Linux-Advocacy Digest #591, Volume #34 Fri, 18 May 01 08:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) ("David Brown")
Re: Promoting Distribution of Open Source Applications (Chris Sherlock)
Re: Campaign: Microsoft Free by October 1st (Karel Jansens)
Re: Campaign: Microsoft Free by October 1st (Karel Jansens)
Re: Analysis of the Linux Report from MS ("billwg")
Re: Analysis of the Linux Report from MS ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Analysis of the Linux Report from MS ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Donn Miller)
Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (Charlie Ebert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 12:10:13 +0200
Ayende Rahien wrote in message <9e2ofn$223$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
>"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9e2mhp$h1p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> Ayende Rahien wrote in message <9due41$du6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
>> You are correct about the solutions contest. But a similar principle
>> applies, even for companies that have the money available. They still
>have
>> to justify the costs (although they will be less, since the hardware is
>> cost-price, and the big groups already have the appropirate memberships).
>> And ultimately, they are interested in their own bottom line - if they
>make
>> more profit selling bigger machines with more expensive software, then
>that
>> is what they will push for in the benchmarks. It is a lot easier to
>profit
>> from a 40% cut on a $300,000 software package than from 40% of a $79
>> package. Lower end hardware and cheap / free software with lower
absolute
>> numbers are not nearly as glamerous, even if they can produce far better
>> bangs per buck figures. There is also the question of who they are
>> targetting with the benchmark "advertising" - there are plenty of
>potential
>> customers who are used to paying hundreds of thousands for large software
>> systems, and just will not consider a free system regardless of any
>> performance figures.
>
>Okay, I've to ask, where does the profit goes from software in those
>situations?
>If IBM sells MS-SQL Server, does it get something, and if so, how much?
>
I don't really know - I would presume that when a solutions vendor like IBM
resells MS software as part of a solution, they make a profit on the
software as well as the hardware. I have no concrete idea about how the
numbers work out - I am just basing my statements on common sense and common
business practice (if you sell something made up of lots of parts, you aim
to make a profit on each part). This may not be the case here (after all,
the computer and software industry is not renowned for its common sense).
>I know that OEM buy Windows licenses from MS, and then sell it to the
>customer, is it the same with this kind of stuff?
>
>> Regarding the SGI solution, they have clearly aimed for top marks
>regardless
>> of cost. If they had tried PostGres and DB2 and found that DB2 was 2%
>> faster (the figures here are entirely hypothetical), they would use DB2
>> regardless of the price.
>
>The cost of software here is (usually, except for DB licenses, which can
get
>expensive *real* fast, not to mention a nightmare to manage.) usually
>miniscule compare to the cost of the hardware.
>In this case, 2%, or even 20%, wouldn't have make a difference, it would've
>still put Linux at the top of the table, and at much lower price (DB cost
is
>free in this case).
>As I said, in order to even *wish* to get into the table, you've to invest
>some *hefty* sums in hardware. And hardware is where most of the profit of
>those companies come from, well, that and support contracts.
>
Yes, it is the hardware that costs. So vendors supply their best hardware,
and they run whatever software makes it look best regardless of the costs.
Presumably we can conclude that none of the open source databases are faster
than the big commercial ones, at least for these sorts of data sizes. This
is hardly surprising - IBM can easily give its DB2 developers a couple of
300 GB servers to play with to improve performance on huge systems, but that
is hardly going to happen in the MySQL or PostGres world.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 20:36:25 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Promoting Distribution of Open Source Applications
RedHat
Chris
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>
> Are you some sort of idiot? what sort of twitt will try to sell
> opensource, free software on the net?
>
> Matthew Gardiner
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > There is a lot of Open-Source products out there. Some are easy to
> > use, Some more difficult. Open Country http://www.opencountry.org
> > is trying to build a new delivery mechanism by simplfying installation
> > and launch of these applications. As one of our engineers said
> > recently: What I am trying to do now within the [open-source]
> > movement is:
> >
> > 1. Expand the range and depth of development. Opening the doors of
> > Open Source to even more participants.
> >
> > 2. Create incentive to inovate.
> >
> > 3. Promote Open Source OS's as desktop/office/handheld OS of choice.
> >
> > 4. Take the best that the Cathedral has to offer and install it into
> > the bazaar.
> >
> > 5. Give business the "warm fuzzy" that it needs to promote the use of
> > Open Source software in thier day to day work (ie the desktop in the
> > cubicle)
> >
> > 6. Move the ability to use Open Source software from the geek to the
> > meek, in other words make it simple enough for my mother to use.
> >
> > 7. Create an organization that is as resposive to the community of
> > users as possible.
> >
> > Did we succeed?
> >
> > Use the feedback forms at http://www.opencountry.org
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Campaign: Microsoft Free by October 1st
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 11:48:40 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>Not to call you a liar, but I have _never_ met anyone who managed to keep
>>Win 9x running for more than a working week (i.e.: five days) in a normal
>>office or home environment (*). Most people call themselves lucky if they
>>get through the day without a three-finger salute to their grey box.
>
> Sorry to disappoint, but I'm very careful with my box. At work, it
> took me a month to get it cleaned up and running right. But when my
> boss made me put back the norton crap, I just couldn't keep that
> program from crashing. Also, every time another employee touches my
> machine at work, something really bad happens. At home though, I have
> more control.
>
> If you know what you're doing, and you're familiar enough with the
> reasons why windows keeps crashing, you can keep it running for a
> while. Alot of times it's the apps that crash the system because om
> memory address errors in their programing. (My buddy was explaining it
> to men, I don't really know how to explain it well.)
>
> It just sucks that you have to be diligent about it.
>
Does it not strike you as odd that the user has to be the one maintaining
the O/S? I mean, is that not what an O/S is supposed to do?
I do not care much about Windows and I do not use it myself, but when I
compare my linux housekeeping to the kind of work Windows users apparently
have to do, I have to come to the conclusion that either I am a very lucky
man, or that Windows users are prepared to take a lot more crap from their
operating system than I would.
The only times I do a reinstall is when I upgrade to a new kernel or a new
version of X11; sure, I have had programs bomb out on me (and quite a few,
I admit), but I still have to come across the first one that takes the O/S
with it; the only time my PC goes off is in the event of a power outage
(and that only happens when the occasional thunderstorm strikes); I have
been hit with 'Melissa' and 'I love you' several times but, not having
Windows or Outlook, they were amusing at best; I am still waiting for a
linux virus to see what it can do to my system.
But enough with the advocacy ranting already, glad to hear you managed to
get a stable Windows 9x system. More power to you.
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
===============================================================
Has anybody ever wondered why Microsoft launched Windows 95
with a song that contains the line: "You make a grown man cry"?
Oh, wait...
===============================================================
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Campaign: Microsoft Free by October 1st
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 12:02:17 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Well, that's why I'm preparing to get Linux together. I'm just one of
> those people who has to get a better idea about something before he
> changes. (I've just been reading everything I can find and asking
> questions for now.)
>
> Even with Linux, one of the apps I wanted was Sun's Star Office (so I
> never needed MS office again) which claims a minimum requirement of a
> 233mHz processor. Are you able to run it on your machine? I might be
> able to, but I"m worried it might be lagged too much.
>
I think I may be the resident Luddite, as my main PC is a pentium 75 with
96 MB of RAM (and only 64 of those are cached, courtesy of a braindead
motherboard). I prefer Applix Office because it has very low hardware
requirements (got it acceptably running on a P75 laptop with 16 MB RAM
once), but I have StarOffice 5.2 and although it is definitely a slow
starter (loading time around 1-2 minutes!), it is pretty nimble once up.
StarOffice is plenty fast once you get your processor around the 166 mark
or so.
Obviously, with those hardware specs, KDE is not my desktop of choice. I
usually run IceWM, occasionally with dfm (a desktop file manager that
mimicks the look and feel of OS/2 Warp). I do run a few KDE and Gnome
programs, mainly because they look kewl <G>.
> And I think the main problem with my burner is it's parralel port. I
> can only get 1x for burning audio CD's. Is your's parralel, scsi,
> internal? And do you get 8x on audio CDs or just data CD's?
>
> I'll tell you what, though. Never have I found people more willing to
> help a newbie out then in the world of linux. I'm learning a lot.
>
We are not helping you, we are assimilating you into the hive.
<insert MP3 with maniacal laughter>
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
===============================================================
Has anybody ever wondered why Microsoft launched Windows 95
with a song that contains the line: "You make a grown man cry"?
Oh, wait...
===============================================================
------------------------------
From: "billwg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Analysis of the Linux Report from MS
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 10:40:25 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9e2o02$1gf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> They don't, of course.
> You get additional APIs or changes that doesn't break applications (like
the
> new UI in Whistler).
>
I can understand that you can load libraries for the application and
everything continues to work OK for existing applications. My question was
in regard to a developer's problem in making a new applications. Does the
application have to change to be optimized for each different GUI? Do linux
users favor one GUI over another as a "standard" or do they just take what
comes with the particular application? To me the GUI flavors the entire
appearance of the platform. If users choose GUIs like PC users choose
Windows vs OS/2, then the application has to accomodate that choice, I
think. If the users don't actually care, then you just write an app for
whatever GUI is most suited for the app.
>
> As a side point, how does Windows manage remote display?
>
There is the NT Terminal Services functionality that allows an application
run on a remote server to be controlled from a client desktop. I think,
architecturally, that's a lot like the X-terminal system. But Windows
fundamentally is a "thick" client system and all of the display
functionality runs locally and only data and messages are accessed from the
server.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Analysis of the Linux Report from MS
Date: 18 May 2001 18:40:50 +0800
>>>>> "GreyCloud" == GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
GreyCloud> Now that's the best I've ever seen it put! Very well
GreyCloud> done!
Now, you've learnt who are better designers of software architecture.
Windows designers are, IMO, very adhoc, short-sighted and fragile.
There is no long term vision or plans, in the technical side. (They
may have good plans on marketing, though.) Thus, things won't work
with a newer version of the OS or library or software. Users must
keep on upgrading their OS, libraries, softwares just to make sure
they work. MS just conceal this fact with wonderful marketing, at
which they excel.
UNIX features, on the other hand, are based on mature research
results, proven techniques, etc. Designers are usually have a long
vision, and have EXTENSIBILITY, FORWARD-COMPABILITY, BACK-COMPABILITY,
INTEROPERABILITY, multiple concurrent users, multiple concurrent
machines, multiple concurrent processes, etc. in mind. Features are
carefully designed to be extensible, so that they can work with future
softwares, and existing softwares can work with a newer version of the
underlying design.
The X protocol, for instance, is designed with both extensibility
(which gives both forward and backward compatibility),
interoperability and also efficiency (optimization on the network
bandwidth) in mind. X protocol have now got many "extensions", such
as SHAPE, DOUBLE-BUFFER, DPMS (to put the monitor into standby or
suspend mode), GLX (for openGL), MIT-SHM, MIT-SCREEN-SAVER, and many
more. Despite these extensions, X-clients and X-servers still work
together without problems. (New clients exploiting the extensions
would of course require new server capabilities, but old clients would
work with new servers and new protocol versions without modification.
Most new clients will also work with older servers and older protocol
versions, because clients can, and often will, negotiate features with
the server, and fall back gracefully.)
Actually. the whole X platform is carefully structured to decouple
the graphics capability from the look-and-feel, which is provided by
UI-toolkit (aka Widget-set, or GUI-library). The X protocol (which
can be programmed with the aid of Xlib) only defines how clients and
servers communicate so as to draw things like circles, lines, images,
etc. It is a UI-toolkit that determines how to draw the buttons,
menus. So, the look-and-feel is determined by the UI-toolkit -- a
layer separate from the X protocol. So, programs written with Qt,
GTK, Xt, Motif can all work together and appear on the same display
(i.e. X-server), although they have different look-and-feels. Which
toolkit to use is thus the high-level programmers' choice. The user's
only responsibility is to ensure that they have the suitable libraries
installed for the programs they run. Even the window manager is a
separate (but special) X-client. So, that's another form of
decoupling. You don't like this window manager? Just switch to
another that you like.
UNIX design philosophy: make everything small but ELEGANT, POWERFUL
and EFFICIENT for exactly the specialized task it is for. So, 'wc'
only counts, and never sorts. 'sort' concentrates on sorting, and
won't do "search and replace", which is the job of 'sed'. Although
each of these little tools can do only one thing, the possibility of
combining them via the pipe facility make them very poweful. The same
goes for many other UNIX features and designs. X is another example:
the X-protocol concentrates on letting the X-client and X-server talk
so as to let the client display things and receive input events. The
UI-toolkits concentrate on drawing the GUI components, and managing
the geometry (or layout) of the components, but do not have to worry
about the underlying network communication. Application programmers
concentrate on provide application features, and is freed of having to
worry about the bits and bytes sent between the application and the
X-server.
--
Lee Sau Dan §õ¦u´°(Big5) ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ)
.----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.csis.hku.hk/~sdlee |
`----------------------------------------------------------------------------'
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Analysis of the Linux Report from MS
Date: 18 May 2001 18:48:26 +0800
>>>>> "Edward" == Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> I have no idea why this is not done more often.
>> *Shrug* never underestimate the stupidity of human being ;-)
>> Windows has RG_SZ_EXPAND, which does the same work.
Edward> That is one of my gripes with RPM (and some of the
Edward> programs repackaged) is that they can't be installed in an
Edward> arbitrary place (well, most can't).
Recent versions of RPM (the format) and 'rpm' (the utility) support
"relocatable" packages. I've never played with it, but I believe the
application packager MUST take the responsibility to make it work, and
that in turn depends on whether the application writers provide such
an option.
Edward> It is annoying when your /usr partition fills up.
Fortunately, this is partly alleviated by the use of symbolic link.
Just install a new harddisk, mount the partitions somewhere (say
"/blah") then 'mv' some of the things from "/usr" to "/blah", and
finally make a symbolic link from "/usr/abc" to "/blah/abc". You can
then free up the /usr partition. That'd be transparent to both the
programs and end-users.
What can you do when something similar happens in windows? What if
The C: drive is filled up? Can you move some application's files to
the D: drive? No, many programs will record in the registry that the
files are in drive "C:". Moving them to "D:" would thus break it.
Now, Windows do not have symbolic links. What can you do? Re-install
the applications?
--
Lee Sau Dan §õ¦u´°(Big5) ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ)
.----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.csis.hku.hk/~sdlee |
`----------------------------------------------------------------------------'
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 07:25:57 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> Well, since you mention it, Bush Jr's plan includes the capitalization
> (or, rather, free public money to the fascist billionaires) for nuclear
> power plants, which is a good thing.
Screw that. I think the future belongs to solar and wind-powered
electricity. I mean, I don't see enough of a devotion to solar energy.
There's a lot of sunshine going to waste during the summer months,
because people just take refuge in their AC-cooled homes and offices.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 12:05:24 GMT
In article <mf5N6.1437$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9e2bp0$i1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Not "whacked", just missinformed. Intel doesn't need to wait, it
>already
>> as
>> > > AIX, Solaris and HP-UX on board, so why would they wait for Windows?
>> they
>> > > don't, and if you have kept a close eye on Intel, they have been
>urging
>> > > UNIX vendors to port their OS accross to the Itanium chip. Hence,
>Intel
>> only
>> > > has the strong alliance with Microsoft in the desktop, but not in the
>> server
>> > > space.
>> > >
>> > > Matthew Gardiner
>> >
>> > And , the Linux community has already ported Linux to the Itanium...
>> > they are waiting for Intel to get its act together. MS doesn't have
>> > their O/S ready yet for the Itanium.
>> > Some of the archetectural types don't agree on the way Intel has done
>> > the Itanium.
>> >
>> The mainpoint it this, there are already 3 commercially available OS's for
>> Itanium, and one GPL OS. Microsoft can't even produce one! even with all
>> the money and so-called "R&D" the carry out each year.
>
>Get off it. That's because IA64 support is tied to Whistler, which won't be
>out till october. Not because of the IA64 support, but because that's when
>the OS will be done. They've had the IA64 betas available since beta 1,
>about 6 months ago.
>
That's why they are keeping the chip running in HP-9000's for now.
As for the rest of your comments, "BLACK HELICOPTERS"!
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 12:07:39 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
>It's pretty amazing, how extreme this is getting. Yes, there is a back
>door. Yes, it is removed by *deleting a dll*, the function of which
>appears, thereby, entirely optional and pretty much just there, I guess,
>to be a back door for Microsoft. But, hey, the lack of any coherent
>explanation other than "some engineers having some fun" *perfectly*
>explains all of this.
>
>Do I hear a 'guffaw', off in the distance somewhere?
>
>--
>T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
"BLACK HELICOPTERS" "BLACK HELICOPTERS" "BLACK HELICOPTERS"
There. Now how about that original big boy statement...
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 12:08:48 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>Said Charlie Ebert in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 17 May 2001 12:14:28
> [...]
>>So in essence, its not such a big deal?
>>
>>Only if you consider a hidden back door in every IIS server on the planet
>>which gives the user the capability to steal everything off the server and
>>run a muck across your intra-net no problem.
>
>One cannot "run a muck", Charlie. ROTFLMAO!
>
>Maybe it's the beer but that is SO funny! "Run a muck." What the hell
>is a muck? ROTFL AGAIN!
>
>
>--
>T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
It's similar to you head hitting the asphalt floor of some
bar parking lot at about 1:30 AM.
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 12:09:22 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ed Allen wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said Charlie Ebert in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 17 May 2001 12:14:28
>> [...]
>>>So in essence, its not such a big deal?
>>>
>>>Only if you consider a hidden back door in every IIS server on the planet
>>>which gives the user the capability to steal everything off the server and
>>>run a muck across your intra-net no problem.
>>
>>One cannot "run a muck", Charlie. ROTFLMAO!
>>
>>Maybe it's the beer but that is SO funny! "Run a muck." What the hell
>>is a muck? ROTFL AGAIN!
>>
><b>muck</b>
> n 1: any thick messy substance [syn: <a
>href="/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=sludge">sludge</a>, <a
>href="/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=slime">slime</a>, <a
>href="/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=goo">goo</a>, <a
>href="/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=gook">gook</a>,
> <a href="/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=guck">guck</a>, <a
>href="/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=gunk">gunk</a>, <a
>href="/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=ooze">ooze</a>]
> 2: fecal matter of animals [syn: <a
>href="/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=droppings">droppings</a>, <a
>href="/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=dung">dung</a>]
> v 1: remove muck, clear away muck, as in a mine
> 2: spread manure, as for fertilization [syn: <a
>href="/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=manure">manure</a>]
> 3: soil with mud, muck, or mire; "The child mucked up his shirt
> while playing ball in the garden" [syn: <a
>href="/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=mire">mire</a>, <a
>href="/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=mud">mud</a>, <a
>href="/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=muck%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20up">muck
> up</a>]
>
> The closest I can figure is to "spread crap all over" your network.
>
> Sounds like the MS software I have experience with.
>
>--
>Microsoft Motto: Illegal we do immediately.
> Unconstitutional takes a little longer.
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Linux -- The Unix defragmentation tool.
Ah, yessir. That is correct.
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
