Linux-Advocacy Digest #316, Volume #35 Sat, 16 Jun 01 21:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Windows makes good coasters ("Stuart Fox")
Re: The Win/userbase! ("Stuart Fox")
Re: PC power switch wont shut down Windows ("Stuart Fox")
Re: Is Linux for me? ("Stuart Fox")
Re: Will MS get away with this one? (Rick)
Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed ("Stuart Fox")
Re: The Win/userbase! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- He Created Unix, But Now Uses Microsoft Windows (Pete Barnwell)
Re: What language are use to program Linux stuff? ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: The Win/userbase! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: PC power switch wont shut down Windows (Chris Street)
Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts
getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!) (Chris Street)
Re: What language are use to program Linux stuff? ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: What language are use to program Linux stuff? ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Colin Day)
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (Colin Day)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 11:35:40 +1200
"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 08:15:29 +1200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ("Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
> >Type doskey at a command prompt.
>
> Hmmm... I never knew it could do that. Why isn't it documented?
Probably because it's existed forever. Or at least since DOS 5.0,
>
> >> >> and command search,
> >> >
> >> >What do you mean?
> >>
> >> Searching for commands.
> >
> >Type Help
>
> Bad command or file name.
>
Hmm, my apologies, looks like they've removed that.
> >> Unless you have '.' in your path, which is by default not there as it
> >> makes it easier to run rogue programs. At least try and know something
> >> about what you're talking about before you come ranting and raving in
> >> here.
>
> >I'm not ranting and raving at all, I'm just saying that using bash is not
> >convienient for JOe User, who had enough trouble with DOS.
>
> I don't see how having command history, aliases, decent prompts,
> startup scripts etc is LESS convenient.
It's less convienient than a GUI, which is where this originally started.
If you recall, I said that X was slow on a 486 DX2 50, to which you said,
why bother using X, use bash, and I said that bash isn't convienient for Joe
User, although I can figure it out.
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Win/userbase!
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 11:37:11 +1200
"pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
good!
>
> I am no expert here as I have not run virus scanning software for some
> years - but take VirusScan from Mcaffee, it sits in your tool bar and
> claims to scan Email and exe's before you run them. Dr Solomon's had the
> same kind of function if I remember. So when you run an EXE it first
> scan's it (thus things slow down a bit), and I guess that the Email
> works via a pseudo proxy or something. I don't really know (or really
> care), but I think that is the general approach. If it only could tell
> you after you were infected then they really would not be worth much.
> But then, having said this, I fail to see why they did not intercept a
> simple VB script virus?
Most modern virus scanners do turn on VB Script virus scanning, in fact I
can't think of one that doesn't.
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: PC power switch wont shut down Windows
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 11:38:30 +1200
"LShaping" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> My computer's Basic Input/Output Service settings and Windows settings
> are correct, as always. Microsoft has disabled the power switch in
> certain circumstances in an effort to cope with Windows technical
> problems. When I want to turn off my computer, I would like to use my
> computer's power switch to do so.
That's not Windows fault, it's to do with the ACPI BIOS I believe.
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Linux for me?
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 11:41:13 +1200
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> NT also has interpreted scripts: .BAT, .VBS, and .WSH, IIRC.
You forgot .CMD, which is another .BAT, but runs in the cmd.exe interpreter
by default ( I believe BAT runs under the 16 bit command.com - someone
correct me if I'm wrong). Or .pl if you've installed Perl, or .py if you
installed python.
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Will MS get away with this one?
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 19:46:47 -0400
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >
> > Apple are like the playground bully whereas Microsoft are like the Mafia.
> > They are most certainly not 'just as bad as'. I don't recall Apple
> > having a monopoly of anything.
> >
>
> They have a monopoly on PPC based desktop computers.
They do not have monopoly on PPC based computers. Doesnt IBM make
desktop PPC's? And there are CHIRP/PREP based PPC mchines in the works
now.
> Can you buy a Mac without MacOS?
It wouldnt be a MAc if you could buy it without MacOS. You m$ shills
will never get this through your head. The Mac is a hardware/software
combo as bought from Apple. And if Apple has a monopoly on Apple
computers, Ford has amonoply on Ford cars, Sears on Sears
refrigerators... the list is endless.
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 11:50:35 +1200
"Rex Ballard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
>
> > EMail Servers - anywhere from 256MB up, usually about 1GB for 1000
users,
>
> On Linux 32 to 128 meg for 1000 users. Pop3 and SMTP. Imap takes
> more.
>
> > and that's a full messaging server, not just a SMTP server.
>
> Windows 2000 connected to exchange has more requirements because
> people tend
> to put larger attachments (as opposed to providing a pointer to a link
> on
> an HTTP server (possible the same Linux server).
Not quite. Exchange provides a bit more than a POP3/SMTP combination does
on Linux. Large attachments are just a small part of why it's bigger.
> > Portal Servers - anywhere from 256 MB
>
> Depends on how many users. With Linux, anywhere from 32 meg up.
>
> > File Servers - 128MB up, the more memory, the bigger the file system
cache
>
> Same for Linux which has read-ahead and allocates storage in smaller
> blocks.
> NT can allocate 512 byte blocks, but it slows things down, so the
> default is
> to allocate 4096 byte clusters.
>
> > Print Servers - 128 MB
>
> Actually, Linux print servers only take a few kbytes. It's all done
> with file systems.
> Even the fastest printers don't really tax Linux hard drives. Several
> printer servers
> based on BSD are sold as "NetPrinter Upgrades".
Most NT file servers with 128 MB of memory can function happily as a print
server as well, depends on how many clients
>
> > Database Servers - anywhere from 256MB up to as many GB as you can fit
in
> > the machine
>
> Bingo!!! This is the pig! Microsoft likes to use databases as much
> of possible to get capacity (ASPs),
> while Linux focused on making the file system fast and has two
> different databases. MySQL is designed to
> be a very efficient and fast "Query Mostly" server, and PostgreSQL was
> designed to be a highly expandable
> "Update Mostly" system.
Having large amounts of memory for databases is common across all platforms,
for one reason. Speed. The more memory, the faster the response.
>
> Now for the really big question. With Linux, I can put all of those
> functions into a single box with
> just a few hundred megs per 1000 users.
On an NT box, if all you wanted to provide was those base functions
(POP3,SMTP, small database, file & print, Web), you could do it in probably
500 MB, you just wouldn't do it with Microsoft backoffice products. It all
depends on load of course, and how fast the client response needs to be
> Furthermore, it can be
> adminstered remotely, by multiple adminstrators
> concurrently if necessary.
Terminal services allows two administrators to connect to a 2000 server
concurrently, with no extra license cost. Then there's VNC which is also
free.
>
> Unfortunately, Microsoft opted not to offer Windows 2000 as a consumer
> product. They are trying to offer XP, but
> with some rather unpleasant licensing and fee structures.
I've been thinking about the subscription based fees, and I can see why
they've done it (I think). Typically, for any volume of licenses above
about 10, it makes sense to join one of the license programs. Most
companies are already paying "subscription" which entitles them to free
upgrades. The new licensing won't change this situation materially. I'm
not sure how it fits in with the home user though.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The Win/userbase!
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 23:56:00 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Charlie Ebert wrote:
>> All these virus scanners do is hopefully alert you of the presence of a
>> virus AFTER you've been infected.
>>
>> AFTER is the key word here. The damage is done.
>>
>> So therefore they are just simply worthless CPU wasting piles of crap.
>> AFTER is no good!
>
> I am no expert here as I have not run virus scanning software for some
> years - but take VirusScan from Mcaffee, it sits in your tool bar and
> claims to scan Email and exe's before you run them. Dr Solomon's had the
> same kind of function if I remember. So when you run an EXE it first
> scan's it (thus things slow down a bit), and I guess that the Email
> works via a pseudo proxy or something. I don't really know (or really
> care), but I think that is the general approach. If it only could tell
> you after you were infected then they really would not be worth much.
> But then, having said this, I fail to see why they did not intercept a
> simple VB script virus? I don't know, and that is why I simply don't run
> any anti-virus software and just follow a sensible policy.
>In other
> words, if they can't even protect clueless users from being stupid then
> they are indeed steaming piles of crap that waste cpu cyles.
Yes, you have it now.
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: Pete Barnwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dennis Ritchie -- He Created Unix, But Now Uses Microsoft Windows
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 00:33:30 +0100
drsquare wrote:
>
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 16:46:01 +0100, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark)) wrote:
>
> >I spent about 4 hours on the phone recently with a user, talking them
> >through downloading some strange foundation classes library; the
> >package they'd downloaded failed with the most arcane error message
> >I've had to listen to. I web searched and found a stack of sites on
> >the internet specialising in having a huge range of downloads available
> >to get windows packages working.
> >
> >I then had to talk him through making a backup copy of the library
> >incase the thing failed, rebooting into 'dos' mode, copying the
> >new file over the old one in the system directory, and then rebooting
> >back into 'windows' mode. What a nightmare.
>
> Never happened with me. What was he trying to install?
>
> >The linux version just installed and worked, what's more, it contained
> >dependency info built it, in case there was a problem, so that it could
> >be easily sorted, unlike the mess that was windows.
>
> "Just installed"? You mean you didn't have to worry about
> dependencies, conflicts, libraries etc? You must be using a very
> strange distribution.
A tip, Mark -
even if you have no intention of doing development work, if you say you
want a development install it will install all the libraries you will
ever need to build pretty much anything. No more dep problems...
(Provided you've got enough disk space, doing this adds ~450Mb to a
typical install, but you could save on some of this by not installing
Glade, KDevelop & similar.) This way you get all the older compat
libraries as well as the newer ones. Mind you that's not going to help
if you've found some strange package that demands the most up-to-date
version...
Pete
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What language are use to program Linux stuff?
Date: 17 Jun 2001 00:06:40 GMT
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Joseph T. Adams" wrote:
:>
:> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>
:> : You should grow up. You write software to do something. Most of the time you
:> : want it to sell, or succeed.
:>
:> It has to be first to market or it is VERY unlikely to succeed, no
:> matter how much "better" you might think it is.
: That has been proven false time and again. It is Market drivel.
Examples (preferably in the software field, since that is what we are
discussing)?
Joe
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The Win/userbase!
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 00:11:35 GMT
In article <9ggqln$em3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Stuart Fox"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... good!
>>
>> I am no expert here as I have not run virus scanning software for some
>> years - but take VirusScan from Mcaffee, it sits in your tool bar and
>> claims to scan Email and exe's before you run them. Dr Solomon's had
>> the same kind of function if I remember. So when you run an EXE it
>> first scan's it (thus things slow down a bit), and I guess that the
>> Email works via a pseudo proxy or something. I don't really know (or
>> really care), but I think that is the general approach. If it only
>> could tell you after you were infected then they really would not be
>> worth much. But then, having said this, I fail to see why they did not
>> intercept a simple VB script virus?
>
> Most modern virus scanners do turn on VB Script virus scanning, in fact
> I can't think of one that doesn't.
>
This is exactly why every company in the world DEPENDS on virus
scanners for their E-business systems - NOT...
Once again, if the script doesn't match a known virus script
then your infected. Tuff shit.
Pip and you both seem to have the Windows disease?
Your arguing about something which isn't resolveable.
Virus Scanners do not work and are not widely deployed
in any commerical installations.
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Street)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: PC power switch wont shut down Windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 00:31:46 GMT
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 22:33:54 GMT, "Chad Myers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:o4RW6.16849$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Well, do so. Press the button for 5 seconds. That's the way it's designed.
>
>I believe with ACPI 2.x compliant BIOSes, you can configure what the power
>button does. I've seen several systems where you can have it act as sleep
>mode, hibernate, or act like an old fashioned power button.
>
>But in all cases, holding it for 3-5 seconds will shut it down, no questions
>asked.
>
Correct. On my box you can configure it either way - an instant off,
or momentry press to go power save - depress to go power off.
What people dont realise is that the button on the front isn't the
power button. That's typically at the back where the power cable plugs
in. The power "button" just sends a signal to the board, saying - "hey
- someones pressed the button? Whaddya want to do?"
>-c
>
>> "LShaping" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > My computer's Basic Input/Output Service settings and Windows settings
>> > are correct, as always. Microsoft has disabled the power switch in
>> > certain circumstances in an effort to cope with Windows technical
>> > problems. When I want to turn off my computer, I would like to use my
>> > computer's power switch to do so.
>> > LShaping
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Microsoft is going to court today.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > "Anderson Lie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > >tried holding the power switch down for 5 seconds?
>> > >
>> > >many of the newer ATX boards uses the power switch as a suspend switch as
>> > >well (which the OS could very well ignore if set that way) and a 5
>> seconds
>> > >press would activate the "hardware" switch.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >Anderson Lie
>> > >
>> > >"LShaping" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > >> I knew this was going to happen. When I saw the "When I press the
>> > >> power button on my computer" option in Windows Millennium "Power
>> > >> Options" I knew that it was going to malfunction. Hello Microsoft. I
>> > >> use the power switch to shut down when Windows wont. Is there some
>> > >> logic in extending Windows dysfunctionallity to my computer's power
>> > >> switch? If I want to hasstle with Windows, isn't that what the Start
>> > >> >> Shut Down... path is for? Thanks to Microsoft for extending
>> > >> Windows slimey tenticles to my power supply. I can't wait to find out
>> > >> what "PCHealth" is going to do to my other hard disk partitions.
>> > >> :o/
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>
79.84% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
The other 42% are made up later on.
In Warwick - looking at flat fields and that includes the castle.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Street)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux
starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 00:35:18 GMT
On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 19:16:38 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Matthew Gardiner (BOFH)" wrote:
>>
>> unidentified poster wrote:
>>
>> > More ideally, we should've listened more carefully
>> > to Patton, and just taken the USSR when we had the
>> > chance.
>
>Dumb idea.
>
>NEVER attack a country in which it's army can perform strategic withdrawal
>for 10,000 miles across a 3,000 mile-wide front.
>
>In such conditions, Even stupid snipers will take out 5 enemy soldiers
>before being killed themselves.
>
>
>Not only that..but...although the typical Russian is QUITE peaceful
>(less prone to support military aggression than American citizens),
>they are FIERCELY loyal to the cause when the country gets invaded.
>
>In WW2, the Red Army wasn't fighting for Stalin....they were fighting
>for MAMA AND GRANDMA
>
>
Correct. They were fighting for the Rodina - the motherland. They
didn't give a toss about Stalin.
1. Never fight on two fronts.
2. Never fight a land war in Asia
3. Never fight in severe winter.
Hitler screwed up on all three counts.
>>
>> How would that have helped? the US benefited in that the Soviet Union
>> created the first biological weapon, when the US originally thought it would
>> be impossible. First person in space, first sat. in space, first woman in
>> space, first space station in space, first lander on venus. One can go on
>> and on about the accomplishments of the former Soviet Union. Also, the only
>> reason why the Soviet Union collapsed was the lack of re-investment back
>> into their industries, thus, not enought hard currency coming back into the
>> coffers (government's treasury) to pay the bills. The US didn't go to good
>> either, ballooning the debt to 2 trillion dollars, over half of it due to
>> Vietnam, which they lost miserably, which funny enough, the US still treats
>> it as though they won.
>>
>> Matthew Gardiner
>>
>> --
>> I am the blue screen of death
>> nobody hears your scream's
>>
>> Sepo is a cockney term for yank,
>> however, in New Zealand and Australia
>> a yank is a wank, well, same thing ;)
>>
>> For AOL and earthlink lusers asking stupid questions:
>> Seek and ye shall find
79.84% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
The other 42% are made up later on.
In Warwick - looking at flat fields and that includes the castle.
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What language are use to program Linux stuff?
Date: 17 Jun 2001 00:47:32 GMT
Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: So, what you're trying to say is that C is better than Java and Perl, but worse
: than C++?
: Java < C < C++
: As far as java and Perl go, they both have their place. First of all,
: Perl is a scripting language, so it depends on what your language is
: being used for. . . .
[snip]
: Each language was invented for a particular purpose, and each fulfill
: different roles.
In a nutshell, that is why language bigotry is pointless at best.
There are lots of different kinds of programming, lots of different
kinds of programs, and lots of reasons why languages that might seem
inferior nonetheless survive and even thrive.
Case in point:
I like most common languages (Python, Java, C++, Perl, C, Smalltalk)
but *HATE* M$ Visual Basic, VBA, VBScript, and all its other
brain-damaged variations. Hate is too gentle of a word, but I can't
think of a better one. They are the evil spawn of the devil himself,
although even the devil is ashamed to admit that.
Before I was sentenced to work with it almost full-time for nearly
3 years, I wanted to shoot it, stomp on its bloody corpse, burn its
remains, and send its vile ashes to as far in outer space as current
technology would permit.
About a month into that time I realized that that would be far too
kind a fate. I grew instead to wish it would die in the most painful
and horrifying manner possible, with its agonizing death piped into
every home via the "boob tube" (which BTW I also hate) to serve as an
example to every actual or aspiring language designer out there.
But . . . to my continual dismay . . . it continues to be among the
most consistently popular languages out there.
Why?
Well, it makes simple things easy for people who are not programmers
by trade (but may be very capable authors or accountants or biologists
or musicians or what have you). Sure, their work won't necessarily be
reliable or scalable, but usually it is for their own use or use by a
relatively small and static group of people.
Those folks outnumber professional programmers by a large margin.
So . . .
<stuff_i_cannot_believe_i_am_writing noseHeld="on">
Even VB has *cough* its uses.
</stuff_i_cannot_believe_i_am_writing>
And if VB has a legitimate place in the world, then so does [fill in
the name of any other language you can think of].
Joe
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What language are use to program Linux stuff?
Date: 17 Jun 2001 00:50:32 GMT
Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: news:9g5vuo$8ec$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>
:> : You should grow up. You write software to do something. Most of the time
: you
:> : want it to sell, or succeed.
:>
:>
:> It has to be first to market or it is VERY unlikely to succeed, no
:> matter how much "better" you might think it is.
: Why don't you tell that to WordPerfect? WordStar? Lotus 1-2-3?
They actually are pretty good examples; each dominated its respective
market almost completely for long periods of time.
Joe
------------------------------
From: Colin Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 16:58:43 -0400
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> Yet Linux supports less hardware than Windows does. Linux only recently
> supported USB devices and struggles with other devices. How is Linux more
> technologically advanced when Windows does more and has more hardware
> support?
>
Linux supports less x86 hardware, but what about ALPHA, SPARC, etc?
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: Colin Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 17:08:40 -0400
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> It _was_ fucked. After the reinstall, I made on large partition now I have no
> problems.
> Deviding a 6GB hard disk into itty-bitty 500MB or less segments seems
> retarded.
>
Not all of the segments would be less than 500MB. /usr would be several
gig, / maybe 400MB, /home (depends on the number of users.
Colin Day
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
