Linux-Advocacy Digest #976, Volume #34 Tue, 5 Jun 01 05:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux is shit ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Argh - Ballmer ("Edward Rosten")
Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?) ("Edward Rosten")
Re: LINUX PRINTING SUCKS!!!!!!!! (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?) ("Edward Rosten")
Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?) (Peter
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft (GreyCloud)
Re: The _one_ thing that pisses me off about Linux ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Stephen Cornell)
Windows advocate of the year. ("Edward Rosten")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Stephen Cornell)
Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?) (GreyCloud)
Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?) (GreyCloud)
Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?) (GreyCloud)
Re: What does Linux need for the desktop? (GreyCloud)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is shit
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 10:12:48 +0100
>> blimey.
>>
>> Cool printer. What resolution does it do?
>
> Only 600*600 ;-)
Only! LOL! 600x600 laser printouts are always better than 600x600 inkjet
printouts coz the ink doesn't spread. And I'm still using an HP500
(300x300).
> and at 10 pages a minute.
grrrr.
> Theyre an old printer Ed, also known as a Gestetner GLL1000 in
> Australia, they have the option of a plug in Postscript module (I have
> 3) and additional ram.
>
> They have a LCD display and 8 menu buttons on the front, top or front
> paper output, front loading paper tray, and envelope facility.
>
> Toner cartridges include the drum and are avail new or re furbished
> ($150 aus) and will do 7000 to 9000 pages.
>
> I bet you could find then secondhand in the UK. Mine were purchased from
> a guy who bought 25 at an auction. The previous owner was a mining
> company.
I think I'm going to look out for one of these, they look very nice. Of
course, I'd ideally like an HP4550, but its a little out of my price
range :-/
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s 15
d f pop 240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 10:14:01 +0100
>> You can copy the functionality of the spec without copying the code. If
>> the binary code was 100% the smae, it would look a bit odd, but it is
>> perfectly possible to create a compatible implementation that produces
>> rather different binary code. You could even do it in another language.
>
> But the end result (the protocol, aka binary) would still be the same.
I don't follow. I thought the binary was the executable program, which
would be utterly different. Also, protocols can be plain text.
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s 15
d f pop 240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?)
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 10:16:24 +0100
>>Sure, when MS ships totally insecure products, it is irrelevant. Well,
>>Chaddy boy, little wintroll, it was already explained to you several
>>times, but you refuse to listen. I will nonetheless try again. SSH1 is
>>*not* insecure at all. The /flaw/ is only exploitable in a direkt
>>LAN-Connection, if at all. This means of course, that using SSH1
>
> I'm confused. First you say that it isn't insecure at all. Then you
> say that it might be possible to exploit it over a LAN connection.
>
> Call me crazy, but last I checked, even an exploit limited to a local
> net is still an exploit.
>
> And another thing confuses me. I don't pretend to be a networking
> expert, but what makes a LAN connection different from a connection to
> the internet. I'm under the impression that they both use the same
> kinds of protocols... they just differ in location/topology.
>
> Could you clarify what you're saying here, please?
There is a theoretical exploit for SSH1 which requires you to be on a
high speen (emphasis on high speed) LAN. It has never been done and it
also means that it is secure over the internet.
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s 15
d f pop 240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Date: 05 Jun 2001 08:16:20 GMT
Subject: Re: LINUX PRINTING SUCKS!!!!!!!!
>Two major exceptions are The Gimp and
>WordPerfect, which carry their own printer drivers around.
I've set both to pass out postscript and let apsfilter handle it. For some
reason, WP won't do colour postscript though, so I have to configure it to
believe it's printing to a HP 850 if I want colour.
However, I love the obnoxious behaviour in Win98SE with my printer:
It's a HP 612C, which is compatible with the 550C drivers. I installed the
550C drivers (reason follows). If I ever leave the printer on while booting
Windows, it starts shrieking that it's found a new printer, and demanding a
driver disc. No obvious way to say "This is the printer I installed *these*
drivers for-- so stop detecting it!"
The driver disc, in the infinite wisdom of the manufacturer, turns installing
the drivers into running its own install routine, which includes forcing on a
"remind you every 14 days" annoyware designed to ensure you register the
printer, or go completely insane. As a result, I have no desire to install the
CD driver, especially when the 550 ones work fine for me.
With Linux, as long as I remembered to compile in the parallel support when
rebuilding the kernel for fun and busywork (I forget this more often than I
want to admit), all I need to do is run /usr/lib/apsfilter/SETUP once when I
install the system and tell it what I know I have.
I think autodetection for some hardware (printers, for example) is a bit of
overkill. If you can't read that it says "Okidata Microline 320", and select
it off a list, you have bigger problems than not being able to print.
--
Marada Coeurfuege Shra'drakaii
Colony name not needed in address.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?)
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 10:18:30 +0100
>>>> OK, well GPL spiel aside - may I ask why you think why the Linux
>>>> kernel is "completely" substandard ? In the interests of fairness I
>>>> would like you to compare 2.4.x V Win2k, so we are on the same
>>>> ground.
>>>>
>>>> May make for a more interesting thread :)
>>>
>>> That's easy. No central distribution point of development
>>> (ala NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD), and therefore, a severe
>>> variance in code quality.
>>
>>Everything that ends up in the Linux kernel goes through the kernel
>>development team, that's as central as you get.
>
> I don't mean to pit free OS against free OS here, but I still find
> Linux's development model to be rather undesirable.
>
> I know of no central core development team for the Linux kernel. AFAIK,
> additions are often just added if other developers "like" them.
Sure there is, headed by Linus, himself. Everything in the offical kernel
goes through them.
> NetBSD has a core team, that verifies, and if need be, corrects the
> code, to make sure that the kernel remains of a clean design. Have you
> noticed how many arch's that NetBSD runs on? *grin*
Linux does too (nearly as many).
-Ed
> Right now, the only advantage that I can see in running Linux is that
> they are a bit further ahead in areas like threads, and SMP. But I
> honestly don't trust the product of developers who announce the release
> of a new kernel with "ho hum... here you go. Enjoy!"
>
> IMHO, Linux developers don't seem to take what they do very seriously,
> and that bothers me on some level. Then again, maybe they do, and I'm
> just no fun. :-P
>
> But hey, that just me... I'm merely evaluating Linux by what I can
> observe and have experienced, and I am very cynical and picky on top of
> that.
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s 15
d f pop 240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?)
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 10:12:52 +0200
Stephen Edwards wrote:
>
> I'm confused. First you say that it isn't
> insecure at all. Then you say that it might
> be possible to exploit it over a LAN connection.
>
> Call me crazy, but last I checked, even an exploit
> limited to a local net is still an exploit.
>
Yep, it is. But only if feasibly to carry it through.
> And another thing confuses me. I don't pretend to
> be a networking expert, but what makes a LAN connection
> different from a connection to the internet. I'm under
> the impression that they both use the same kinds of
> protocols... they just differ in location/topology.
>
There is a difference. Speed. You can exploit the SSH1 /flaw/ only
if you´ve got a fast enough connection to the machine. It *may* be
enough to be on a 10MBit-Connection, but then *only* if the
administrator is real dumb, otherwise it can be detected. On the
Internet you do not have anywhere near the speed needed to even
try it. So Chads rantings here mean only one thing, he is too dumb
to understand all this, because it has been explained to him several
times. But then he would loose his beloved SSH-"flaw", and we can´t
have this, can we?
Peter
--
Microsoft's Product Strategy: "It compiles, let's ship it!"
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.arch,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 01:26:54 -0700
Peter da Silva wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The IBM restore CD asked if a few questions about "Large Hard Disk
> > support or not... format the hard disk or not"... the applications disk
> > was a separate CD. This was an OEM CD of windows which contained IBMs
> > proprietary drivers. Some very nice software was included called
> > verisafe that notices when system files are changed by accident by other
> > software installations. Once I had installed AT&T internet disk and
> > found that it had changed a lot of things very deeply and I didn't like
> > that... all I did was click on verisafe and restored to a previous state
> > in a couple of seconds. It cleared out all references to AT&T.
>
> That's impressive, I must admit. I have mixed feelings about it, though:
> it's nice that such a tool exists (and I'll have to look for it, see if
> it's available unbundled), but it's sad it *has* to exist.
>
> Hm. Google is being less than informative. Do you have any idea who the
> original publisher of this software is?
>
> --
> `-_-' In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva.
> 'U` "A well-rounded geek should be able to geek about anything."
> -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Disclaimer: WWFD?
I'll have to boot into windows to find out.... I'll give you a raincheck
on that.
--
V
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The _one_ thing that pisses me off about Linux
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 10:28:51 +0100
>> Useless nuggetlet: the 6502 processor can perfrom in both BCD and
>> binary mode. I never really found a use for BCD mode.
>>
>
> I thought BCD math was primarily aimed at monetary calculations?...
Or if you need a decimal display, on something as slow as a 6502,
converting to decimal could eat up the CPU cycles, where as it is trivial
with BCD.
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s 15
d f pop 240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage
------------------------------
From: Stephen Cornell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: 05 Jun 2001 09:36:05 +0100
drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 04 Jun 2001 19:15:57 +0100, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (Stephen Cornell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
> >Rubbish. It's even called `control-panel' in Red Hat Linux. And you
>
> Sorry, but I'm using Debian.
Well, you said `Linux needs...'. Linux *has*. If you want
mass-market ease of use, you should use a mass market distribution.
Debian is for the purist/minimalist - a great distribution once you
know what you're doing, but not really suitable for the beginner with
an aversion to reading documentation.
--
Stephen Cornell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel/fax +44-1223-336644
University of Cambridge, Zoology Department, Downing Street, CAMBRIDGE CB2 3EJ
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Windows advocate of the year.
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 10:36:51 +0100
Not all windows advocates are bad.
They are capable of reasoned, rational arguments (though you might not
believe it with the amount of drivel coming out of people like Chad
Myers).
I think we should have a Wincvocate of the year nominated (it makes a
change from nominating trolls).
I would like to nominate Ayende Rahien. If all windows advocates were
like this, this group would be a much better place. Heck, if all Linux
advocates were like this, he group would be a better place.
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s 15
d f pop 240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage
------------------------------
From: Stephen Cornell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: 05 Jun 2001 09:47:27 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine) writes:
>
> One can try to compute an estimated MTTF (MTBF?) for Windows by observing
> a number of nodes. For example, if one has a 100-server webfarm,
> identically configured and perfectly load-balanced, and one has
> a node failure every 18 days on average [*], then one can compute that
> the MTBF of Windows is 1800 days.
Under the assumption that failure is a time-homogeneous Markov
process, which it clearly is not. The probability of failure per unit
time will typically *increase* with time.
--
Stephen Cornell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel/fax +44-1223-336644
University of Cambridge, Zoology Department, Downing Street, CAMBRIDGE CB2 3EJ
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?)
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 01:46:40 -0700
Stephen Edwards wrote:
>
> Seven rabid koala bears with eucalyptus spittle dribbling from their
> mouths told me that [EMAIL PROTECTED] (GreyCloud) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >Jan Johanson wrote:
> >>
> >> "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED].
> >> ..
> >> > "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
> >> > > Besides, If you had the kind of experience with UNIX
> >> > > that you seem to pretend to have, you'd understand
> >> > > why the Linux kernel is completely substandard.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > Then you better tell the CEO of IBM that Linux is substandard
> >> > because they just dumped an awful lot of money into getting linux to
> >> > run on their mainframes. :-)
> >>
> >> Oh, I see, so Linux=good because a lot of money was spent modifying it
> >> to run on some once-upon-a-time-evil-empire's hardware?
> >>
> >> So, the $2 billion in R&D MS spends yearly on Windows, being greater
> >> than the <$1 billion IBM has spent pretty much helps confirm that
> >> Windows>Linux - is that what you meant?
> >
> >Not at all. IBM is more efficient than microsoft and I know quite a few
> >of their employees... gawd I sure wouldn't want to get under an MRI made
> >by Microsoft!
>
> Begging your pardon, but where did you ever get
> the idea that a coporate organization with IBM's
> overhead is "more efficient" than Microsoft.
>
Easy, first they are taking a product (linux) and then refining for the
mainframes instead of taking it from the ground up... I consider that
very efficient.
> Microsoft is significantly smaller (infrastructure-
> wise) than IBM, and I cannot see how this is possible
> in any way.
Note that many writers for various publications take note in the premise
that microsoft products "Weren't invented here". No real inside
innovations. Also the fact that IBM makes more than just computers
which in turn makes it a larger company.
IBM has done a lot of restructuring since they lost their market share
in PCs.
They usually shake out the dead wood inside the company about every two
years and look for new hires. Seen it happen in many companies.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?)
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 01:50:07 -0700
Jan Johanson wrote:
>
> "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Jan Johanson wrote:
> > >
> > > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
> > > > > Besides, If you had the kind of experience with UNIX
> > > > > that you seem to pretend to have, you'd understand
> > > > > why the Linux kernel is completely substandard.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Then you better tell the CEO of IBM that Linux is substandard because
> > > > they just dumped an awful lot of money into getting linux to run on
> > > > their mainframes. :-)
> > >
> > > Oh, I see, so Linux=good because a lot of money was spent modifying it
> to
> > > run on some once-upon-a-time-evil-empire's hardware?
> > >
> > > So, the $2 billion in R&D MS spends yearly on Windows, being greater
> than
> > > the <$1 billion IBM has spent pretty much helps confirm that
> Windows>Linux -
> > > is that what you meant?
> >
> > Not at all. IBM is more efficient than microsoft and I know quite a few
> > of their employees... gawd I sure wouldn't want to get under an MRI made
> > by Microsoft!
>
> I know both IBM employees (ex-father-in-law) and Microsofties - IBM is much
> much MUCH less effieicent by several orders of magnitude. I sure wouldn't
> want to get under anything running Linux. A buncha hippies programming in
> their spare time "cause it's cool" and just abandoning software projects
> whenever there is a sale on sandals and pipes at the head shop?
>
> I'll stick with HP for my hospital equipment...
Yes with its new Linux O/S no less. But I know that there are a lot of
new IBM imaging systems that reduce the claustrophobic effects on some
people.
I worked with IBM in military systems and they were no slouches in
getting the best designs out to the field. Very good hardware.
Microsoft doesn't have that kind of organization yet that has to deal
with other than software goods.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?)
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 01:51:13 -0700
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> In article <3b1c5039$0$2604$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jan Johanson wrote:
> >
> >"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Jan Johanson wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > > "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
> >> > > > Besides, If you had the kind of experience with UNIX
> >> > > > that you seem to pretend to have, you'd understand
> >> > > > why the Linux kernel is completely substandard.
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Then you better tell the CEO of IBM that Linux is substandard because
> >> > > they just dumped an awful lot of money into getting linux to run on
> >> > > their mainframes. :-)
> >> >
> >> > Oh, I see, so Linux=good because a lot of money was spent modifying it
> >to
> >> > run on some once-upon-a-time-evil-empire's hardware?
> >> >
> >> > So, the $2 billion in R&D MS spends yearly on Windows, being greater
> >than
> >> > the <$1 billion IBM has spent pretty much helps confirm that
> >Windows>Linux -
> >> > is that what you meant?
> >>
> >> Not at all. IBM is more efficient than microsoft and I know quite a few
> >> of their employees... gawd I sure wouldn't want to get under an MRI made
> >> by Microsoft!
> >
> >I know both IBM employees (ex-father-in-law) and Microsofties - IBM is much
> >much MUCH less effieicent by several orders of magnitude. I sure wouldn't
> >want to get under anything running Linux. A buncha hippies programming in
> >their spare time "cause it's cool" and just abandoning software projects
> >whenever there is a sale on sandals and pipes at the head shop?
> >
> >I'll stick with HP for my hospital equipment...
> >
> >
>
> Excellent idea since HP will be using Debian as it's LINUX development
> model for ALL products they sell.
>
I would shudder to think what would happen if microsoft built an MRI
machine with someone inside of it.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What does Linux need for the desktop?
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 02:07:32 -0700
drsquare wrote:
>
> On Mon, 04 Jun 2001 09:59:22 +0100, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ("Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "drsquare"
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 :)
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> >Look fool, quit complaining. You chose to use Debian which is a distro
> >for the hard core only. If you want a easier one, use RedHat. It even has
> >a control panel and a good tool for setting up printers and X.
>
> That would mean downloading another 100MB+ of files, which I am just
> not prepared to do.
Sometimes the www.linuxmall.com sells the latest CDs for around a $2.50
or so.
--
V
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
