Linux-Advocacy Digest #940, Volume #34 Sun, 3 Jun 01 17:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: What does Linux need for the desktop? (Marc Schlensog)
Re: Bill Gates is blamed for economic slowdown (Marc Schlensog)
Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?) (Charlie Ebert)
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft (cjt & trefoil)
Re: Monolithic arch's SMP, and licenses... we're all over the place (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Monolithic arch's SMP, and licenses... we're all over the place today! (Charlie
Ebert)
Re: UI Importance (John Jensen)
Re: UI Importance (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Argh - Ballmer (Marc Schlensog)
Re: Argh - Ballmer (Marc Schlensog)
Re: What does Linux need for the desktop? (Marc Schlensog)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the (Marc Schlensog)
Re: LINUX PRINTING SUCKS!!!!!!!! (Ray Chason)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Marc Schlensog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What does Linux need for the desktop?
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 17:20:26 +0200
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Teamware Linux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Hi Claus
> >
> > You can take a look at Teamware Office which is a full
> > Groupware system with Mail, Calendar, Discussion Forums
> > and Document Management.
> >
> > Like Lotus Domino its not free but the pricing for Linux
> > is very atttactive. Its $350 USD for a 25 user license
> > pack and $1000 USD for a 100 user license pack.
>
> How is the UI? I hope it's not like Lotus.
>
>
Naa, it's a definitiv clone of the M$-GUI. Shit, who cares? I bet there are
screenshots on their page somewhere, and anyway, aren't you a windows-kid?
Marc
------------------------------
From: Marc Schlensog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.fan.bill-gates,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bill Gates is blamed for economic slowdown
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 17:24:37 +0200
Was that writer paid by MS? He had a pretty subjective type of writing, if
you ask me.
Marc
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 20:16:02 GMT
In article <MUvS6.1025$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Stephen S. Edwards II wrote:
>
>Did you catch the thread about how he "modified"
>Mozilla to make it "look" like he was running
>Windows98? That was actually pretty funny thread.
>
>He actually challenged someone to discuss kernel
>internals once. When he was called on it, he said
>that he refused to play such childish games, or some
>such. Then, when the person who called him on it
>posted a large block of info on it, his response
>to that was "very good". I didn't know whether I
>should bite onto a piece of leather, or laugh
>myself unconscious.
>
I'm just wondering when you ever become conscious
so that you can FALL unconscious, laughter, leather
or the bottle?
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: cjt & trefoil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.arch,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 15:20:10 -0500
Michael Vester wrote:
>
<snip>
> My experiences has all been bad. I have worked in tech support and has
> access to a "pay through the nose" tech support line.
>
> "Are you running non Microsoft software?"
> If yes, then go to the company that produced the software for help.
> "Did you reboot?"
> If yes then
> "Did you reinstall?"
> If yes then
> "You have a hardware problem, go bother the manufacturer"
>
> After a few calls like this, I realized that I was much more intelligent
> than any person on the other end of the telephone. The solution was,
> "Don't waste anymore time using Microsoft's tech support!" Most problems
> can be resolved with the web, usenet and mail lists. I find that the
> Linux community is much more helpful.
<snip>
Only a monopoly can get away with service like that for any length of time.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Monolithic arch's SMP, and licenses... we're all over the place
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 20:20:04 GMT
"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>
> > You can also add on the STLport library to make it
> > fully as functional as Borland and Visual C++.
>
> "Fully" in terms of C++, exclusive of ANSI C, is what
> you're saying here, yes? Just trying to clarify my
> comprehension.
Fully ANSI C++, I think. ANSI C is something I haven't
thought about much lately, though I've been doing some
C code lately.
> I think it's a good idea for everyone to look at
> Avery Lee's predicament with VirtualDub. :-\
Will do!
> Actually, VirtualDub is one of the tools I use
> regularly for encoding my AVI files for 3D animation
> demos, and such. It rivals even many of the commercial
> non-linear editors I've used. I'd love to see MPEG-2
> support in it. If he ever decides to go commercial
> with VD, you can bet I'll be first in line to purchase
> a copy on CD.
Chris
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 20:26:27 GMT
"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>
> One thing that I have noticed is that IE does
> seem to parse HTML much better than Netscape
> does. I've had the worst luck with getting
> Netscape to process frames tags, as well as
> tables, accurately.
>
> I used to create HTML files by hand, but since
> I use IE exclusively now, I just use FP98 for
> everything.
The main points of those two paragraphs may be
related <grin>.
I still like to use vi (the vim version)
for editing. First, I kind of like editing
HTML by hand. Second, I can copy the
whole site between my Linux and NT box, so
that I can test it with IE 5 and Netscape 4.76.
If you stick to the more conventional stuff,
they both work pretty well, although IE
seems to want to show the fonts much larger
than does NetScape.
I know this is off topic, but there's the
Web site I cobbled together for the Charleston
Battery soccer team's official supporter's
club:
http://www.charlestonbattery.com/Regiment/Reg2001/index.html
As you can see, it's fairly straightforward. We
concentrate currently on simple news, humor, and
pictures.
If you view the source, you'll see that I'm an
anal kind of guy.
Chris
Wow, left this sitting here for hours. Hitting
SEND now!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Monolithic arch's SMP, and licenses... we're all over the place today!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 20:28:59 GMT
In article <PUvS6.1026$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Stephen S. Edwards II wrote:
>
>> "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>> >
>> > "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:9fc4fp$mrn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > > "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > news:71gS6.2067$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > >
>> > > > "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > > news:9fbs0i$eb6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > > IMHO, I think C++ can be a good thing, but its lack of
>> > > > standardization oft tends to make life hard for developers.
>> > >
>> > > C++ is standartised, the problem is that not a *single* compiler
>conform
>> > to
>> > > the standard so far.
>> >
>> > Hmmm... I don't claim to be an expert programmer, but
>> > I was under the impression that one of the downfalls
>> > of C++ was that everyone had their own ideas for a
>> > "standard", and no single idea was every adopted as
>> > the status quo.
>>
>> It is standardized, but there are still "missing" elements
>> suchs as thread support and memory maps. These elements
>> are supplied by 3rd-party and corporate libraries.
>>
>> Take a look at Common C++; it seems to provide a portable
>> implementation of sockets, threads, and other objects.
>
>I'm curious as to what kind of thread support Be put
>into their BeOS's C/C++ framework. People seem to
>be able to write multi-threaded apps under Be quite
>nicely, and BeOS uses the GNU compiler.
>
>I've been hoping to get some time to mess around
>with FreeBSD's SMP implementation. Anyone have
>any info as to how well such monolithic
>architectures scale on multiple processors?
>Unfortunately, NetBSD doesn't support multiple
>processors yet.
>
>There was some information on their site stating
>that they plan to support it, but not until they
>can do it the right way, without comprimising their
>code's portability, or something of that nature.
>
Unfortunately Steve 3, you'd probably have to do
something nasty like re-compile the kernel to get
the SMP to work right for you.
And this would obviously put the issue out of
your grasp.
At least for several thousand years until
genetic mutations can breed Steve 3,000 who
might actually be able to accomplish this
simple task.
>> > Not necessarily. Most people who use gcc are interested
>> > in creating GPL'd applications, for the most part.
>>
>> I used gcc to verify a bug that cropped up in some code
>> compiled under Borland. I also verified the bug, and
>> figured out a fix, using Visual C++. I even verified the
>> bug under Linux.
>>
>> I have to disagree with your statement, though. I like
>> gcc because it is a pretty powerful and portable compiler.
>
>I wouldn't contest that. I'm not saying that it's
>not powerful. It just seems that most people
>interested in gcc are interested in GPL'ing their
>work as well.
>
>I don't dislike gcc, either. I think it's a great
>tool, and I use it under NetBSD (SCO's compiler is
>also pretty handy). I'm just wary of others trying
>to tell me what I have to, or even should, do with
>my work, and that is the crux of my skepticism
>regarding the GPL. If proprietizing one's own
>exclusive work (read, no reused code whatsoever)
>with gcc is geniunely a violation of the GPL, or
>even merely against the spirit of the GPL, then it
>should be rewritten to clearly state that, IMHO.
>
>I'm still a novice programmer, and I'm in the process
>of going back to my University to pursue a master's
>degree in CompSci (after I finish taking the deficiency
>courses). I'm starting my curriculum this fall, but
>I'm trying to get the basics down ala O'Reilly. I'd
>like to learn on and possibly standardize on gcc in
>the future, but not if it means that I will be stuck
>in a license that I cannot fully agree to.
Well Steve 3, if you can't fully agree to our license
then I guess you will just HIT THE ROAD!
And sadly I suppose this means you will never be posting
to COLA again.
>> When you add mingw32 into the mix, you can even write
>> Win32 code with it. You can build it as a cross-compiler,
>> too.
>
>Or, you could also use Cygwin32. Some people like
>it quite a bit, but I've heard others complain that
>it's too limited in many ways. I must admit, using
>bash under WindowsNT does feel a bit awkward. I
>prefer the VDM under NT.
>
Awkward? For you, Awkward should feel normal.
>> You can also add on the STLport library to make it
>> fully as functional as Borland and Visual C++.
>
>"Fully" in terms of C++, exclusive of ANSI C, is what
>you're saying here, yes? Just trying to clarify my
>comprehension.
>
No, that wasn't what he was trying to say Steve 3.
But the kicker is that flacken bush doesn't know
what he's talking about either.
>> > It is possible that I am misconstruing the legal-speak
>> > in the GPL, but AFAIK, "based on" is defined as "originating
>> > from", or "derived from". Do you disagree that one program
>> > parsing another, and creating output would conform to this
>> > definition (genuinely asking, not smartmouthing :-)?
>> >
>> > It sounds a bit fishy to me, but maybe I'm mistaken.
>>
>> I can see where you might make this mistake, as there were
>> development environments that required you to license software
>> created with them. But I don't think even Richard Stallman
>> cares if you use gcc to compile your own code.
>
>Well, Stallman has historically been rather anti-
>corporate, in terms of the traditional IBM/Microsoft
>way of doing business. It would be interesting
>to see his reaction to a corporation rising to
>Microsoft's position based entirely on GNU tools.
>
You must mean RedHat. Or are you talking about
IBM or HP. Suse perhaps? Which one?
I haven't heard RMS bitch about any of them.
I don't think he will either as the GNU is
actually a corporation in itself.
>Speaking of Stallman, anyone else hear about
>IBM and Sony's plans a while back for creating
>a new ATA spec, where operations on copyrighted
>material could be restricted in hardware? I
>haven't heard anything about it lately, so I
>wonder if it fell by the wayside.
>
They are currently busy using Linux to develop
banking equipment to fill the void left by
Unisys.
>Still, it sounds a little spooky. If it ever
>does come to fruition, you can bet I'll be using
>SCSI exclusively. I've got plenty of goats to
>sacrifice.
>
Yeah, ha ha. You witty devil you.
>> > My overall point is, it seems quite possible, in
>> > terms of how the GPL is worded, that if I create
>> > an original piece of software, from scratch, with
>> > absolutely no reused code in it whatsoever, that
>> > I, under the terms of the GPL, have to release my
>> > sources, if I build it with gcc.
>> >
>> > If I am wrong on this, then someone please point
>> > out exactly where I am misunderstanding this.
>> >
>> > Otherwise, how else should I interpret the whole bit
>> > about "based on"? Legal-speak rarely conforms to
>> > Webster definitions.
>>
>> It is tricky. Right now, I just write software for
>> my own use. And anything I make public will be
>> totally free anyway, though I might still use
>> the GPL to guarantee that my scientific code
>> can't be hidden from further use by some company.
>
>But keep in mind, if you proprietize it, you
>can help ensure that it isn't abused by drafting
>your own license, which clearly states the
>conditions under which the source code and/
>or binaries can be used. Words like "lawsuit"
>and "penalties", and "fines" makes most
>companies and corporations alike think twice
>before performing acts of "legal" infringement.
>
>Likely, what I would do in such a situation,
>is create a license that would allow people
>to use binaries as they pleased, but they
>would have to license the source code for
>a nice hefty "fee". Then, if they wish
>to modify the source, they can do so, but
>only for their own internal purposes, or
>pay fair royalties to you for sale of the
>modified source code. In such a case, your
>code could still be open to the industry, yet
>you could retain full rights to it. It's
>a bit like what Microsoft does with OEMs,
>but not quite as draconian, and it wouldn't
>have to be as expensive for the industry
>either (unless you really wanted it to be
>:-).
>
Well you just charge off then and do this.
It has nothing to do with Linux advocacy.
Well CU later should you want to talk
about Linux.
>Actually, doesn't Sun follow a business
>model similar to this? IIRC, it's possible
>to get a license from them to clone their
>hardware, and much of their software as well.
>
>Just my $0.02.
>
No they don't.
>I think it's a good idea for everyone to look at
>Avery Lee's predicament with VirtualDub. :-\
>
>Actually, VirtualDub is one of the tools I use
>regularly for encoding my AVI files for 3D animation
>demos, and such. It rivals even many of the commercial
>non-linear editors I've used. I'd love to see MPEG-2
>support in it. If he ever decides to go commercial
>with VD, you can bet I'll be first in line to purchase
>a copy on CD.
>
>
I think your using it now aren't you.
Do us all a favor Steve 3.
Would you just die? Just stop breathing.
Make your heart stop and just die?
Thanks
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 20:32:17 GMT
In comp.sys.mac.advocacy Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Someone earlier suggested that I ought to join one of the Linux
> development teams and help them straighten out their UIs. I've htought
> about this, but I fearthat my suggestions would meet the same sort of
> criticism that they meet here ... which is that Windows and Linux people
> claim I want things to work just like the Mac.
> However... There are two ways for an UI to be wrong.
> Wrong Way I is to work other than the Macintosh Way. }: )
> Wrong Way II is to be dodgy, clunky, and downright broken. As long as
> the developers of applications for some system followed some sensible UI
> standard -- one that uses as many of the commonalities as possible
> between different UI systems, things will be okay. But if they go off
> inventing their own new arbitrary crap. entropy will only increase.
> So the trick is to differentiate between these two types of complaints.
It stikes me that developers could just invent what they like, and users
could just choose to use what they like.
John
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 20:42:36 GMT
In article <l9xS6.7691$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Jensen wrote:
>
>It stikes me that developers could just invent what they like, and users
>could just choose to use what they like.
>
>John
Yes John,
Well this isn't the way it currently works as of now.
You see Microsoft with Windows has been scaling along
the business front with the hardware vendors for years
by giving incentives for them to develop products which
are specifically designed for 'A' Windows product line.
So if you get a Sound Blaster 64K emu card under Windows
95 you find out your drivers were written for just Windows
95 when Windows 98 comes out, and so you end up buying
the SB Live card to fix the problem.
This doesn't even account for the destruction of everybody's
total PC after two versions of Windows had passed.
Case in point is the silly conclusion that installing
Windows 2000 would be sucessful on my 486-66 with 16 mb
of ram! Yet this same machine with a 1.2 gig hard drive
is indeed acting as a household server at his residence
without any difficutly. And it can even run X. It's
also running the latests stable version of Debian.
Windows and Microsoft create more toxic trash on this planet
by obsoleting PC's every 2 years.
Sad to say the manufacturers are actually targeting
for a 2 year lifespan during design and testing of
all pc's these days just because of this fact.
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: Marc Schlensog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 22:30:07 +0200
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Marc Schlensog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > -snip-
> >
> > >
> > > What is a module in this context?
> >
> > What do you mean with "understanding"?
>
> A module can mean a lot of thing, it can mean a seperate part of the
> program, a linux kernel module, apache's module, ISAPI DLLs, COM, ActiveX.
> There are a lot of stuff that you use to interupt what a module is.
> I'm asking what a module mean in this context, so I could form a reply
> based on the meaning of the word in the correct context.
>
>
And still: all those definitions have one thing in common. They are a
supplement to some given program and may be licensed as well under GPL as
under any other given license. Just let your heart decide. I don't think
that the exact definition matters a lot in this context.
Marc
--
They're only trying to make me *look* paranoid.
------------------------------
From: Marc Schlensog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 22:37:09 +0200
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Marc Schlensog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > > So?
> > > That doesn't affect the original code *at all*.
> > > *You* can do the same.
> > > You can even release it under the GPL.
> >
> > eeeeeh! WRONG!
>
> Show me *one* case where PD code was taken from the PD by actions of
> someone.
>
> > Sure, you can write proprietary code, but you can't release it under
> > GPL, 'coz if you did, everybody'd be able to use and incorporate it into
> his/her
> > own program.
>
> This doesn't make *any* sense.
> If I wrote code, I can do whatever I want with it, including release it
> under the GPL, as proprietary, or as both.
>
> > You, as the creator of that code should of course _always_
> > be mentioned, everything else would probably be piracy.
>
> Not if I release it as PD.
>
> > And even if M$ were to take your code, patent it and make money with it,
> > you'd probably have proof, that you had exact code months before, don't
> ya?
>
> If I release it as PD, I *would* have proof.
> The GPL doesn't give any furhter protection from people trying to patent
> my code than PD does.
Hmm... I thought you can't patent code (as mentioned several times)???
>
>
> >
> > Bullshit! Did you ever read the GPL?
>
> Several times.
> The GPL prevent use in non-GPL code-bases.
> You seem to dislike me mentioning it, but Apache can't use GPL code.
> How is that not blocking the code from being used?
Can I use M$-licensed code in any opensource program? I don't think so.
Otherwise WINE wouldn't be alpha anymore.
>
> > > And proprietary software is just one of them. X, Apache, BSD, and
> > > other software are all projects that you close your software from if
> > > you use
> the
> > > GPL.
> >
> > Huh? WTF are you talking about?
>
> They can't use GPL code without changing their license. This goes against
> their belief.
Of course they can. They can distribute modules for a certain non-GPL
proggie under the GPL license, can't they?
[Snippage]
--
Marc
--
They're only trying to make me *look* paranoid.
------------------------------
From: Marc Schlensog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What does Linux need for the desktop?
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 22:44:06 +0200
drsquare wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Jun 2001 16:07:21 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (flatfish+++ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
> >What does Linux need for the desktop?
> >
> >Some users would be nice :)
Well... I know of 4 out of 6 users I totally converted to Linux. They don't
want to use Windog anymore. But anyway, there'd be a hell of a lot more
Linux users, if Linux was preinstalled the same way Windows is. How many
non-computer-literates do you know who are switching from WinME to Win2000?
I don't think that there are all too many.
>
> And a non-shit GUI. You need to go delving into configuration files
> just to stop it scrolling around everywhere when you move the mouse to
> the side of the screen.
When was the last time you were using X? Back in fvwm times? Did you ever
try KDE2? Or GNOME? First of all, they look much more lovely than Windog
will probably ever do. Secondly, they aren't that much harder to use.
--
Marc
--
They're only trying to make me *look* paranoid.
------------------------------
From: Marc Schlensog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 22:49:20 +0200
drsquare wrote:
{Snippery}
> Well, out of the thousands of people I know that use mice, none of
> them have any trouble using mice.
Aww jeez, you just don't get it, do you? Read G. Wayne Hines' posting and
learn something.
BTW, you're nick isn't s'posed to mean Dr. Squares? What are you Dr. in?
Ignorance???
--
Marc
--
They're only trying to make me *look* paranoid.
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LINUX PRINTING SUCKS!!!!!!!!
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 20:45:37 -0000
flatfish+++ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Nothing wrong with lpr, but it is assumed that if I have a printer
>connected and it works from one program, it should work from all
>programs installed.
>
>This IS the case with Win2k.
>This is NOT the case with Linux.
>
>I had lpr working, and Netscape working (sort of), but I couldn't
>print from StarOffice (pages of ASCII), nor could I print from
>Wordperfect.
WordPerfect drags its own set of printer drivers around, perhaps in
an attempt to make it easier to set up. This approach is locally
good and globally bad. While it is (or at least it once was) easier
to set up WordPerfect than to properly configure print filters for
Linux, setting up WordPerfect sets up only WordPerfect. If you have
a dozen apps that do this, you have the same sort of chaos that we
once knew with DOS.
A properly configured Linux print system, OTOH, sets up all apps that
comply with it, and is no harder to use than Windows.
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
