Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #377
From: Digestifier <Linux-Misc-Request@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>
To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU
Reply-To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU
Date:     Tue, 5 Jul 94 07:13:08 EDT

Linux-Misc Digest #377, Volume #2                 Tue, 5 Jul 94 07:13:08 EDT

Contents:
  Re: kill -9 ... NOT!! (Terry Dawson)
  Re: Where can I get the POSIX standard? (Mark Dobie)
  Re: Where can I get the POSIX standard? (Mark Dobie)
  Re: Enscript / mpage available (Lars Delhage)
  commercial programms (Johannes Maehner)
  Re: Linux.... On a Sparc? (Shannon Hendrix)
  Re: A sample of what's wrong with OS/2 TCP/IP  (Shannon Hendrix)
  Re: Consumer standards (OS/2 vs. Linux discussed) (Shannon Hendrix)
  Re: Linux better than OS/2 for net surfing (john@vat-vai.valmet.com)
  Re: Linux better than OS/2 for net surfing (Dave Tholen)
  Re: Best OS for a bandwidth intensive on-line service.. (Marius Kjeldahl)
  I need help to find out what IRQ Sony CDU-33A uses (Steve DuChene)
  Re: OS/2 and Linux discussed (Re: TCP/IP: The reason I dumped OS/2) (Paul Floyd)
  Re: A sample of what's wrong with OS/2 TCP/IP (Dan Pop)
  Re: How to change the priority level of a process in LINUX? (B.A.McCauley@bham.ac.uk)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: terryd@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Terry Dawson)
Subject: Re: kill -9 ... NOT!!
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 1994 07:00:05 GMT

jamesl@jamesl.slip.netcom.com (James Logajan) writes:

>AGREED! I have also seen this very bad advice posted. NEVER user kill -9
>on any process UNLESS IT REFUSES TO DIE OR IT IS AN EMERGENCY! Most daemons
>and utilities trap the default kill signal (SIGTERM) and try to do
>cleanup work before exiting. This is just general good advice for terminating
>ANY program.

I'll change it in the HOWTO too then. Thanks.

Terry

-- 
--- Terry Dawson, terryd@extro.ucc.su.oz.au

------------------------------

From: mrd@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Mark Dobie)
Subject: Re: Where can I get the POSIX standard?
Date: 5 Jul 1994 10:24:42 +0100

In <2v9sbq$34d@drax.isi.edu> rogers@drax.isi.edu (Craig Milo Rogers) writes:

>       If the IEEE asserts the exclusive right to manufacture and
>sell copies of its standards documents, ipso facto they are
>proprietary standards, although they may not assert any proprietary
>interest in implementations of the standard.

I disagree. I would say that IEEE standards are open because anyone can
get a copy and produce conforming implementations of the standard. They
don't have to worry about legal action because they implemented the
standard, like they might if they implemented a closed standard.

>       One can argue that since IEEE is a public body, its standards
>should not be considered "proprietary".

Is it a public body? I thought it was a recognised standards body paid
for by its members. I don't think it is public in the way that ANSI,
BSI or ISO are. I could be wrong...

>However, if the IEEE does not
>place its standards in the public domain, and in fact extracts income
>from their publication in excess of reproduction costs, then it is
>treating the standards as a kind of government-owned private property
>instead of a public commons, and the proprietary designation is
>applicable.

Think of it like a book. IEEE have the copyright on the standards
document itself. By selling the document they recoup the production
costs and the costs of all those commitees and meetings that do the
work to create the standard in the first place. As with a book, anyone
can buy it and read it. Nobody ever complains about proprietary books
and authors making a profit.

If they couldn't do this there would be no incentive to create the
standard in the first place. Nobody is going to do all that work as an
act of charity.

>       Conclusion: it is perfectly correct and appropriate to refer
>to POSIX as a propriatary standard so long as its issuing (owning)
>organization limits reproduction of the standard.

The standard itself is open. You can read it, implement it and write
about it. When people talk about free standards they mean in the
unrestricted sense, not the zero cost sense.

The standard is defined by a book that is sold by the IEEE.  If you
want the definitive standard then you buy the book. If you want a
simplified version then you can buy a book about the standard. If you
can't find what you want then you can write a book.

The only thing you can't do is copy their book. They put the work in so
it is theirs. The standard document is only restricted by the fact that
not everyone can afford to buy it, but so is the Oxford English
Dictionary.  These books are just expensive, not unusually proprietary.

PS comp.std.unix is a better place for this discussion.

                                Mark
-- 
Mark Dobie                                      MS Windows? Linux and X!
University of Southampton                       M.R.Dobie@ecs.soton.ac.uk



------------------------------

From: mrd@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Mark Dobie)
Subject: Re: Where can I get the POSIX standard?
Date: 5 Jul 1994 10:34:33 +0100

In <1994Jul5.042224.18430@unlv.edu> ftlofaro@unlv.edu (Frank Lofaro) writes:

>But is it necessarily true that copying and redistributing the POSIX
>standard is illegal?
>Can someone confirm that it either is legal or that it is illegal to
>copy the POSIX standard?

I believe that copying the POSIX standards document is illegal.

>If it indeed is illegal (I would hope they aren't that fascist) would
>a complete paraphrase of it be illegal too?

It is OK to write about the standard. There is at least one book about
POSIX and several about ANSI C, including an annotated version of the
standard. Let's face it, these are much more readable than the standard
itself... (a standard is like your worst legaltextinsurancepolicycontract
nightmare :))

>Heck, I know of a few scanners and OCR machines, getting the POSIX
>standard scanned in is not an impossibility.

>Please tell me if I would get sued, fined or sentenced to prison for
>doing such and posting it to an anonymous FTP site.

I can't say you would get punished, but you would be infringing copyright.
Anyway, who would trust a standards document that came through a scanner
and OCR software? To be definitive there must be no errors.

                                Mark

-- 
Mark Dobie                                      MS Windows? Linux and X!
University of Southampton                       M.R.Dobie@ecs.soton.ac.uk



------------------------------

From: larsd@ronja11.kth.se (Lars Delhage)
Subject: Re: Enscript / mpage available
Date: 05 Jul 1994 09:17:34 GMT

Try nenscript, it's in linux/system/Printing on sunsite among other
places.

Lars,


--

==================================================================
Lars Delhage                    |
Dept. of Solid Mechanics        | e-mail:       larsd@hallf.kth.se
Royal Institute of Technology   | phone:        +46-8-790 8986
S-100 44 Stockholm              | fax:          +46-8-411 24 18
Sweden                          |
==================================================================



------------------------------

From: maehner@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Johannes Maehner)
Subject: commercial programms
Date: 5 Jul 1994 09:22:04 GMT


Maybe this is a naive question, nevertheless I want to ask it:

Why is there only a small amount of commercial
programms for Linux? 

If a unix application is programmed "cleanly" (based
on X/Motif/POSIX/SYS V), it shouldn't need
much effort to port it to Linux (in best cases, it should be
sufficient to recompile it).

I mainly ask this question to get a better image about 
marketing aspects (support, concurrency a.s.o)
of "free" (in some sense) software and  commercial software.
(The question is also influenced by the wish to have e.g. Mathematica
 running under Linux)



------------------------------

Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.help
From: shendrix@escape.widomaker.com (Shannon Hendrix)
Subject: Re: Linux.... On a Sparc?
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 1994 20:52:38 GMT

Tse Huong Choo (thc@macdui.hpl.hp.com) wrote:

: Actually, gcc and Sun's own cc makes very good use of the Sparc's
: features - watch for delayed branching and the like, although 
: compilers for RISC cpus have a larger responsbility than those for 
: CISC when it comes to optimizing code.

Hmmmm.... didn't seem that way to me.  The assembler output seemed to
do a lot of procedures with stack frames when the rules would have
allowed it to be a leaf procedure, etc.

However, I just looked at some code and noticed they did use the
input/output register methods and some things like that.

Anyway, maybe the Sparc really isn't going to be a hot integer platform.
I just thought maybe it was because some of its features were being
neglected.  I remember when the 486's were not being optimized properly.

: Tse.

: (personal opinions only and not speaking for HP in anyway)

-- 
csh
===========================================================================
shendrix@escape.widomaker.com (UUCP)     | Amd486/40 Linux system
shendrix@pcs.cnu.edu (Internet)          | Christopher Newport University

------------------------------

Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: shendrix@escape.widomaker.com (Shannon Hendrix)
Subject: Re: A sample of what's wrong with OS/2 TCP/IP 
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 1994 22:30:03 GMT

Guido Sohne (wgsohne@tucson.Princeton.EDU) wrote:

: I remember being surprised that IBM TCP/IP took more space than my OS with
: full TCP/IP (a superset of TCP/IP for OS/2 functionality). With such
: fatware in existence, can anyone imagine what bloat is in the OS itself ?

A lot.  A friend of mine worked at Boca.  He said basically that OS/2
was written with typical IBM brute force.  Thousands of programmers
and lot of really crappy code.  I read the book "Gates" which said
basically the same thing.  Like a programmer would take a 1.5 meg 
chunk and whittle it down to 100K but it wouldn't get replaced.  Bloat,
bloat, bloat.  Note that I am not praising Microsoft.  However, they
were not the total enemy IBM has tried to say.  OS/2 is IBM's fault
and no one elses.  Sad, because from talking to some of the programmers,
it is capable of some really neat stuff if IBM's brass would just
let it.

I've always wondered about the size of OS/2.  I mean, when it boots up
to just a CLI (no PM) I have around 6-7 megs of RAM used, even more for
TCP/IP machines.  Why?  What exactly is loaded in there that takes
up so much RAM?  My Linux box comes up CLI with a very full kernel
and is taking around 2.5megs.  Same for Windows NT only it is a whole
lot worse.

My big question: Why is it so damn big?

My answer: Because it's really crappy, bloated code.  It has to be.

: This is also why TCP/IP for OS/2 is so slow. Its a kludge and is very
: definitely an inferior product.

TCP/IP adds under 200K to my Linux kernel so when I see how huge the
OS/2 TCP/IP is I just gotta wonder about it.


: --
: Guido
-- 
csh
===========================================================================
shendrix@escape.widomaker.com (UUCP)     | Amd486/40 Linux system
shendrix@pcs.cnu.edu (Internet)          | Christopher Newport University

------------------------------

From: shendrix@escape.widomaker.com (Shannon Hendrix)
Subject: Re: Consumer standards (OS/2 vs. Linux discussed)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 1994 00:59:48 GMT

Chun Hsu (hsuc@msu.edu) wrote:

: Serious question, no flames:  how about software?

How about it?  I have a lot.  Given the cost (high) of OS/2 and
UNIX software a lot of people just decide to not get any of it.
Besides, there isn't much out there for OS/2.

: Return it.  That's what return policies are for.  OS/2 was
: broken for you, but not for many others.

It was broken for everyone, some just didn't notice.  If it wasn't,
then IBM wouldn't have tied itself into knots trying to fix it.

: : > For my $70 investment in OS/2 2.1, I expect technical support
: : > for free.  I also expect that IBM will make patches available
: : > and not try to profit from them.  I have been satisfied on
: : > both cases.

I wouldn't expect tech support for free, but it should be there
nontheless.  More support on the net would help too.

I have OS/2 2.0 and it's pretty much unusable.  I couldn't return
it because it was the only OS I had for a time.  After realizing
they didn't have a clue, I got tired of talking to IBM's tech
support department.

So now there is 2.1 which seems to work pretty good.  Problem is, I
can't upgrade, I have to buy the whole damn thing again.  That is
just too much.  They sold me a broken product and I should be able
to get a fix for it.

: --
: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
:  Chun Hsu                                     E-mail: hsuc@egr.msu.edu   
:  Masters of Science
:  Electrical Engineering                       Michigan State University
: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 
csh
===========================================================================
shendrix@escape.widomaker.com (UUCP)     | Amd486/40 Linux system
shendrix@pcs.cnu.edu (Internet)          | Christopher Newport University

------------------------------

From: john@vat-vai.valmet.com
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux better than OS/2 for net surfing
Date: 5 Jul 1994 07:49:01 GMT
Reply-To: john.shakespeare@vai-csa.ccmail.valmet.com

In <2v4sot$a9n@bigboote.WPI.EDU>, joev@garden.WPI.EDU (Joseph W. Vigneau) writes:
>In article <2v4lcb$2jsb@inca.gate.net>,
>Mike Dahmus <miked@news.gate.net> wrote:
>>
[deletia : methods of getting linux]
[deletia : OS patches via internet]
>
>_I_  count them as free, because net access  is included in my tuition,
>so I get it whether I like it or not.  What other 'offifial' OS patches
>are available over the net?  The Dos one is the only one I can think of,
>offhand...  Yet people without access had to pay $8 to get the upgrade.
>What would happen if I copied that? Would it be a copyright violation?

For commercial software, upgrades must be considered in two distinct
categories.  A "version patch" fixes defects in the product, allowing it to
better achieve its intended functionality, but does not extend that functionality.
A "version upgrade" expands the intended functionality, as well as fixing any
known defects in the prior version.

This distinction is not often made in discussions of FSF software, where
the issue is moot.

OS/2 patches are also available by internet, from software.watson.ibm.com and
sites which mirror it (such as wcarchive.cdrom.com and ftp.luth.se).  These are
"official" IBM patches, and are freely distributable to other OS/2 users.  The
version number may be tweaked slightly (2.1 to 2.11).

Version upgrades for OS/2 are not available free of charge (except in very special
circumstances), and are generally not available by internet.

>joev@wpi.edu, joev@hotblack.schunix.dmc.com     WPI Computer Science     Linux!

regards,
John.

john@vat-vai.valmet.com
john.shakespeare@vai-csa.ccmail.valmet.com

*** Blessed are the cheesemakers, for they shall inhibit their girth.


------------------------------

Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tholen@hale.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
Subject: Re: Linux better than OS/2 for net surfing
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 1994 09:39:41 GMT

Shannon Hendrix writes:

> I paid a lot of money for OS/2 and it never worked right.

Then you should have taken advantage of IBM's money-back guarantee.

> The new version (I rented it a few months ago)

Rented?  I didn't know OS/2 was available for rent.  Is this legal?

> was not too bad (though it didn't run my S3 video
> card right) and I would like to have bought it.  But guess what?  IBM's
> upgrade policy is for me to dump another $100 on it!  That's just not
> right.  OS/2 2.0 is unusable.  2.1 was the first version to approach
> being ready to market.  I should be able to get that for free or a
> small shipping fee.

You can get both CSDs for OS/2 2.0 for free or a small shipping fee,
just as you expect.  To expect OS/2 2.1, which includes additional
functionality, for free or a small shipping fee is like expecting
GM to replace your '92 Buick without an airbag with the new '93 model
that does have an airbag for free or a small shipping fee.

> Think of it like this: 
> 
> I bought a car from IBM for $9000.  I got it and had to put it together
> myself.  After finishing I realized that one wheel was missing, it had
> no seats, and only ran on two of four cylinders.  It got 4 miles per
> gallon on a good day.
> 
> Now there is the next model which has all the above fixed.  I ask them
> to send me the missing parts and fix the engine.  What do they tell 
> me?   They tell me I have to buy another $9000 car.

Did they really?  They usually tell users to install the CSD (or
ServicePak as they've been called).

> If a car company did something like that, you can bet they would have
> to make up for it (and I actually had a similar situation happen to
> me once... missing pieces of a Honda).

I'm sure IBM would have provided any items missing from the package.
In fact, wasn't there a packing list included that you could use to
see if you did in fact have all the pieces of the package?  They would
have also replaced any defective diskettes.

> That is all people are trying to say about OS/2.  I think OS/2 is
> OK for a multitasking single-user system.  Personally, I prefer
> UNIX so I'll stick with that.  However, I would probably use OS/2 on
> another system (at least for awhile) if I didn't have to buy another
> copy just to get one that worked.
> 
> Why can't they send me one that works?  They sold me a dud and should
> make up for that.

Once again, IBM has a money-back guarantee on OS/2.  They were
prepared "to make up for that".  If you didn't take advantage of
that offer, then it's your problem, not IBM's.

------------------------------

From: s_marius@ira.uka.de (Marius Kjeldahl)
Subject: Re: Best OS for a bandwidth intensive on-line service..
Date: 05 Jul 1994 09:01:52 GMT

In article <CsF628.LIv@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> corey@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (william.c.brown) writes:

>          Sharing data, IMHO is not necessarily a good thing. I would
>          not want several running tasks/threads sharing the same data
>          due to the opportunity for collisions/race-conditions etc...
>          Debugging your new system, given a fair amount of complexity,
>          could become a tremendous issue. 

Well, in my case they have to share the data. I suspect it will be
easier to have the data at one place and shared by the threads/tasks
than to try to maintain consistency between several copies. Of course,
this WILL need some careful programming to avoid
collisions/race-conditions etc, as you point out.
>
>          Again, threads is not the only way to solve this problem. Under
>          Linux you will be able to use the "select()" call to allow
>          your "single" task to listen on numerous ports. i.e. no need
>          to poll or round robin and thus waste CPU cycles. Let the OS
>          do it for you!!

That is right! Now why did I not think of that select() solution (yes,
I am rather a newbie when it comes to Unix programming).

>          BTW, if maintaining particular "framerate?" is a major issue
>          then maybe a "real-time" OS would be better suited for your
>          system. I believe QNX has real time extensions as does SVR4.2

Sure, a real-time OS might be better, but I am pretty sure the
communication will be the major bottleneck, so I think a real-time OS
is not really needed.

>          Why re-create the wheel?? If this type of thing is already
>          available use it, then spend the time saved on the important
>          features of your new system.

Well, there are some security features involved, and for my use I
think my own accounting would be better.

>          One last word... Consider porting issues. If you lock your
>          system into a particular vendors thread package or recreate
>          multi-user accounting as part of your system, will you ever be
>          able to port your system to another environment??? If you 
>          address these items up front you will be able to port your
>          system to other vendors offerings.

Very true, it seems like the select() solution might be the way to
go..

>   /* Corey Brown  (WB0RXQ): 20m, 15m, 2m(146.82) 70cm(443.65)     */
>   /* AT&T NSD              |  corey@hustler.att.com           */
>   /* Alpharetta, Ga 30202          |  attmail!wcbrown                 */
>   /* (404)750-8071                                            */

Thank you very much, you have been most helpful!
--
Marius Kjeldahl, student at The Norwegian Insitute of Technology and
The University of Karlsruhe - finishing MSc late autumn 1994 
        e-mail: s_marius@ira.uka.de or mariusk@lise.unit.no
        www   : http://rzstud1.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de/~ulh0

------------------------------

From: s0017210@cc.ysu.edu (Steve DuChene)
Subject: I need help to find out what IRQ Sony CDU-33A uses
Date: 5 Jul 1994 08:19:30 GMT

        Hello, I have a P4D-100 with a Sony CDU-33A CD-ROM drive hung
        off the standard 8-bit ISA interface card. Because I am running
        an alternative operating system (Linux Ya Hoo!) and I am upgrading
        the driver for this player from one run by polling to one that
        is interrupt driven, I need to know what interrupt is being used
        by the interface card. The information in the User's Guide provided
        by Gateway, details what the base address is and how to change it,
        how to set up DMA channels, but nothing is there about IRQ's. So if 
        anyone can provide this information I would greatly appreciate it. 

                                        Thanks! Steve
        
-- 
| Steven A. DuChene   sduchene@cis.ysu.edu  or  s0017210@cc.ysu.edu      
| Youngstown State University  | Computer Science / Math / Mech. Eng.
|They all laughed at Albert Einstein. They all laughed at Columbus. 
|Unfortunately, they also all laughed at Bozo the Clown. 

------------------------------

Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mbhpfpj@meehpd.ee.man.ac.uk (Paul Floyd)
Subject: Re: OS/2 and Linux discussed (Re: TCP/IP: The reason I dumped OS/2)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 1994 10:01:47 GMT

In article <1994Jun30.145246.1196@Princeton.EDU>, wgsohne@tucson.Princeton.EDU (Guido Sohne) writes:
[much deleted]

One point: do any of the Linux C++ compilers come with an equivalent to WorkFrame 2.1
and extensive examples and full online documentation (the equivalent of several
thousand pages of manuals, all in hypertext) and with class libraries (esp
the equivalent of the C Set ++ UICL)? With all of that, there's no surprise that
a full C Set ++ installation exceeds 60Mbytes. But the compiler itself is only
a few Mbytes.

> >that Linux has.  Emacs is there because OS/2 also comes with a configurable
> >editor, EPM.  I am just including the Linux equivalents of what comes with the
> >full OS/2 distribution.  If you say X is an addon app, I can say Presentation
> >Manager and WPS is an addon.  Bingo - instantly down to a couple of disks.
> >How many times do I have to say this? Presentation Manager is not OS/2!
> 
> I am also just including the OS/2 equivalents of what comes with the Linux
> distribution. And also please compare apple to apples. You just can't
> compare Emacs to EPM. It's like comparing a Ferrari to a Hyundai.

EPM is certainly prettier and easier to use than Emacs. EPM32 will hopefully
be even better (haven't tried the beta). I can't comment on the power
of the programming languages since I don't know about Emacs programming.
But I'd guess they are equivalent.

[munch]
> Guido

-- 
Paul Floyd, Information Storage Research Group, Dept. of Electrical Engineering,
University of Manchester, Dover St., Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. FAX 061 275 4512
mbhpfpj@hpc.ee.man.ac.uk               You know the shit has truly hit the fan
Hwyl fawr i bob un.   Think pos/2ive.  when you start calling it a sewage pump.

------------------------------

Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: danpop@cernapo.cern.ch (Dan Pop)
Subject: Re: A sample of what's wrong with OS/2 TCP/IP
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 1994 10:20:11 GMT

In <2vav7f$drm@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> edmudama@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Eric Danforth Mudama) writes:

>10 Compilers?  What would you possible need 10 compilers for?  Or even 5?
>And Tek?  Tek is too arcane to be used by most mortals.  Also, what "vast

If you don't need them, you don't install them. It's as simple as that.

And it takes about one day to the average mortal to get used to LaTeX.
Given the fact that it's free and available on every platform under the
sun (no pun), it's worth the effort, IMHO.

>The fact that OS/2 provides the capability for me to run Word, plus all of
>the EMX ported GNU apps makes it a superior operating system in my opinion.
>
If the quality of an OS is given by the number of applications that are
available, or some features of those applications, then MSDOS is by far
the best OS :-)

And the fact that FrameMaker is not available for Linux is Linux's
fault and major defficience, of course :-)

Dan
--
Dan Pop 
CERN, CN Division
Email: danpop@cernapo.cern.ch
Mail:  CERN - PPE, Bat. 31 R-004, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland

------------------------------

From: B.A.McCauley@bham.ac.uk
Subject: Re: How to change the priority level of a process in LINUX?
Date: 05 Jul 1994 10:29:58 GMT

In article <2vb02t$7tu@sonia.ese-metz.fr> bocage@speedy.supelec.fr (Claude Bocage) writes:
>use "nice"

The question referred to *running* processes - use "renice"
--
    \\   ( )   No Bullshit!   | Email: B.A.McCauley@bham.ac.uk
 .  _\\__[oo       from       | Phones: +44 21 471 3789 (home)
.__/  \\ /\@  /~)  /~[   /\/[ |   +44 21 627 2171 (voice) 2175 (fax)
.  l___\\    /~~) /~~[  /   [ | PGP-fp: D7 03 2A 4B D8 3A 05 37
 # ll  l\\  ~~~~ ~   ~ ~    ~ |         A1 93 FE EA BE E3 2A 91
###LL  LL\\ (Brian McCauley)  | More: finger bam@wcl-rs.bham.ac.uk

------------------------------


** 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: Linux-Misc-Request@NEWS-DIGESTS.MIT.EDU

You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.misc) via:

    Internet: Linux-Misc@NEWS-DIGESTS.MIT.EDU

Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
    nic.funet.fi				pub/OS/Linux
    tsx-11.mit.edu				pub/linux
    sunsite.unc.edu				pub/Linux

End of Linux-Misc Digest
******************************
