Linux-Development-Sys Digest #327, Volume #6 Mon, 25 Jan 99 03:14:32 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux Phase 2: A Consumer Operating System (David Magda)
Re: Linux Phase 2: A Consumer Operating System (Christopher B. Browne)
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (Miguel Cruz)
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS ("jdn")
Dissassemble bootsection (Dennis Wetzig)
Re: Linux ext2 dump (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: D-Link NIC driver, anyone? (Mark Hahn)
Re: Comparison of Swing, Qt, GTk? (BL)
Compiling gcc fails at stage1 (Matthew Vanecek)
From a Vritual Server to a Colocate ("Mr. Poet")
Re: Modest next goal for Linux (John De Hoog)
From a Virtual Server to a Colocate ("Mr. Poet")
Re: Modest next goal for Linux (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Autofs automounter auto.direct (Jamie Guinan)
Re: Compiling gcc fails at stage1 (Loren Osborn)
Re: LILO and 10 GB drives ("wĠĠg")
Re: Attention Linux Programmers! ("Aaron Drew")
Re: disheartened gnome developer (Michael Powe)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Magda)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Linux Phase 2: A Consumer Operating System
Date: 23 Jan 1999 23:15:13 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne) writes:
>The point is that if interesting pieces of the system "solidify" to the
>point that people can't change them without causing immense breakage,
>then it's no longer fun playing with those pieces.
Well I'm sure someone will come along and make a distribution that's similiar
to what FreeBSD and all do. Have a ports section and instead of worrying about
RPMs et al. just go into a specific directory and to `make update` and have
everything you need sorted out. Suppposedly Debian does this?
>At some point, it becomes more difficult to get a change in than it is
>to say "Screw it, I'm using another system where I can do what I like,
>and have a bit more control."
Isn't that why the source code is available? So you can play with it yourself?
All (most?) the new features first started out as patches and later were
added to the kernel as part of the 2.1.x series. The NTFS modules started
like this.
>We can see a certain degree of "ossification" taking place already with
>the Linux kernel. It used to be about a year between major new even
>versions. The "time betweeen releases" is increasing. And there are
>enough big plans coming up in the 2.3 series to give ample opportunity
>for it to be 2001 or later until a 2.4 release.
But there is also more code to manage and debug. What's the size of 1.2
versus 2.0 versus 2.2? You could also argue that 1.2 had the more basic,
easier to code/debug features and the later kernels are adding more features
that have a larger complexitity. Anyone know how hard will it be to encode
all the I20 and USB stuff?
>The point was that the sorts of people that can build a system like
>Linux may conclude it time to move on, which will mean that a great
>creative element is taken away. It might be several years before
>effects become really apparent.
They can always fork off like OpenBSD from NetBSD from FreeBSD. They could
also hack their own patches, they just might not go into the 2.3 series
"officially" (i.e., always stay as patches).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher B. Browne)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Linux Phase 2: A Consumer Operating System
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 00:49:00 GMT
On 23 Jan 1999 23:15:13 GMT, David Magda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne) writes:
>
>>The point is that if interesting pieces of the system "solidify" to the
>>point that people can't change them without causing immense breakage,
>>then it's no longer fun playing with those pieces.
>Well I'm sure someone will come along and make a distribution that's similiar
>to what FreeBSD and all do. Have a ports section and instead of worrying about
>RPMs et al. just go into a specific directory and to `make update` and have
>everything you need sorted out. Suppposedly Debian does this?
That's fair enough.
It would be interesting to see a distribution for Linux that had a
greater tendancy to work with source code (ala Ports) rather than treating
binaries as the thing that gets moved around.
A new system could certainly gain advantage from some existing tools and
even code. Which is pretty much why Hurd is trying to get a Debianized
version released, with the goal of hopefully being able to make use of
some of those thousands of .deb packages. (At this moment, it supports
33 of 'em.)
>>At some point, it becomes more difficult to get a change in than it is
>>to say "Screw it, I'm using another system where I can do what I like,
>>and have a bit more control."
>Isn't that why the source code is available? So you can play with it yourself?
>All (most?) the new features first started out as patches and later were
>added to the kernel as part of the 2.1.x series. The NTFS modules started
>like this.
The problem is that if you want to connect something into the kernel that
will either cause significant breakage to others, or that Linus or Alan
disapprove of (STREAMS comes to mind), *as well as* taking advantage of
improvements to device drivers, this introduces a problem.
For instance, the people working on GGI would probably be much happier
if they could actually get some of their code into "normal/ standard/
official" kernel releases. For various reasons (lack of stability and
substantial agreement amongst the present kernel team), this hasn't
happened.
>>We can see a certain degree of "ossification" taking place already with
>>the Linux kernel. It used to be about a year between major new even
>>versions. The "time betweeen releases" is increasing. And there are
>>enough big plans coming up in the 2.3 series to give ample opportunity
>>for it to be 2001 or later until a 2.4 release.
>But there is also more code to manage and debug. What's the size of 1.2
>versus 2.0 versus 2.2? You could also argue that 1.2 had the more basic,
>easier to code/debug features and the later kernels are adding more features
>that have a larger complexitity. Anyone know how hard will it be to encode
>all the I20 and USB stuff?
I doubt that USB will be a big problem; it just needs to get some coders
working on it. I2O is more challenging, I'd think.
>>The point was that the sorts of people that can build a system like
>>Linux may conclude it time to move on, which will mean that a great
>>creative element is taken away. It might be several years before
>>effects become really apparent.
>They can always fork off like OpenBSD from NetBSD from FreeBSD. They could
>also hack their own patches, they just might not go into the 2.3 series
>"officially" (i.e., always stay as patches).
If people want to move in the direction of exokernels or the like, that's
*quite* different, likely rather more than just a "patch."
This is getting away from the original point, in that these things mostly
represent "cool kernel stuff" that likely are not of great interest to the
herds of "consumers" that don't care about this stuff.
--
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
-- Henry Spencer <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - "What have you contributed to Linux today?..."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Miguel Cruz)
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.sys.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: TAO: the ultimate OS
Date: 24 Jan 1999 04:30:11 GMT
steve mcadams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 22 Jan 1999 23:26:32 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeremy Crabtree) wrote:
>> Better yet, show us the agreement you made with Tao Systems that let's you
>> use the name of /their/ OS
>
> I doubt they can prevent it. It's not like they invented the word Tao
> ya know, it's been around for what, 4,000 years?
Um, apples have been around millions of years longer than Tao and yet I
think even you would agree you'd run into legal trouble if you tried to
start a computer company called "Apple". They can't keep you from using the
word, but they can keep you from using the word in the same context.
miguel
------------------------------
From: "jdn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.sys.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: TAO: the ultimate OS
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 22:32:28 -0600
Miguel Cruz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:78e7kj$o8c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>steve mcadams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 22 Jan 1999 23:26:32 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeremy Crabtree) wrote:
>>> Better yet, show us the agreement you made with Tao Systems that let's
you
>>> use the name of /their/ OS
>>
>> I doubt they can prevent it. It's not like they invented the word Tao
>> ya know, it's been around for what, 4,000 years?
>
>Um, apples have been around millions of years longer than Tao and yet I
>think even you would agree you'd run into legal trouble if you tried to
>start a computer company called "Apple". They can't keep you from using the
>word, but they can keep you from using the word in the same context.
>
>miguel
Aren't "Tao" and "Taos" two different things?
jdn
------------------------------
From: Dennis Wetzig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Dissassemble bootsection
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 19:26:39 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello all,
I am trying to disassemble the bootsection of my harddisk, but fail so
far.
I did:
$> dd if=/dev/hda of=./bootsect bs=512 count=1
$> objdump -d bootsect
But objdump fails, telling me that bootsect has an invalid format.
Does anyone have a little idea... probably I am just sitting on the
wrong horse again : )
Thanks for your help!
Thanks,
Dennis
P.S.: It would be nice, if you could send a copy of your answer to
[EMAIL PROTECTED], since my newsserver has a way to fast expiry and I
probably do not find the message in time. Thanks.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Linux ext2 dump
Date: 24 Jan 1999 22:59:16 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Dominik Epple <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I have problems with dump, encountered on RH5.2 with the kernels 2.0.36
>and 2.1.132: when dumping a file system, it says:
>
>[amanda@euler amanda]$ /sbin/dump 0Bf 1048576 /dev/null /usr
> DUMP: Date of this level 0 dump: Sun Jan 24 22:18:16 1999
> DUMP: Date of last level 0 dump: the epoch
> DUMP: Dumping /dev/sda7 (/usr) to /dev/null
> DUMP: mapping (Pass I) [regular files]
> DUMP: mapping (Pass II) [directories]
> DUMP: estimated 473441 tape blocks on 0.45 tape(s).
> DUMP: dumping (Pass III) [directories]
> DUMP: master/slave protocol botched.
> DUMP: The ENTIRE dump is aborted.
>[amanda@euler amanda]$
>
>the dump is from the RH package dump-0.3-14 .
>I already have seen other people with that problem posting news, but no
>one answered them. :-(
I've seen this on RH 5.1 but thought it was fixed in 5.2. In fact
I copied the 5.2 dump executable over to the 5.1 systems and the
problem went away. The amanda mailing list mentioned a known problem
in earlier versions of dump for e2fs filesystems that had something
to do with parsing the /etc/dumpdates file. Try deleting the
contents of that file to see if this is still the same problem.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Mark Hahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: D-Link NIC driver, anyone?
Date: 25 Jan 1999 04:50:20 GMT
http://cesdis.gsfc.nasa.gov/linux/drivers/
it's the first place you should look regarding _any_ net driver...
> Does anyone out there have a driver for a D-Link DFE-530TX Network card?
> I'm running RedHat 5.2, but it won't detect it, and the tulip driver doesn't
> work. If you could, e-mail it to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: BL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.gui
Subject: Re: Comparison of Swing, Qt, GTk?
Date: 25 Jan 1999 04:52:43 GMT
Reply-To: no.spambots.please
In comp.os.linux.development.system Michael Schuerig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: I'm wondering has done a comparison of Java's Swing with Qt (KDE /Linux)
: and GTk (GNOME/Linux)?
I'm certainly no java expert - only been playing wiht it real informally, but
with the current free tools (jdk) on linux and even on my work system (irix),
I'd have to say that compiles are PAINFULLY slow, as are app STARTUP times!
so slow that I abandoned doing a gui project in java (swing) and went back to
good old ANSI C with gtk+. aah - nice comfortable Makefiles, etc ;-)
until the performance is AT LEAST doubled in java, I don't know of anyone who
really takes it seriously (when the situation at least allows for other
choices). in some situations, java may be the only option, but given a
choice, I'm not convinced java is ready for prime time.
--
AntiSpam: For email, change all 'zero' chars to letter 'o' chars.
bryan, http://www.Grateful.Net/
------------------------------
From: Matthew Vanecek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Compiling gcc fails at stage1
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 23:21:06 -0600
I'm trying to compile gcc-2.x.x. (I've tried both 2.8.1 and 2.7.2.3) on
an AMD K6-3/350 using RedHat 5.1. I've tried using 3 different
compilers-2.8.1, 2.7.2.3, and egcs 1.0.2. In each case, it gives me
exactly the same error. It compiles the first stage just fine, and
"make stage1" works. But the next make always crashes with an internal
compiler error, saying that stage1/cpp received a fatal signal 11.
These same packages compile just fine on an AMD 486/120 *and* on an AMD
486/133. I don't understand why it won't work on my K6.
Does anyone have any ideas? Other programs compile fine (kernel
2.2preX, Xfree86*src.rpm, and others). I would really like to solve
this problem.
--
Matthew Vanecek
Studies in Business Computers at UNT: http://www.unt.edu/bcis
*****************************************************************
Visit my Website at http://people.unt.edu/~mev0003
*****************************************************************
For 93 million miles, there is nothing between the sun and my shadow
except me. I'm always getting in the way of something...
------------------------------
From: "Mr. Poet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: From a Vritual Server to a Colocate
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 21:57:38 -0800
Hello,
LinuxPorts (http://www.linuxports.com) a website dedicated to professionals,
consultants, and corporations who use or are trying to use Linux is moving
from a Virtual Server to a colocation. Therefore we need your help, we need
to help pay for this new colocate, we have the server we just need help with
the monthlys. We would like to have a couple of people purchase Virtual
Servers from us to help pay for the service. We get plenty of IP addresses
and over 20 gig's of bandwidth with the colocate so none of that should be a
problem.
The server will have Apache_1.3.4+SSL
PHP 3.0.6
SSH
PostgreSQL
PERL5 (Of Course :))
True Virtual FTP (VIA ProFTP)
If anyone would be interested in purchasing a Virtual Server and Or
advertising space, please let [EMAIL PROTECTED] know as soon as possible.
Thanks!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John De Hoog)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Modest next goal for Linux
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 04:36:56 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andreas Heiss), writing in comp.os.linux.advocacy
and possibly other newsgroups, commented:
>But if a 300MHz PII NT box is basically unusable during scanning
>an image with a SCSI scanner, how's that ? (Move the mouse, the
>mouse cursor moves 2 minutes later ...)
>Since I have no own scanner, I recently used the NT box of a friend
>of mine and I couldn't believe how crappy this NT is. In our institute,
>we have a scanner on a Linux box and the CPU does almost nothing
>during scanning.
You're lucky you could find a scanner that works under Linux. Mine is not supported,
so I have no first-hand corroboration for your report. However, I would assume that
scanning is not the job of NT, but of the SCSI (ASPI) driver and TWAIN driver, which
are supplied by various third-party vendors. If they are crappy, I'm not sure it
follows that NT is therefore crappy. Anyway, does Linux have built-in scanner
support? I thought it was accomplished by add-ons to the Linux system.
Can you point to a design difference between NT and Linux that would account for the
speed differences you have observed?
--
John De Hoog, Tokyo
http://washi.nu
--
Washi Desu
http://washi.nu
------------------------------
From: "Mr. Poet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: From a Virtual Server to a Colocate
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 21:57:22 -0800
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Modest next goal for Linux
Date: 24 Jan 1999 22:50:25 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Steven Hand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>The "problem" of maintaining a reasonable response time for things
>like mouse-pointer movement does not require a full real-time OS (as
>NT demonstrates). From the CPU scheduling side, various techniques
>(read "nasty hacks") are possible to reduce the probability of mouse
>lock ups.
That's good, if you happen to think that someone playing solitare
on the console deserves more resources because they have the mouse
focus compared to other jobs, like processing the company's email
or the like. Assmptions like that are often wrong.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Jamie Guinan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development
Subject: Re: Autofs automounter auto.direct
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 06:55:21 +0000
Alex Smtih wrote:
>
> I have a working autofs configuration. I can automount my cdrom and
> several nis automaps. I just can not get auto.direct to work. The
> difference is that auto.direct wants to create automount in the /
> directory.
I saw HPA's reply on DejaNews, to the effect that direct
automaps are not likely to be supported.
( http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=435463269 )
Is there some techincal reason why direct maps aren't supported?
They would be really handy for me and others, I imagine.
For example, maybe its my own ignorance, but I could not
manage to have /home/user1 on a local machine then automount
othermachine:/home/user2 alongside it, because the silly
automounter commandeers "/home" and I can't see user1
while the automounter is running.
A direct mount would have solved the problem nicely.
-Jamie
------------------------------
From: Loren Osborn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Compiling gcc fails at stage1
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 22:29:02 -0800
Ahh... Good old "Signal 11"... It's probably bad hardware. It is a bit
weird that it consistantly gives a Signal 11 in EXACTLY THE SAME
PLACE... but that still could be hardware... check out
http://www.tux.org/pub/sunsite/docs/faqs/GCC-SIG11-FAQ. It is also
possible (although extremely unlikely) that you found a compiler
incompatibility with gcc... Let us know if that helps..
Loren Osborn
NOCCC Linux/Unix SIG Leader
Matthew Vanecek wrote:
>
> I'm trying to compile gcc-2.x.x. (I've tried both 2.8.1 and 2.7.2.3) on
> an AMD K6-3/350 using RedHat 5.1. I've tried using 3 different
> compilers-2.8.1, 2.7.2.3, and egcs 1.0.2. In each case, it gives me
> exactly the same error. It compiles the first stage just fine, and
> "make stage1" works. But the next make always crashes with an internal
> compiler error, saying that stage1/cpp received a fatal signal 11.
> These same packages compile just fine on an AMD 486/120 *and* on an AMD
> 486/133. I don't understand why it won't work on my K6.
>
> Does anyone have any ideas? Other programs compile fine (kernel
> 2.2preX, Xfree86*src.rpm, and others). I would really like to solve
> this problem.
>
> --
> Matthew Vanecek
------------------------------
From: "wĠĠg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: LILO and 10 GB drives
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 01:09:07 -0600
LINUX doesn't boot from the root partition, it boots from the /boot
partition. You should have /dev/hda2 set to mount to /boot. Well, I'm not
a connoisseur of all LINUX distributions, but that seems to hold true from
what I've seen.... Also, a time or two, I've seen problems with having
multiple partitions set as active, which seems to be the case if that is a
true FDISK screenshot. If you're going to use LILO, then you only need one
partition active. With the way I have LILO configured, it is /dev/hda2.
Regards.
<SNIP>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>fdisk:
>Disk /dev/hda: 16 heads, 63 sectors, 19540 cylinders
>Units = cylinders of 1008 * 512 bytes
>
> Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
>/dev/hda1 * 1 131 65992+ 6 DOS 16-bit >=32M
>/dev/hda2 * 132 262 66024 83 Linux native
>/dev/hda3 263 19540 9716112 5 Extended
>
>I have a bunch of logical partitions but those are irrelavent.
>/dev/hda2 is my root partition and it is below cylinder 1023.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: "Aaron Drew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Attention Linux Programmers!
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 18:27:48 +1100
Note the group?? This is *system development*... You're ad isn't appreciated
here..
Netpork wrote in message <788rn8$cka$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Our Company is looking for consultant / programming expert / database /
....
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: disheartened gnome developer
From: Michael Powe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 25 Jan 1999 00:07:23 -0800
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
Hash: SHA1
>>>>> "Richard" == Richard Kulisz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Because markets are irrational and driven by greed, it's
>> necessary and proper for governments to apply coercion in the
>> market to palliate the destructive practices which are the norm
>> for corporate behavior.
Richard> organizing principle in the justice system. Capitalism is
Richard> fundamentally irrational and insane. And if government is
Richard> to prevent destruction then it must necessarily suppress
Richard> capitalism.
It's a nice idea but it ain't gonna happen in our lifetime. You want
to see the real wave of the future, check out this URL I got from
slashdot: it's a banking magazine's account of how bankers in the
(near) future will use "psychographic" data to sort customers into
winners and losers -- and the losers will be charged exorbitant rates
for bank services, in order to drive them away. One banker says, "we
don't want losers who keep less than $1000 in their accounts and pay
off their credit cards on time every month."
http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/bank/19990122.asp
"But in the global economy no one cares if you're a nice, good
institution." -- banking seminar leader
Richard> Socialism (credit unions + cooperatives) is not organized
Richard> on competition but on cooperation; and it works at least
Richard> an order of magnitude more efficiently than
Richard> capitalism. There are laws in the USA to prevent coops
The phenomenal success of American agriculture is based largely on
coops. The Grange coops provided large-scale purchasing power; the
grain and dairy coops provided "market clout."
mp
8<---------------how-easy-is-it-to-demunge-an-address?------------------->8
#! /usr/bin/perl # if you are [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Another Luser):
while ($line = <>){ if ($line =~ m/^\s*$/ ){ last; }
if ($line =~ m/^From: (\S+) \(([^()]*)\)/){ $from_address = $1; } }
if ($from_address =~ m/\S+NOSPAM\S+/){ $x = index($from_address, NOSPAM);
substr($from_address, $x, 6+1) = ""; printf("The real address is %s\n",
$from_address);}else { printf("No munge, just plain %s\n",$from_address);}
printf("\nBrought to you by the Truth In Mail Headers Foundation\n");
8<-----------------------here's-one-example------------------------------>8
- --
Michael Powe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.trollope.org
Portland, Oregon USA
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: GnuPG v0.9.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Encrypted with Mailcrypt 3.5.1 and GNU Privacy Guard
iD8DBQE2rBp2755rgEMD+T8RAiPQAKC0iFHSpnIKMb6x2G1Ja1RnNWmwMwCeOqo7
Ydqy43j55Ci1MxVLfqk4xTg=
=C3u2
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
------------------------------
** 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 (and comp.os.linux.development.system) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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-Development-System Digest
******************************
