From: Digestifier To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu Reply-To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu Date: Thu, 26 Aug 93 02:13:13 EDT Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #54 Linux-Misc Digest #54, Volume #1 Thu, 26 Aug 93 02:13:13 EDT Contents: Re: Linux and Corporate America (Ian McCloghrie) [Q] gs svga 640x480x256 (ala DEVICE=linux) (luoma@binah.cc.brandeis.edu) Re: Linux and Corporate America (Barry Jaspan) Re: Linux and Corporate America (Bob Smart) Re: NT versus Linux (Peter Mutsaers) Re: The troubled "Backspace" key (James A Robinson) Re: Linux and Corporate America (Mark A. Davis) Re: WABI available on Linux or not (James A Robinson) Re: Why would I want LINUX? (Bruce Evans) Problems with term (Pawel Gburzynski) Re: Why use linux was Re: Why would I want LINUX? (Keith Smith) Re: NT versus Linux (Art Walker) *** PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE POSTING *** (misc-2.01) (Ian Jackson) Re: Linux and Corporate America (Jim Haynes) Re: High speed modems & Linux (Andreas Fatum) Re: SCSI Performance (Kevin Brown) Re: Which is more efficient on Linux? (Kevin Brown) Mitsuimi CD comes up on the first try :-) (Vince Skahan) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: imcclogh@cs.ucsd.edu (Ian McCloghrie) Subject: Re: Linux and Corporate America Date: 25 Aug 93 23:23:15 GMT rick@ee.uwm.edu (Rick Miller) writes: > So tell me... What's to stop them? Who will sue? Why is a *lawsuit* necessary to stop this sort of stealing? The GPL is a fairly famous (infamous?) document, and any company who tries to take a GPL-ed piece of code and market it as their own proprietary stuff is going to come under SUBSTANTIAL pressure from the community who knows where this software came from, and what is required for distribution, modifications, etc. I think even the most ardent opponents of the GNU project would agree that this is just not something that one can do. A software company makes money largely because of publicity about their products, bad press about them is a better weapon than a lawsuit, IMHO. -- /~> Ian McCloghrie | Commandant of Secret Police - Cal Animage Beta. < < /~\ |~\ |~> | | <~ | email: ian@ucsd.edu Net/2, USL 0! \_> \_/ |_/ |~\ |__| _> | Card Carrying Member, UCSD Secret Islandia Club ------------------------------ From: luoma@binah.cc.brandeis.edu Subject: [Q] gs svga 640x480x256 (ala DEVICE=linux) Reply-To: luoma@binah.cc.brandeis.edu Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1993 00:04:42 GMT Is there source code available for a 256 color version of the "linux" ghostscript device? Thanks. -- Robert J Luoma ------------------------------ From: bjaspan@GZA.COM (Barry Jaspan) Subject: Re: Linux and Corporate America Date: 25 Aug 1993 22:39:02 GMT I don't know what the Copyright laws in Finland are like. I also don't know what the US Copyright laws say about works produced in other countries but distributed here. But let's assume something reasonable: that a work produced overseas and published in the US is covered by US Copyright law for all activities taking place in the US and by people under US jurisdiction. (I don't know whether this assumption is correct, it just seems reasonable to me.) In that case, Linus has Copyright on Linux (more precisely, the parts of the kernel that bear his name or were otherwise demonstrably created by him). If someone violates that Copyright by acting outside the bounds of the software license (in this case, the GPL), then they are in violation of copyright law. Under those laws, Linus could sue the offending party in a court of appropriate jurisdiction for damages. I don't know whether the court of appropriate jurisdiction would be state or federal, or both, but that isn't particularly relevant. That Linus holds the Copyright on the Linux kernel would be difficult to dispute. His name is in just about every kernel source file. There are tens of thousands of witnesses all over the world who would testify as to its authorship. The fact that he has not registered his copyright in the US is irrelevant (with the "reasonable assumption" I made above), because under current copyright law an author automatically has Copyright on any work he/she produces. Registering the copyright, or even including a notice like "Copyright 1993 Linus Torvaldos", is simply a means of making it easier to verify the Copyright owner. The practical questions of whether Linus would actually choose to defend his copyright in court, or whether he could afford the legal costs of doing so, are entirely separate issues. It is not out of the question, though---he could probably find a lawyer to work on a contingency basis. In short, this topic doesn't seem particularly relevant. Unless you want to discuss details of international copyright law, the issue is pretty clear cut: Linus has copyright on Linux and could prosecute anyone who violates the license he has granted. If you *do* want to discuss the details of international copyright law (and I don't), there is certainly a more appropriate newsgroup for it. -- Barry Jaspan, bjaspan@gza.com Geer Zolot Associates ------------------------------ From: bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart) Subject: Re: Linux and Corporate America Reply-To: bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1993 01:13:41 GMT In article <25g881INN62q@uwm.edu>, rick@ee.uwm.edu (Rick Miller - Linux Device Registrar) writes: > > Here's the loophole... > > Linus, have you *paid* for your Copyright on Linux yet? > It has been openly published for over a year now... You need a better loophole. At least in the US, there's a nominal filing fee to REGISTER a copyright with the government, but there's no requirement that you actually file the form in order to have protection under the copyright law. Copyright exists from the moment your "fixed, tangible expression" is created...forms or no forms. The benefit you get from registering a copyright (again, at least in the US) is that you can nail people with a stiffer penalty if they violate your copyright. If you haven't registered, you can still take them to court and get the court to make them stop infringing, but your ability to collect damages, etc. depends on whether you filed the form. ========= A fanatic is someone who does what he knows that God would do if God knew the facts of the case. Some mailers apparently munge my address; you might have to use bsmart@bsmart.tti.com -- or if that fails, fall back to 72027.3210@compuserve.com. Ain't UNIX grand? ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy From: muts@compi.hobby.nl (Peter Mutsaers) Subject: Re: NT versus Linux Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1993 19:06:20 GMT >> On 24 Aug 1993 11:35:50 +0100, martin@chemeng.ed.ac.uk (Martin >> Spenceley) said: MS> I wish Linux every success. Maybe one day I'll port my OPEN LOOK MS> applications to Linux. The only problem with that is I'd have to MS> sacific my other bug-bear and buy a PC ;-) Port? The chance is very big there will be hardly any porting to do. Most UNIX applications run out of the box. -- _______________________________________________________________ Peter Mutsaers, Bunnik (Ut), the Netherlands. Disclaimer: This reflects the official opinions of my employer. ------------------------------ From: jcg@world.std.com (James A Robinson) Subject: Re: The troubled "Backspace" key Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1993 02:01:15 GMT imp@boulder.parcplace.com (Warner Losh) writes: >In article <25f9c4$9pn@agate.berkeley.edu> genie@scam.Berkeley.EDU (Gene Choi) writes: >>I've found it rather strange that whenever I enter X11 (be it X8514, >>X1.1, 1.2, 1.3) that my backspace (which was defined to be "delete") >>turns into backspace no matter what I try. Since all the school >>workstations usually have "delete" as their backspace key, it's >>the obvious setting when logging in remotely or slipping in. >>My backspace on console mode is set so backspace defaults to 'delete' >>^?. >xmodmap is your friend. I have the following in my .xinitrc: >xmodmap xmodmap.tofu >where xmodmap.tofu says: >keycode 22 = Delete >keycode 107 = BackSpace Another meathod is to put xmodmap -e "keysym BackSpace = Delete" & in your .xinitrc file... Lets see, thats three ways of doing almost the same thing now? I love UNIX. :-) Jim jimr@world.std.com ------------------------------ From: mark@taylor.uucp (Mark A. Davis) Subject: Re: Linux and Corporate America Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1993 01:47:12 GMT rick@ee.uwm.edu (Rick Miller) writes: >The GPL is beside the point. >The sharp end of the stick is this: > Linux is effectively defenseless against plagiarism. >If someone re-named Linux and took all the credit for herself (don't want >to be sexist, y'know... ;-) I sincerely doubt that there would be *any* >legal retaliation. After all, Copyright simply gives you the right to >sue and an even chance of winning at it. It doesn't actually stop anyone. >There are no "Copyright Police". Violation of Copyright is *not* a crime. Violation of a copyright is a crime if a crime is defined as a violation of the law. Whether the law dealing with that crime is enforcible or not is a separate issue. > So tell me... What's to stop them? Who will sue? There is morality and legality. It is possible that the GPL'er could sue a violator. This may not happen because of the money and time needed to do this, but it is a possibility. If nothing else, there is morality. I would be extremely bad looking if Sun, for example decided to violate the GPL on Linux. Sun's competitors might be the first to offer legal assistance to Linus..... if you get my meaning. -- /--------------------------------------------------------------------------\ | Mark A. Davis | Lake Taylor Hospital | Norfolk, VA (804)-461-5001x431 | | Sys.Administrator| Computer Services | mark@taylor.wyvern.com .uucp | \--------------------------------------------------------------------------/ ------------------------------ From: jcg@world.std.com (James A Robinson) Subject: Re: WABI available on Linux or not Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1993 03:13:22 GMT rlerdorf@netcom.com (Rasmus Lerdorf) writes: >niemidc@oasis.gtefsd.com (David C. Niemi) writes: >>Wow, Wabi on AIX already! That is pretty exciting, and that is quite a >>WinTach score! Has IBM been working on it for a while, and only just announced >>it, or can Wabi be ported to new UN*Xes trivially???? >I don't know how trivial it is. The impression I got speaking to the IBM >engineers was that it was quite easy. But, I am sure IBM had the Wabi >code long before even Sun announced it. Considering they had access to the Windows source code I can imagine it was a bit easier for them then it will be for us. Jim jimr@world.std.com ------------------------------ From: bde@kralizec.zeta.org.au (Bruce Evans) Crossposted-To: comp.os.386bsd.misc Subject: Re: Why would I want LINUX? Date: 25 Aug 1993 14:27:17 +1000 In <1993Aug23.074749.18957@colorado.edu> drew@kinglear.cs.colorado.edu (Drew Eckhardt) writes: >When my system comes up, my master boot record (winiboot) asks me >which partition I want to boot. If I don't choose something >(with one keypress) within the timeout period, Linux is automatically >booted.. If I press some key for a different OS, it gets booted instead. Same here. Except 386BSD is booted after the timeout instead of Linux :-). >While this isn't the default installation (with LILO), winiboot is >available as part of the shoelace package, available in source >and binary form. There are some copyright problems with shoelace, but they mostly don't affect winiboot. I think LILO was written partly as an overreaction to the copyright problems. >As far as the LILO bootblock being different from BSD's - it >was developed under a different set of design constraints. Size >is more limited than with BSD because we don't have things sub >partitioned with an area for the disklabel / bootblock set aside. This is the main reason why a BSD-style bootblock won't work for Linux. Linux originally had only the minix fs, which allows only 1K for the boot program where 386BSD's requires 8K. I't might be good to put multiboot stuff in the 386BSD boot block. The code is trivial except for mode-switching stuff which the the "BIOS" 386BSD boot blocks already handle. Joerg Wunsch writes: >>(Another problem of Linux is, they occupy a full dozz partition for swap >instead of sub-partitioning their primary one.) The 386BSD subpartioning leaves a lot to be desired. It should at least handle the standard 4 partitions. Then there are extended partitions. I think DOS allows at most 26 partitions per drive (up to 25 of them in extended partitions), and Linux is normally wired for at most 8 partitions per drive, but I once supported 32 partitions per drive in the Minix driver. The 386BSD approach is best except for the small number of subpartition and lack of support for foreign partitions. Foreign partitions need to be supported if only to avoid writing to them. -- Bruce Evans bde@kralizec.zeta.org.au ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help From: pawel@cs.UAlberta.CA (Pawel Gburzynski) Subject: Problems with term Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1993 18:27:15 GMT I am not sure whether this problem belongs in this newsgroup, but there is no 'term' newsgroup, so let me just try. I am running term 1.0.7 between a large and fast 66/33 pc with Linux and a not-so-large and fast Sun3/80 with SunOS 4.1.1. The modem I'm using is a Supra Fax (V.32bis) (identical modems are used on both ends). My problem is that I cannot transmit files (tupload) equally fast in both direction. The sun-to-pc direction is OK, but file transfers in the opposite direction get into error loops, unless I reduce the window size at the pc end to $1$. Note that the problem has nothing to do (I think) with unescaped special characters as everything works fine when window size is one. Below I list the termrc files: PC: compress on baudrate 38400 timeout 50 window 1 noise on Sun: compress on baudrate 38400 timeout 50 window 3 noise on With this configuration everything works fine (except for the speed), but when I change the window parameter on the PC side to 3 (or even to 2), file transfers from the pc to the sun break down. I have tried a number of easy tricks, also trying to escape some characters, but nothing seemed to work. I have been suspecting flow control problems with the modem on the Sun's side, but changing the flow control options in all possible directions hasn't improved anything either. Thanks in advance for any hints, ====================================================================== Pawel Gburzynski, Associate Professor, Department of Computing Science University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta CANADA T6G 2H1 e-mail: pawel@cs.ualberta.ca, tel: (403) 492-2347, fax: (403) 492-1071 ====================================================================== ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.os.386bsd.misc From: keith@ksmith.com (Keith Smith) Subject: Re: Why use linux was Re: Why would I want LINUX? Date: Thu, 26 Aug 93 00:58:21 GMT In article <1993Aug23.124406.856@finbol.toppoint.de> jschief@finbol.toppoint.de writes: >j@bonnie.tcd-dresden.de (J Wunsch) writes: >>off-the-standard booting scheme (LILO). With *BSD using a normal dozz >lilo works for me and most other, and there may come the time >that dos boot schemes are obsolent.( boot from first HD smaler 1GB) I have found booting to be annoying on _ALL_ IBM-PC based hardware. My old Heath H-8 had software that would allow me to boot at will from _ANY_ disk partition (And it supported like up to 256), as well as from floppy. The H-120 used to come up and give you "The Finger" and allow you to boot either DOS(86) or CP/M-85 from the finger prompt. My first thought on an AT was "But what if I want to boot something besides DOS?" Oh, I get to jump thru hoops, nice. -- Keith Smith keith@ksmith.com 5719 Archer Rd. Digital Designs BBS 1-919-423-4216 Hope Mills, NC 28348-2201 Somewhere in the Styx of North Carolina ... ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy From: walker@beeble.omahug.org (Art Walker) Subject: Re: NT versus Linux Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1993 14:13:43 GMT muts@compi.hobby.nl (Peter Mutsaers) writes: >Not lynch mob of everything, but yes indeed against Microsoft, because >they are evil and want to strangle us all with a monopoly; every >computer user with some moral should resist this. But why bother? In general, Microsoft products are so horridly *bad* that as time goes on, they will collaspe under the weight of their own incompetence. - Art -- Art Walker, Somewhere In Iowa | walker@beeble.omahug.org This message made from 25% or more post-consumer recycled plastic. ------------------------------ From: ijackson@nyx.cs.du.edu (Ian Jackson) Subject: *** PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE POSTING *** (misc-2.01) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1993 04:23:01 GMT Please do not post questions to comp.os.linux.misc. If you have a question about Linux you should get and read the Linux Frequently Asked Questions with Answers list from sunsite.unc.edu, in /pub/Linux/docs, or from another Linux FTP site. In particular, read the question `You still haven't answered my question!' Then you should consider posting to comp.os.linux.help - not comp.os.linux.misc. Note that X Windows related questions should go to comp.windows.x.i386unix. The FAQ for this group is available on rtfm.mit.edu in /pub/usenet/news.answers/Intel-Unix-X-faq. Comments on this posting are welcomed - please email me ! -- Ian Jackson (urgent email: iwj10@phx.cam.ac.uk) 35 Molewood Close, Cambridge, CB4 3SR, England; phone: +44 223 327029 ------------------------------ From: haynes@cats.ucsc.edu (Jim Haynes) Subject: Re: Linux and Corporate America Date: 26 Aug 1993 05:24:11 GMT Speaking of copyrights and all that and Linux as an embedded OS and all that, I noticed that the 386BSD camp says something about explicitly keeping GPL-ed code out of the kernel. So I assume it's just Regents of the U. of California copyright on it. Well that gives Corporate America a choice of two different kinds of copyright to play with. -- haynes@cats.ucsc.edu haynes@cats.bitnet "Ya can talk all ya wanna, but it's dif'rent than it was!" "No it aint! But ya gotta know the territory!" Meredith Willson: "The Music Man" ------------------------------ From: ace@acelab.ruhr.de (Andreas Fatum) Subject: Re: High speed modems & Linux Date: Wed, 25 Aug 93 23:26:18 GMT In <25cr6n$jse@hdxu03.telecom.ptt.nl> arthur@ptt-iat.uucp (Arthur Donkers) writes: >I'm using a 14k4 modem at 57k6. It's connected to a linux p12 system with >Taylor 1.04. When using the g protocol to talk to a Waffle 1.65 site I get >an average throughput of 1250 cps (including protocol overhead). This >is for traffic from Waffle to Taylor. While uploading I still have some >problems, I get a WRITE ERROR on different packets. >I'm using 4096 byte packets with a window of 7. Waffle's uucico does only handle packet sizes of 512 bytes as the maximum. Andreas --- Andreas Fatum InterNet : ace@acelab.ruhr.de (Internet BBS) postmaster@re.open.de (City-Router) SubNet : ace@acelab.ruhr.sub.org UUCP/Bang!: ..!uunet!germany.eu.net!acelab!ace ------------------------------ From: kevin@frobozz.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) Subject: Re: SCSI Performance Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1993 02:55:54 GMT In article <19586@blue.cis.pitt.edu> broadley@neurocog.lrdc.pitt.edu (Bill Broadley) writes: >> 'iozone auto' Will run files of like 1,4,8,&16MB with block sizes of 512 >> 1K, 2K, 4K, and 8K, back to back. *THEN* you will have something to >> compare with. > >I wouldn't expect very accurate numbers if you have 16 or 32 MB ram. Testing the read capability of the SCSI system is simply a question of reading in enough data that it reduces the effects of the block cache to a minimum. That's easy: just try reading an entire partition, e.g. time dd bs=8192 if=/dev/sda1 of=/dev/null or you can use the entire drive: time dd bs=8192 if=/dev/sda of=/dev/null Testing the write capability of the SCSI system is a bit more of a problem. However, it's really not *that* much of a problem. Instead of mounting a SCSI filesystem normally, use the "sync" option, e.g. mount -t ext2fs -o sync /dev/sda1 /mnt time dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/foo bs=8192 count=1000 Unless there's something in the dd code that causes it to do the wrong thing anyway, you should get decent numbers, right? Yes, I realize that you'll have to worry about filesystem overhead (and possibly unintended seeks) during the write test. I can't think of a good alternative, however. >Bill 1st> Broadley@neurocog.lrdc.pitt.edu >Broadley@schneider3.lrdc.pitt.edu <2nd 3rd> Broadley+@pitt.edu >Linux is great. Bike to live, live to bike. PGP-ok -- Kevin Brown kevin@frobozz.sccsi.com This is your .signature virus: < begin 644 .signature (9V]T8VAA(0K0z end > This is your .signature virus on drugs: <> Any questions? ------------------------------ From: kevin@frobozz.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) Subject: Re: Which is more efficient on Linux? Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1993 03:26:45 GMT In article umlin000@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Zhuo Er Lin) writes: >In <25akpc$6u0@urmel.informatik.rwth-aachen.de> dak@rama.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (David Kastrup) writes: > >>byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) writes: > >>>In article <1993Aug22.224714.4588@excaliber.uucp>, >>>Joel M. Hoffman wrote: >>>>Which is likely to be more efficient: Running several copies of a >>>>large program one after the other, or all at once. For example, >>>>suppose I have 10 files to print w/ Ghostscript, on my '386 with 10M. >>>>Am I better of running 10 copies of GS all at once, or running them >>>>one after the other? >>>> >>>>Suppose for argument's sake that there will be some swapping, but not >>>>a lot. > >>>As I'm sure it's been pointed out before that 2 or more processes running >>>the same program can share clean and text pages. In addition the disk >>>buffer cache is also aware of pages of already running programs. So if >>>you run 10 copies of GS simulteanously not only will they share but the >>>text and clean pages will only be loaded the first time. > >>>On the other hand the buffer cache doesn't usually let pages go unless >>>memory gets tight. So even if you run one after the other it's most >>>likely that the pages will still be hanging around. > >>>So either way you win. That's what I like about Linux. ;-) >>With simultaneous runs, IFF the disk drivers have good position optimization, >>running things simultaneously will have less I/O waiting times. >>No guarantee. >>-- > >Does this mean that I can compi >2 programs(packages) using GCC to save time? > >(One copy of GCC in memory, less I/O time, ...) This depends on how much actual memory you have available. 2 GCC's running at the same time will try to access twice as much data as 1 GCC. If your memory is small enough, and you have swapping enabled, you'll page to disk more often than you would if you ran the 2 GCC's sequentially. Since the amount of CPU spent actually running GCC will add up to the same amount anyway, it subtracts out and you're left with the amount of time spent hitting the disk. Having 2 GCC's going won't necessarily hit the disk just twice as often as 1 GCC. The reason is that Linux dynamically balances the size of the buffer cache and the size of the core memory. Having 2 GCC's going instead of one means that your memory consumption is greater by the amount of disjoint data space that exists between the two processes. There are lots of things that will affect how disjoint this is, like how the two processes are prioritized relative to each other, how closely in time they were started to each other, the characteristics of the files being compiled, etc. Suffice it to say that your memory will be reduced by some amount as a result of both compiles going at once, which means you have that much less to use for your buffer cache, which means that your buffer cache will get more misses. So how much you'll lose depends on how I/O intensive the applications are and how much I/O they have in common inside some time interval. How much of a win it is to run 2 GCC's depends a lot on how much buffer cache space they can share. I don't think the clean data page sharing is going to affect you that much (if at all) in comparison to running the two processes sequentially, unless you're *already* paging to disk. Clean page sharing is intended to minimize the amount of paging to disk that happens. If you're not paging to disk anyway, it won't make any difference. However, you might avoid paging to disk *because* of it. :-) And, as noted, the buffer cache will likely still have the pages you want even if you run them sequentially, and there'll be more space for those pages. So: the fastest way, if you won't be paging to disk, is to run them sequentially, thus maximizing the effects of the buffer cache. If you're already paging to disk, then you'll have to figure out where the pivot point in the curve is. At some number of simultaneous processes going, the amount of time you spend hitting the disk will go nonlinear with respect to the number of processes you have. As with anything else free, this advice comes with no warranties, either expressed or implied. :-) >| Eric Lin (Home): (204) 783-2884 | >| Computer Engineering FAX Modem: (204) 783-2884 | >| University of Manitoba Internet: Umlin000@cc.Umanitoba.CA | -- Kevin Brown kevin@frobozz.sccsi.com This is your .signature virus: < begin 644 .signature (9V]T8VAA(0K0z end > This is your .signature virus on drugs: <> Any questions? ------------------------------ From: vince@victrola.wa.com (Vince Skahan) Subject: Mitsuimi CD comes up on the first try :-) Date: 25 Aug 1993 17:50:45 -0700 With all the crap in c.o.l.*, I wanted to personally thank anybody who had anything to do with the *FINE* Mitsuimi cd implementation that went into 0.99-12 and also Linus for installing it in the default kernel sources. I edited mcd.h to set my addresses to match the board and it came up the first time...amazing! now to find a non-x-based audio cd player :-) [...on the MS-DOS side I found that if you start up an audio Cd with the 'playcd.exe' command and quit out of it without stopping the CD, it keeps on playing the CD :-) - now if I can get linux to do that too...] Anyway, fantastic job !!! -- ---------- Vince Skahan --------- vince@victrola.wa.com ------------- It'll be great fun for the whole family...with a firearms orientation - incredible advertisement for local outdoors show. #! rnews 2946 Path: victrola.wa.com!victrola.wa.com!not-for-mail From: vince@victrola.wa.com (Vince Skahan) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.help Subjec ------------------------------ ** 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 ******************************