Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #731
From: Digestifier <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 94 07:13:06 EDT

Linux-Misc Digest #731, Volume #2                Sat, 10 Sep 94 07:13:06 EDT

Contents:
  Re: DOOM, X, Linux, 320x200 video mode ?? (Tim Smith)
  320x200 X resolution? (Sam Oscar Lantinga)
  Re: DOOM and Linux (Bill C. Riemers)
  linux-1.1.50 (Omer Zak)
  Re: Thanks ID and ddt - Linux DOOM is perfect. (Erik Nygren)
  Re: DOOM, X, Linux, 320x200 video mode ?? (Erik Nygren)
  Re: Any Sound Blaster drivers for Linux abailable? (Jeff Kesselman)
  Re: Linux is a GNU system and the DWARF support (Orc)
  Re: 1.7MB+ format help wanted... (Craig Woodward)
  Re: Colorado Jumbo250 (Dennis Duffner)
  Re: Which is the best Linux CD package? (ACC Corp.)
  mount & mtools Problem! (Frank J. Potolo)
  sunsite is down (Erik Troan)
  Re: Linux is a GNU system and the DWARF support (Pete Bergstrom)
  Re: OS/2 vs. Unix Which one is better and why??? (Pete Deuel)
  *** PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE POSTING *** (misc-2.07) (Ian Jackson)
  new machine to linux or not?!?!?!?! (Huan Chang)

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

From: [email-masked] (Tim Smith)
Crossposted-To: alt.games.doom
Subject: Re: DOOM, X, Linux, 320x200 video mode ??
Date: 10 Sep 1994 04:11:08 GMT

Bill C. Riemers <[email-masked]> wrote:
>  2. There is significant delay between action and sound.  i.e. I
>     can fire my gun and then turn halfway around before the gun
>     sound comes through my speakers.

Get shorter speaker cables.

--Tim Smith

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

Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development
From: [email-masked] (Sam Oscar Lantinga)
Subject: 320x200 X resolution?
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 1994 22:54:22 GMT

        Does such a thing exist?  
How would I go about finding the dot-clocks, etc for this resolution?
Does XFree86 3.1 have it?  Where can I get it?

Thanks for any information....

        -Sam Lantinga           ([email-masked])

P.S.  DOOM for X exists, and will hopefully be released soon.

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

From: [email-masked] (Bill C. Riemers)
Crossposted-To: alt.games.doom
Subject: Re: DOOM and Linux
Date: 10 Sep 1994 05:33:00 GMT
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>>>>> "Christopher" == Christopher Wiles <[email-masked]> writes:

    Christopher> [email-masked] (Larry Mulcahy) writes: : I
    Christopher> just tried it today on my 486/40 and performance was
    Christopher> quite : acceptable.  The graphics for the -2, -3 and
    Christopher> -4 options were hosed : though, unless this is
    Christopher> supposed to be new Underwater Doom.

    Christopher> That's four messages so far that report that pixel
    Christopher> doubling is trashed.

    Christopher> Gee, even though the README says "no bug reports,"
    Christopher> does anyone think iD can be convinced to fix this?

From the way it is worded in the README, I'd say it is best to keep
you mouth shut and hope one of the developers reads this newsgroup!

                              Bill

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

Subject: linux-1.1.50
From: [email-masked] (Omer Zak)
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 1994 00:30:09 GMT

Version 1.1.50 has been posted several several hours ago to ftp.funet.fi.
Before upgrading my PC from version 1.1.8 to 1.1.50 I would like to know
if anyone has already installed version 1.1.50 on his system and whether
there are any problems with it.
Please post to this newsgroup because I follow it and I am sure that other
people will be interested as well in the information.
                                                  Thanks,
                                                       --- Omer
(Internet:  [email-masked])
(Ask me about porting the coverage analysis tool GCT to Linux.)

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

From: [email-masked] (Erik Nygren)
Crossposted-To: alt.games.doom
Subject: Re: Thanks ID and ddt - Linux DOOM is perfect.
Date: 10 Sep 1994 06:56:12 GMT

Alan Cox ([email-masked]) wrote:
: In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Robert Logan) writes:
: >Yes, Linux DOOM is out  and its superb - as smooth
: >as in DOS and just as tasty. Much appreciation to
: >Dave Taylor for the work in the port - I can now
: >Dump DOS...

: Umm it seems to be unplayable on standard ISA video cards - even the better
: dumb ISA cards. Anyone running it with an ISA S3 card and a 8Mb 386DX40 and
: want to give a performance report since I need a new video card anyway.

I'm running it on a 486/66 with the XFree86 Beta P9000 server (which
does no real acceleration and just acts as a linear local bus frame
buffer).  In this configuration, I get performance that is signifcantly
better than the same thing on an SGI Indy.  There seems to be a byte
ordering problem with pixel doubling, tripling, and quadrupling which
scrambles the image.  Otherwise those would be decently fast as well.

I've also tried it with the 320x200x8 VGA server that will be part of
XF86_SVGA in XFree86 3.1.  The performance here is quite impressive
(not noticably slower than DOS).  A neat trick that works for me is to
run the XF86_SVGA X server as display :1.0 (320x200) and run my
XF86_P9000 server as :0.0 in 1024x768 and then just VT switch (and
swap like crazy) between the two.

I hope David Taylor will have a little bit of time to fix the byte
ordering problems in pixel scaling.....  :-)  I don't know what their
deal is with not making money off Linux.  I'd never buy a DOS game
because I go to DOS so little, but I would be very tempted to buy
registered Doom or Doom II for Linux.  

On a related topic (which is probably my fault):
I've also been trying to get sound to work with Linux Doom and
my PAS16.  I'm using the sound drivers from the 1.1.50 kernel.
There's a great deal of static along with the sound.  The kernel
also returns errors like:

Sep 10 01:56:46 foundation kernel: Sound: DMA timed out - IRQ/DRQ config error?

After a few seconds, sound stops entirely.  This is strange since
sound works with everything else under Linux except doom.  (I've used
things like s3mod and other sound players without problems).  I've
messed with IRQ's and DMA's but haven't had any success.
Any ideas?

Thanks,
Erik

___________________________________________________________________________
Erik Nygren        \ \ \  Massachusetts Institute of Technology
450 Memorial Drive  \ \ \  Email: [email-masked]  Voice: 617/225-9297
Cambridge, MA 02139  \ \ \  http://www.mit.edu:8001/people/nygren/home.html

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

From: [email-masked] (Erik Nygren)
Crossposted-To: alt.games.doom
Subject: Re: DOOM, X, Linux, 320x200 video mode ??
Date: 10 Sep 1994 07:14:42 GMT

Bill C. Riemers ([email-masked]) wrote:
: >>>>> "Hans" == Hans Peter Verne <[email-masked]> writes:

:     Hans> Now that DOOM has been released for Linux w/X (Thanx,
:     Hans> Dave!), how about a nice video mode for it ?  David Taylor
:     Hans> says: "I understand there's now a 320x200 mode.  I'd
:     Hans> recommend it."

:     Hans> Anybody knows how to set up such a mode? It's standard VGA,
:     Hans> as far as I know (which isn't very far...), but can it be
:     Hans> run by any server ?  What about dotclocks, vertical timing,
:     Hans> horisontal timing, etc ?  The regular files that came with
:     Hans> Xfree86 didn't mention that low resolution..... :-(

The 320x200 mode that is being referred to is a new 320x200x8 VGA
server that will be included in XFree86 3.1.  It may not be possible
to get this resolution with other servers (I may be wrong here) and
guessing can damage many monitors.

: Also I can't figure out how to use the VGA mode instead, of the x
: mode.

It is X only....  There is no mode that uses svgalib.

        --- Erik

___________________________________________________________________________
Erik Nygren        \ \ \  Massachusetts Institute of Technology
450 Memorial Drive  \ \ \  Email: [email-masked]  Voice: 617/225-9297
Cambridge, MA 02139  \ \ \  http://www.mit.edu:8001/people/nygren/home.html

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

From: [email-masked] (Jeff Kesselman)
Subject: Re: Any Sound Blaster drivers for Linux abailable?
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 1994 22:28:06 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Matt Bruce) writes:
>Hi,
>
>Being relatively new to the wonderful world of Linux, I was wondering if
>drivers have been written for the Sound Blaster cards. In particular, I
>have a SB AWE32 with 2 Mb RAM, that would be a shame to leave to MSDOS
>alone.

You will be happy to know that my Linux system has an SB AWE32 with the 
basic 1MB ram.  Though i havent exercised it yet, according to the boot 
messages Linux finds nto only the sounds balster comoatable registers but 
the Opal compatable ones as well during boot (I was impressed.)

I also run my CD-ROM off of the AWE32's Sony interface (A sony CDU-33 
drive) just fine.

[email-masked]

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

From: [email-masked] (Orc)
Subject: Re: Linux is a GNU system and the DWARF support
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 1994 21:35:17 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
Matt Welsh <[email-masked]> wrote:

>RMS's idea (which I have heard first-hand) is that Linux systems
>should be considered GNU systems with Linux as the kernel.

   Well, that certainly puts a new twist on the GPL.  An unpleasant
one; GPLing things makes them part of the GNU project.

[...]
>Why shouldn't GNU receive recognition for this?

   No reason.  But since my first interpretation of RMS's idea is
that the FSF will take credit for work they've not done, it seems
like it's not the most politic way to ask for recognition.

                 ____
   david parsons \bi/ who won't be GPLing any more of his code.
                  \/

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

From: [email-masked] (Craig Woodward)
Subject: Re: 1.7MB+ format help wanted...
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 1994 21:33:32 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,  <[email-masked]> wrote:
>       I would like information on how to set the /etc/fdprm file
>to hold the correct formats for the 1.7mb and 1.9mb disks (and any other
>high-density formats).  I'm using Slackware 2.0.0 and Linux kernel 1.0.9.

        sunsite.unc.edu:/pub/linux/kernel?misc-patches/floppy/fdpatch*

        It's the 'original' fd patch for kernels starting at 1.0.something
and has lots of helpfully docs and source with it.
                                                                -Woody
-- 
--- 
I represent my own ideas.  Yes, I DO think, all on my own, without the
collective.  Sure, you may think "NT's just putting him up to this", and
you my be right, but thats only what I say, not why I say it. :)

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

From: duffy@[email-masked] (Dennis Duffner)
Subject: Re: Colorado Jumbo250
Date: 9 Sep 1994 02:37:54 GMT

Dennis Duffner ([email-masked]) wrote:
: Will this work with Linux 1.1.18??  If so, which version of FTape should
: I have installed?  Thanks!!!!

Also, will a Conner 120 or 250 work?  (I've got a choice, thankfully.)

Mucho thanks.

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

From: [email-masked] (ACC Corp.)
Subject: Re: Which is the best Linux CD package?
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 1994 17:18:24 GMT

In Article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
(Stephen Parkinson) wrote:
>
>Infomagic consistently quote me $20 for over the net orders
>and $8 P&P to the UK.
>
>I've just ordered the next release due endish of September.
>
>They do two versions of linux, the other one is more expensive.
>
Infomagic do offer one of the best price/performance Linux CD's being their
$20 two CD set.  Their June release had a live kernal on the CD, but does
not run X windows.  Infomagic is out of stock of their June release, as are
most of their resellers (including ourselves) but are taking orders for
their upcoming September release that should be available by the end of
September.

Yggdrasil's package not only runs Linux and X windows but has a bunch of
other utilities and programs that will run from the CD including the C
compiler.  Yggdrasil's list price was $39.95 but I understand their next
release, due out shortly, will be about $35.

Infomagic also resells the Slackware Professional 2.0 Linux Package from
Morse.  The "list price" on this is $49.95 
It includes some additional installation features that make it very easy to
install, as well as the ability to run Linux including X windows from the CD.
Slackware Professional package is the "official" release of Patrick
Volkerding's Slackware distribution and includes Matt Welsh's Linux
Installation and Getting Started Guide.

Cheers,  Bob.

ACC Bookstores
"Home of the PC UNIX - Linux Catalog"
1 (800) 546-7274
[email-masked]

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

Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help
From: [email-masked] (Frank J. Potolo)
Subject: mount & mtools Problem!
Reply-To: [email-masked] (Frank J. Potolo)
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 1994 16:45:41 GMT

I am experienceing a hang-up problem when I mount my C: drive (/dev/hda1)
to my Linux 1.0.9.  Telnet and ftp to my machine freeze when I do ls and
ftp, especially on the mounted files.  Here is what I use, "mount -t msdos
-o conv=auto /dev/hda1 /mnt"

I also tried mtools, using "mcd c:/", and it said that c: drive is
not supported.  Is this true?  How can we use mtools on c: dirve?

Any idea/suggestion/word might put me in a good spirit?

- Frank

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

From: [email-masked] (Erik Troan)
Subject: sunsite is down
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 1994 18:28:51 GMT

This should have gone out before now - sorry for the delay.

sunsite.unc.edu will be unavailable all day today for a full system 
upgrade (hardware, OS, everything). It should be back late this evening
Eastern time. In the meantime, use mirrors.

Erik

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

From: [email-masked] (Pete Bergstrom)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Linux is a GNU system and the DWARF support
Date: 09 Sep 1994 22:05:14 GMT

>>>>> On 8 Sep 1994 17:54:46 -0600, [email-masked] (Jay Maynard) said:
>>Calm down. The FSF isn't the Borg. They are not out to assimilate Linux. 

> Of course not. As you point out earlier in your message, they've already
> done it.

Wrong. The implementers of Linux actively decided to use FSF-produced
tools which fall under the GPL and also decided to place the (majority
of) the kernel under the GPL. The FSF really didn't have any say in
the matter (and certainly your statement that "they've already done
it" is incorrect - "they" didn't do anything of the sort).

Pete

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

From: [email-masked] (Pete Deuel)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs. Unix Which one is better and why???
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 1994 02:44:54 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Darin Johnson) writes:
>From: [email-masked] (Darin Johnson)
>Subject: Re: OS/2 vs. Unix Which one is better and why???
>Date: 08 Sep 1994 01:36:16 GMT

>Required?  What kind of repressive regime requires using DOS
>apps (that have been shown to cause insanity in lab inhabitants)?

This is so profs can keep up with it.  DOS crap is easy to find and 
use--commonplace.  Save the real OSs for upperclassmen (who will gain wisdom 
from going from DOS to a real OS like Unix)

>If they supply the computers, that is one thing; but if a valid
>alternative is found that should be allowed.

Well, you can't expect a University full of professors, each with so many 
students, to all know everything...  Again, you get to the upperclassmen and 
grads, and the students can specialize (by then, they should have glommed on 
to someone on the faculty who can *teach* them what they want to learn).

>> >What is it that he can "do" with a Linux machine that is
>> >really productive?  Bob says that his friend does
>> >"all sorts of things" with his machine.

Hell, to support this, look at O'Reilley & Associates.  Armed with troff and 
rcs and some other Un*x tools that escape me, they can write, edit, and 
typeset entire books!  That's productive...

>that Macs are unproductive.

for learning anything about computers!  I think Un*x teaches one the most, DOS 
is a runner up, maybe.  OS/2 just blows chunks, requiring you to know all 
about OS/2 but in the process teaches you nothing about any other computers 
(kinda like the macs in that respect).

>> >What I want to know is:
>> >1) Why do CS majors here use Unix?  What is it that is so great about Unix
>> >   that can't be done with OS/2?  No flames on this one.

Unix makes sense.  stdin, stdout  things built in highly powerful little 
programs, each able to string into the next.  This is wonderfully powerful and 
flexible for the ingeneous user...  The initial learnig curve is a bit steep, 
but even the completely uninitiated can do it.  Fear of the   %  is the 
biggest hurdle.

OS/2 was problematic for us; I couldn't use too much of my knowledge of 
Windows, DOS, Unix, or X/MWM when I tried to figure out OS/2 (the CONFIG.SYS 
from hell! for instance)  OS/2 users, like mac users, have fewer intutive 
skills to use than do DOS/Un*x users.  If your boss says "We're using X" 
telling him that you'd rather use a Mac or OS/2 isn't going to earn you 
brownie points...

>else (for programming, the TA should be able to get the source code
>and recompile it though).  They can write their reports in whatever

Yeah, sure.  pile the work on the poor TA...  take some 3 hr classes, 
work on a thesis, grade these papers and hey!  If some upstart can'g give you 
readily executable code, hell just muck around compiling it!  You've got 
the time!  This gets back to standardization--DOS is a good least common 
denomonator;  you can go GUI or command-line and still hand in something 
that's readily usable and understanable to the masses!  I agree with the 
thesis that Unix is the way, but not neccisarily to the ends you suggest...

There's something to be said for doing what your told the way your told to do 
it.  If it involves yucky old DOS, so be it.  When youre done, you might just 
have learned something--how to effectively contrast what you *did* with what 
you "moved up" to and why that was a move up.

>UNIX is what the real world in CS uses.  CS people are NOT USERS!
Hmmmmm...  Someone writes those mac programs.  Borland made the IDE for 
someone!

>Being able to run DOS apps is almost useless (most that I know that
>care about apps would prefer macs anyway). 

Poppycock.

>UNIX machines are
>multi-user, very network friendly

once you know the "secret handshake" and can stomach the syntax

> (can you use the school's OS/2
>machines from home, or across the country?). 

I hate to admit this, but yes, the potential exsists...  Scary, huh?

> UNIX machines are up to
>state of the art in hardware and software (unless you consider
>software state of the art to mean flashy UI only).  UNIX can support

I like X, too.  X can be as flashy (flashier, even), but sometimes a simple, 
text-based DOS program is good for some things

>BIG systems - super computers run UNIX (what will you do when you need
>real horsepower for your engineering work and the P90 won't cut it?).
>It's not that CS people are in ivory towers, but they are actually
>building (or learning about) the systems that everyone else uses.
>Would you complain "what is so great about calculus for engineers?"

But calculus isn't the only tool, either

>MSDOS and Macs is completely out as far as educational CS goes.
>You just can't teach OS principles on machines with outdated
>OS's.  Some places use VMS, others have doddering TOPS machines.
>Some try to teach under msdos, but probably aren't very effective.

>OS/2 is probably ok as an example of how to mess up a good idea.
>Start chopping down until you have 8, 4, or 2 megs and you'll
>start getting a better idea.  Heck, I used to run with a productive
>Amiga system - multitasking - with only 1 meg (started with 512K
>but that limited graphics and buffer space).  OS/2 is treated as
>a big joke by many who have to program in it.

512 K is *spoiled*, pal.  I used to see some really decent stuff on the old 
C-64s (for the time).  And, back to the Trash-80 era, 4 K was once "roomy."
I know someone who (still!) won't give up his 16K CoCo3 (I presume by now hes 
up to the max K, though--48K?); he's written all the software he needs, 
including some semblance of networking and a custom OS.  What a masochist!
Of course, multitasking here means having serveral computers, but I digress...

>> >2) Isn't the lack of "killer" apps a good reason not to use Unix?

The lack of really good *games* is what keeps people from Unix.  The rest of 
the killer apps are here!  Games always sell the system...

>This just shows an incredible bias.  Personally, I've seen very
>little under DOS (except games) that I cared to run.

Amen!

>"Killer" apps means different things depending upon what you want
>to do.  If you like ray tracing, then SGI (unix) has the best
>killer apps.

>If you're a desktop publishing person, Apple probably
>has the best.

Horse hockey!  Only 'cause it's fad.  Look in the tech writing journals, and 
you'll see a bit of "Quark" but more of FrameMaker and Interleaf whose best 
versions are for X.

> If you do desktop video, then it's Amiga.  If youbest.  If you 
do desktop video, then it's Amiga.

Or SGI.

>If you want>CAD, it is probably msdos (I 
think).

Nah.  AutoCad is done for X.  I think customized proprietary CADs are likely 
Un*x based...  You contradicted yourself unnecissarily...

>> >classes) rather than wasting his time by fooling around with Unix.

Fooling around with Un*x has made my lessons in C much easier, even though 
I'd never touched Un*x C.  That's no waste.

>> >I know for a fact that you can't learn Unix (I mean learn it really 
well)just>> >by fooling around with it.  So what's the point?

sure you can.  You just have more to fool with, and in smaller bits...  When 
you're sick and tired of foolin', you'll sit down and learn something (Take a 
crash course on Perl, for example)

>You can't learn ANYTHING well without fooling around with it!!
>You get only superficial knowledge.  With computers, the most

Well, there is something to be said for learning by expoloration, but there 
will come a time when something needs doing (or wants doing very much) and in 
comes the learning.

>Learning things only from a book is pitiful. (maybe you should watch
>some Fawlty Towers in this regard) Why do you think lab classes are
>usually required?

Yeah, labs to "fool around" with the lessons from the book.

>I am really glad you are in engineering and not in education.
>Darin Johnson
>[email-masked]

Darin--  I can't really say I disagree with most of what you say, but I do in 
some places...  Other places, I must amplify your arguments.  You had a really 
confusing thesis, man...  Are *you* in education?!!  ;)

Pete
===================================================
     "Actually, I'm a lab mouse on stilts..."

     E-mail:  [email-masked]
===================================================

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

From: [email-masked] (Ian Jackson)
Subject: *** PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE POSTING *** (misc-2.07)
Date: 10 Sep 1994 04:03:12 -0600

Please do not post questions to comp.os.linux.misc - read on for details of
which groups you should read and post to.

Please do not crosspost anything between different groups of the comp.os.linux
hierarchy.  See Matt Welsh's introduction to the hierarchy, posted weekly.

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.  It is also posted periodically to c.o.l.announce.

In particular, read the question `You still haven't answered my question!'
The FAQ will refer you to the Linux HOWTOs (more detailed descriptions of
particular topics) found in the HOWTO directory in the same place.

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, and
that non-Linux-specific Unix questions should go to comp.unix.questions.
Please read the FAQs for these groups before posting - look on rtfm.mit.edu in
/pub/usenet/news.answers/Intel-Unix-X-faq and .../unix-faq.

Only if you have a posting that is not more appropriate for one of the other
Linux groups - ie it is not a question, not about the future development of
Linux, not an announcement or bug report and not about system administration -
should you post to comp.os.linux.misc.

Comments on this posting are welcomed - please email me !
--
Ian Jackson  <[email-masked]>  (urgent email: [email-masked])
2 Lexington Close, Cambridge, CB4 3LS, England;  phone: +44 223 64238

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

From: [email-masked] (Huan Chang)
Subject: new machine to linux or not?!?!?!?!
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 94 13:16:10 EDT

        Hey every one, um I d'no if this is good topic but on my new 
66mhz machine with 540 hard disk I would like to install some thing 
better than DOS and Windows.  I will of course get OS/2 to run all of my 
DOS applications.  But what programs are out there for Linux to run on a 
read PC(very personal computer, no networking other than a modem used 
once a weak to read usenet off a not so unix BBS.)  Or better yet, I 
should say I'll have a partition of 100 meg and use a disk doubler(dos) 
and another 200 some for the os/2 partition, but DO I realy want to use 
up 100 megs to get Linux?(Of course I want Gnu C and Xffree.. I may even 
get two copies of C one for OS/2 and one for the Linux.) 

        Oh.. back to the original question.  Why Linux, can some one 
convince me that Linux has the software(games, wordprocessing...free 
ofcourse)  to suport it? Other than that I love a Un*x type OS, as a 
matter of fact I am even going to make my OS/2 look and feel like 
Linux(hm.....)

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

** 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-masked]

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

    Internet: [email-masked]

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
******************************