deals; lawyers just right them down.
>
> Okay, IBM's *businessmen* were asleep at the
> switch then.
>
> > One gets the feeling IBM
> > was still under the impression they could out-compete the
> > anti-competitive. They should have known better, of course, still
> > climbing out from under several consent decrees themselves. But of
> > course, in the end, that explains the "asleep at the switch" angle: they
> > were perfectly aware of what was going on, and in retrospect have done
> > an admirable job of living through it.
>
> I don't follow. An "living through it" is an "admirable job"
> somehow?
>
> They got creamed, Max.
>
> [snip]
> > >MS got the OS/2 3.0 code they had been working
> > >on lock, stock and barrel. It would become
> > >Windows NT in a few years time.
> >
> > Perhaps you're confabulating their use of SMB from LanManager for NT
> > networking. OS/2 3.0 code is "Warp", and MS never had anything to do
> > with that.
>
> No, it's just confusing because of the way the names got tangled.
>
> This is before the project that would be called "OS/2 Warp"
> started. Microsoft was working on what was *then* supposed
> to be the next major revision of OS/2, and it was a far more
> ambitious project that Warp was.
>
> Naturally, once that went off to become NT, IBM started
> a new project to product the next OS/2 revision, and
> also a next-generaction OS project of their own, called
> "Workplace OS".
>
> These never used any of the code that had
> been written for Microsoft's OS/2 3.0 project.
>
Don't try to talk about things you know nothing about. It makes you look
even more silly.
After the split, IBM produced OS/2 2.0, 2.1 and 2.11. All these versions
of OS/2 were vastly superior to the Windows NT versions of the day.
"Warp" was OS/2 version 3 and came out in 1994, at the time putting
Windows 3.5x to shame. Microsoft followed with a revamped Chicago (with
several last-minute alterations to the desktop to mimick some of Warp's
features) and called that Windows 95. Features of "Workplace OS" (which
was never more than an idea-frame) saw the light of day in Warp 4, WSeB
and - recently - in Serenity Systems' eComStation, the latest version of
OS/2.
> > >IBM and Microsoft then went at each other
> > >great guns. But that's another story.
> >
> > No, IBM competed and Microsoft continued to illegally monopolize.
> > That's pretty much the end of the story.
>
> Well, you prefer not to look at what happened back then,
> because it doesn't conform to your rather manichean
> preconceptions.
You don't seem to have a clue about what happened at all.
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
==============================================================
"You're the weakest link. Goodb-No, wait! Stop! Noaaarrghh!!!"
==============================================================
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: the Boom, Boom department
Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 11:27:51 +0200
Darren Wyn Rees wrote:
>
> I know Windows 2000 only ships with 4 games of a passable quality.
> Most Linux distributions on the other hand ship with a lot of tripe.
>
>>Because there are plenty of them.
>
> This does not explain why Linux distributions waste distribution media
> by shipping tripe.
>
> Windows 2000 Professional fits on 1 CDROM. Some Linux distributions
> require 2 or 3 CDROMs, because of the tendency of distributors to
> 'throw in' superfluous material, eg. the awful games.
>
>
So what you are telling us it is A Good Thing(tm) that W2K fits on 1 CD
compared to the 7 (seven!) from SuSE, which, by the way, need less than
1/10 of one CD for this "tripe".
Iīm sure the sources on those CDīs are also "tripe" because you donīt get
them with windows, which can only mean you donīt need any, right?
Give us a break.
How dumb can the arguments of those wintrolls get?
There clearly seems to be no limit.
Peter
--
Stop repeating yourself. Try something original - like suicide
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Linux and MP3s
Date: 8 May 2001 12:50:30 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." wrote:
>>
>> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Mark Styles wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Fellow advocates,
>> >>
>> >> I currently have my entire CD collection stored in MP3 format on a
>> >> 30Gb hard drive in a Windows PC.
>> >>
>> >> Because I use that PC for other things, which sometimes interfere with
>> >> the music, I've been busy building a new PC to be a dedicated
>> >> 'jukebox' on our LAN.
>> >>
>> >> I've decided as an experiment to install Linux on the new PC to see
>> >> how well it handles my musical needs.
>> >>
>> >> My question is, what applications should I use to emulate XingMP3
>> >> Player functionality?
>>
>> > There are several. When you do the install, they'll be available
>> > on the appliations menu.
>>
>> Uhh...wrong. The default xmms install (assuming that you do not have
>> gnome installed) drops everything in /usr/local/bin, but not into any
>> "applications menu".
>>
>> Unless you are *specifically* using mandrake, you fucking moron.
>>
>> > If you put the drive with the MP3's in during installation, and
>> > leave it alone (with it's current formatting, etc.), then it will
>> > be mounted into the filesystem on your first boot-up.
>>
>> Are you insane? What the hell is the matter with you? It very much
>> depends on which distribution youre using, cocksmack.
> Worked for my Linux-illiterate friend on his first install.
You dont even actually know what a 'distribution' is, do you.
=====.
--
"George Dubya Bush---the best presidency money can buy"
---obviously some Godless commie heathen faggot bastard
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Linux and MP3s
Date: 8 May 2001 12:51:51 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Craig Kelley wrote:
>>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) writes:
>>
>> > Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > There are several. When you do the install, they'll be available
>> > > on the appliations menu.
>> >
>> > Uhh...wrong. The default xmms install (assuming that you do not have
>> > gnome installed) drops everything in /usr/local/bin, but not into any
>> > "applications menu".
>> >
>> > Unless you are *specifically* using mandrake,
>>
>> ... or any other distribution's packaging system.
>>
>> > you fucking moron.
>>
>> No comment. :)
>>
>> > > If you put the drive with the MP3's in during installation, and
>> > > leave it alone (with it's current formatting, etc.), then it will
>> > > be mounted into the filesystem on your first boot-up.
>> >
>> > Are you insane?
>>
>> Aaron? Quite.
> Most distributions will make mount-points and /etc/fstab entries for LoseDOS
>partitions.
If by most, you mean some, and by some you mean mandrake, redhat, corel and progeny,
then
yes.
=====.
--
"George Dubya Bush---the best presidency money can buy"
---obviously some Godless commie heathen faggot bastard
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: the Boom, Boom department
Date: 8 May 2001 12:52:55 GMT
Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." wrote:
>>
>> Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Darren Wyn Rees wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy :
>> >>
>> >> >First of all, what is the "boom, boom department?".
>> >>
>> >> I thought everybody boom, boomed.
>> >>
>> >> >Second of all, I agree to a certain extent on the stupidity some distro's have
>of
>> >> >including thousands of apps/games that are just re-interations of the
>> >> >same thing.
>> >>
>> >> Hear, hear. Perhaps if the distro makers decided to showcase a couple
>> >> of good games, instead of throwing in all the available chaff, one
>> >> might be less unforgiving.
>> >>
>> >> >I've finally hung up my SuSE parade gear, and I have moved
>> >> >back to Corel Linux, yes, I know, people will go, "it is not as flexible
>> >> >as <distro>", however, for my purposes, it works fine a dandy, I also
>> >> >have found I have less problems using Corel software (surprise,
>> >> >surprise), such as Wordperfect and Corel Draw, the added benefit is that
>> >> >it is debian based which gives me access to 1000's of useful, and no-so
>> >> >useful files.
>> >>
>> >> Of all the popular distributions, SuSE is the worst afflicted
>> >> as far as the 'let's package the kitchen sink with this distro'
>> >> disease is concerned.
>> >>
>> >> >As for the comment regarding Linux games from Loki, I take issue with
>> >> >that, I have used both Simcity 3000 and Civilisation Call to Power, and
>> >> >they are right on par with their Windows counterpart.
>> >>
>> >> My opinion is that Loki's CTP is absolutely awful.
>> >>
>> >> >Conclusion from previous poster: A whining Wintrol with a hypothetical
>> >> >senario based on an issue he has with Windows
>> >>
>> >> Linux distributions include games of a quality and fashion that hark
>> >> back to personal computing from the mid eighties.
>> >>
>> >> It's a fact.
>> >>
>> >> Linux is not yet a credible games platform.
>> > Not yet, however, OpenGL and OpenAL are both taking shape quickly.
>> > Also, if you were playing these games with Xfree86 3.3.6, then yes, it
>> > would be shit house, however, 4.03 is a milestone in terms of
>> > performance etc when playing games.
>>
>> Indeed. Heres a figure:
>>
>> 450mhz PIII ATA/66 machine with 2x AGP with a straight shot NVIDIA GEFORCE
>> 256 in it, running mandrake linux w/xfree 4.0.3 and the latest NVIDIA drivers...
>>
>> Also running w2k with the latest NVIDIA drivers
>>
>> Unreal Tournament, fullscreen, 1600x1280, 32 bit color depth:
>> Linux: 60fps, average
>> Windows: 33fps, average
> Uh, no.
Evidence? I understand that my story is anecdotal, but your 'uh, no' only serves
to put a very fine point on your own retardation.
=====.
--
"George Dubya Bush---the best presidency money can buy"
---obviously some Godless commie heathen faggot bastard
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 12:57:25 GMT
"Steve Sheldon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9d7ugc$fj6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> > > Now - sure, MS could do what you propose. Come out with Windows -3112
> "The
> > > Antiupgrade" and have it rewritten from the ground up by european
teens
> on
> > X
> > > supporting only the very latest popular standards and just ignoring
> > > everything that is "uncool" in the scene at that minute and just
ignore
> > the
> > > VAST installed userbase and blow off every single manufacturer and ISV
> and
> > > force them to grok some new undocumented (documentation is uncool and
> > boring
> > > to true hackerz) APIs...
> > >
> > > <sarcasm>yea, great idea!</sarcasm>
> >
> > Now that's just being silly.
>
> Not really, it's called Linux.
Huh? Linux presents the same API as unix has since at least the early
80's and will run most unix programs with just a recompile of the
same source code. It is Microsoft that has refused to follow that
working standard and given us the never-ending API-of-the-month
to follow without ever getting it right - hence the yearly promises
that the upcoming 'next' version will finally do what they have been
promising for years.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 15:06:02 +0100
>> > When we were in the hunter-gatherer stage, there was no science to
>> > speak of. Certainly not the level needed to determine the direct
>> > linkage between sex and the birth of a baby 9 months later.
>>
>> 1 People were no more stupid then than they were now
>
> How do you prove this?
Unless you have evidence to show that we have undergone significat
evoultion in 10,000 years (a _very_ short time) then there is nothing to
suggets that people are any more stupid. So, how do you prove they aren't?
>> 2 Information was probably passed on by word of mouth
>
> Only if the language, and mental processes existed to analyze and
> communicate such information.
There is evidence ot suggest language.
>> 3 It doesn't take 9 months before you know.
>
> But the knowledge of pregnancy isn't aquired immediately after sex.
Sex -> pregnancy has been known for thousands of years. There are
references in the old testament to the bible (and the scrolls) suggesting
the knowledge has been known for well over 2000 years.
> One theory is that the greatest mental step that man kind has ever
> taken, is to develop the mental process of "cause and effect".
>
> Even as little as 1000 years ago, this capability was rare.
Have you any evidence to back up this claim?
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 15:07:50 +0100
>> If homosexuality is such a sead end, how come it keeps cropping up n
>> many, many formes of life, after hunderds of million years have, by
>> your argument tried to get rid of it.
>>
>> If it's still here, there is probably a very god reason.
>
> Because, quite simply, most people who define themselves as homosexual,
> or heterosexual, do so because of societal pressure, when in fact they
> are probably bisexual with a preference.
>
> Bisexuals, even those with a strong preference for same sex contact, are
> obviously capable of reproduction.
>
> Also, homosexual contact has distinct advantages for primitive cultures,
> increasing the survival rating of the group. Less so for more modern
> cultures.
Ok, lets think of a society where there are no social pressures, no
influence, everyone just follows their instinct. Lets take a bee colony.
Why do you get male bees who exclusively try to mate with other males
(its rare, but it happens)?
Your explanation doesn't cover this.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
