Linux-Advocacy Digest #750, Volume #25 Wed, 22 Mar 00 12:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: Which distro for server?? (Codifex Maximus)
Re: Bsd and Linux ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead? (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Bsd and Linux (Grant Edwards)
Re: Bsd and Linux (Craig Kelley)
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? (Tim Kelley)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Craig Kelley)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Craig Kelley)
Re: Bsd and Linux (Donn Miller)
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? ("Chad Myers")
Re: US politics ("DGF")
Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead? (JEDIDIAH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Codifex Maximus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Which distro for server??
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 09:57:31 -0600
JoeX1029 wrote:
>
> Iam putting up a web server as soon as my DSL is installed and I was wondering
> which distro would make the best server. So far i have RedHat 5.1, 5.2 Caldera
> OpenLinux Lite 1.2 with Start Office and Linux Pro 4.1 and hoping to accuire
> GNU/Debian and TurboLinux. Also i might soon have Solaris 2.4 (or is that 2.6,
> oh weel i don't remember)
I vote for Slackware or RedHat, in that order, if you are using Linux.
The BSD's are excellent server OS's.
Codifex Maximus
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
Date: 22 Mar 2000 15:48:10 GMT
In comp.os.linux.development.apps Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: FreeBSD uses PAM. Don't know it it's enabled by default, though. I
: don't think PAM is RedHat specific. I don't have time to find out
: what it does in depth, because I'm busy working up a resume in MS Word
: format for a unix recruiter. (Why do they always want them in Word
: format?) Yeah, I hate doing it, but for some reason they want them in
: Word format.
Post it on your web server in html, and tell them to download it from
there and save it as whatever they want. Don't kowtow that way, at
least!
Peter
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead?
Date: 22 Mar 2000 15:59:01 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It wont take 10 man hours of labor to recompile Oracle, just a few
> minutes. It's not like you hand compile the thing.
It depends on whether Oracle is written in C or C++, whether you need
to relink, whether the header files have changed between versions, and
loads of other factors. It isn't as if the glibc people are all that
skilled at maintaining compatability between versions either...
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- The small advantage of not having California being part of my country would
be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel on our
borders. -- David Parsons <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s>
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 02:06:04 +1000
"Tim Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> > Well, sorta. Your example is correct (big apps do have a tendency to
want
> > to write to the system directory, amongst other things) but this springs
> > from a long linage of *application developers* who don't know how to
> > accomodate the sort of multi-userism you're talking about. Certainly,
this
> > is because they were used to developing for single-user oriented tasks,
but
> > it isn't really NT's fault (and there's not much it can do about it).
>
> That is blatantly false and delusional.
I'm left reeling by your crushingly fact-filled rebuttal.
> NT is that way very
> conciously, because MS tried to make it as much like win9x as
> possible, purely for profit.
*What* way ? Please explain how *NT* can affect how well *applications*
deal with multi-user situations.
> That is *exactly* the problem, and
> yes it *is* "NT's" fault, and not the fault of any developer.
So numerous apps not using, say, HKLM\USERS to store user preferences is
somehow the fault of NT ?
> By
> making NT like 9x, they *encouraged* this sort of behaviour in
> developers.
"Like 9x" in what way, precisely ?
> This is like building a highway fulll of road
> hazards, and blaming the drivers for not being able to avoid the
> potholes.
>
> Typical MS advocate: blame everyone but MS ... yeah, everyone
> else is stupid. I find it amusing that with all the utter,
> sheer, unbridled contempt MS advocates and shills have for end
> users and developers, they have the nerve to call unix folks
> elitist. Pah!
If you can ever demonstrate me having contempt for end users and/or
developers, feel free.
Otherwise don't even bother with your generalised, elitist, snide
mud-slinging from on high. It's a waste of your time and everyone's
bandwidth. If you can't say whatever you have to say without resorting to
aggressive, snide and blustering posts, then quite frankly you don't have
anything to say worth reading.
> > NT was designed with a clear set of goals and requirements by a single
> > development group. Unix, OTOH, has sort of "evolved" over time with
> > requirements and goals added as they were found necessary by multitudes
of
> > different people. I'd imagine that's why Stephen calls it
> > "cobbled-together".
>
> amazing, then, that it is so much more logically put together
> than NT is.
That would be entirely a matter of opinion.
------------------------------
From: grant@nowhere. (Grant Edwards)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 16:35:00 GMT
In article <8bapvq$1lk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter T. Breuer wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.development.apps Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I'm busy working up a resume in MS Word format for a unix
>> recruiter. (Why do they always want them in Word format?)
>> Yeah, I hate doing it, but for some reason they want them in
>> Word format.
>
>Post it on your web server in html, and tell them to download it from
>there and save it as whatever they want. Don't kowtow that way, at
>least!
Last time around, I sent mine out in PDF (which I generated w/
TeX and ghostscript). I figured I didn't really want to work
someplace where people couldn't figure out what to do with a
PDF file. (And yes, there are such places employing software
engineers.)
Most browsers do such an amazingly shitty job of formatting
when they print HTML files that I didn't want to risk having a
badly formatted resume floating around with my name at the top.
That's also the problem with sending something in MSWord doc
format, you never know what it will look like when somebody
else opens the file or prints it.
With PDF, I know it's going to look and print exactly the way I
want it to.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! .. over in west
at Philadelphia a puppy is
visi.com vomiting...
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 22 Mar 2000 09:41:37 -0700
"Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In comp.os.linux.development.apps Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : On 21 Mar 2000 20:26:50 -0700, Craig Kelley wrote:
>
> :>Put the ulimit in /etc/profile if you want it to be global.
>
> : Better -- if you're smart enough to use Redhat (-; you can use
> : PAM to do this.
>
> That's not better, it's worse. Would someone mind telling what use is
> pam except for introducing another layer of redhat-style obsucrantism
> that is likely to break at any moment.
>
> Suuurrre I want my login to call a dynamic library, oh yeah. Like NOT.
> Just say no.
That's funny, both BSD and Solaris use it as well.
PAM is incredible; I can change from DES3 to MD5 to SMB to NIS
without much hassle at all.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 10:31:11 -0600
Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> "Tim Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Christopher Smith wrote:
> > > it isn't really NT's fault (and there's not much it can do about it).
> >
> > That is blatantly false and delusional.
>
> I'm left reeling by your crushingly fact-filled rebuttal.
>
> > NT is that way very
> > conciously, because MS tried to make it as much like win9x as
> > possible, purely for profit.
>
> *What* way ? Please explain how *NT* can affect how well *applications*
> deal with multi-user situations.
>
> > That is *exactly* the problem, and
> > yes it *is* "NT's" fault, and not the fault of any developer.
>
> So numerous apps not using, say, HKLM\USERS to store user preferences is
> somehow the fault of NT ?
Look, it is obvious. If winnt was not hindered by having to be
backward compatible with other windows apps (a purely economic
focus on MS' part), they could've used a sensible multi-user
interface and filesystem standard, as unix has. They didn't. It
shows.
This is NOT the fault of any developer, that is absolutely
LUDICROUS. It is clearly MS' fault.
> > By
> > making NT like 9x, they *encouraged* this sort of behaviour in
> > developers.
>
> "Like 9x" in what way, precisely ?
you mean you can't tell?
> > This is like building a highway fulll of road
> > hazards, and blaming the drivers for not being able to avoid the
> > potholes.
> >
> > Typical MS advocate: blame everyone but MS ... yeah, everyone
> > else is stupid. I find it amusing that with all the utter,
> > sheer, unbridled contempt MS advocates and shills have for end
> > users and developers, they have the nerve to call unix folks
> > elitist. Pah!
>
> If you can ever demonstrate me having contempt for end users and/or
> developers, feel free.
It's all over your post.
It's not NT's fault, it the developers fault. They didn't follow
the guidelines.
If the app doesn't work, it's the users fault for installing
something that bungled the system.
Implicit in these attitudes is a contempt for people that use the
system.
unix admins would never say such things, because they are
ultimately resosible for everything that happens to the system,
and it can be that way because the system was designed so that
one person CAN be responsible for it, so the end users don't have
to worry about the bullshit that windows users put up with.
Do you think it is just a coincidence that unix programs don't
try installing to "/"?
> Otherwise don't even bother with your generalised, elitist, snide
> mud-slinging from on high. It's a waste of your time and everyone's
> bandwidth. If you can't say whatever you have to say without resorting to
> aggressive, snide and blustering posts, then quite frankly you don't have
> anything to say worth reading.
you are a waste of bandwidth, if anything.
> > > different people. I'd imagine that's why Stephen calls it
> > > "cobbled-together".
> >
> > amazing, then, that it is so much more logically put together
> > than NT is.
>
> That would be entirely a matter of opinion.
It's a matter of having your eyes open of shut. Or perhaps
you're just getting paid <?>
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 22 Mar 2000 09:47:08 -0700
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > [snip about `rm -rf /`]
> >
> > > > In any case, all the users home directories should be backed up
> > > periodically.
> > >
> > > Doesn't help when you have to tell a user "Sorry about all the files
> that
> > > you modified today.. better luck next time".
> >
> > And how would NT fare if the Administrator accedentally `del *` inside
> > %SYSTEM_ROOT%? Either way, you're headed for the backup tapes or
> > re-installing with downtime.
>
> If you have removed ownership of all those files from Administrator, then
> nothing would happen.
And the next time you tried to install a service pack?
> > > No.. this has degenerated into an argument about one specific
> > > function, but that wasn't the original point. The original point
> > > was simply that Root != Administrator. Yes, they have similar
> > > functionality in many ways and you can essentially do the same
> > > things, but there are differences, and big ones at that.
> >
> > How about this then:
> >
> > The NT "System" account is equivalent to the UNIX "root" account.
>
> Since you can't log on as System, that's kind of irrelevant.
Actually, you can trick NT into letting you on as SYSTEM.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 22 Mar 2000 09:48:38 -0700
"Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No, it is not. The System "account" *grin* is neither an account, nor is
> it comparable to root. It simply cannot be used to gain entry to the
> system. It's exclusively controlled by WindowsNT... Ph34r!
>
> One might compare root and Administrator to a gun which sit in a dresser
> drawer loaded, and one which sits in a dresser drawer next to a box of
> ammunition, respectively.
>
> However, the Administrator can designate which files fall under System
> ownership, of course.
>
> I think that assuming that root should be 100% infallible, and incapable
> of making mistakes is a very foolish thing in OS design.
Well, until NT ships with real permissions on these files, then this
is all smoke-and-mirrors conjecture anyway.
TTFN
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 11:50:11 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
Grant Edwards wrote:
> Last time around, I sent mine out in PDF (which I generated w/
> TeX and ghostscript). I figured I didn't really want to work
> someplace where people couldn't figure out what to do with a
> PDF file. (And yes, there are such places employing software
> engineers.)
Well, this is an employment service that various companies go to for
prospective employees. So, the level of technical expertise is even
lower down the ladder. HR types really don't know too much about file
formats; in fact, they probably have some sort of plugin that allows
them to view Word files.
I really should redo this thing in LaTeX format. I installed WP8 just
for this. Is there a dvi to rtf converter?
- Donn
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 10:52:48 -0600
"Tim Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > So numerous apps not using, say, HKLM\USERS to store user preferences is
> > somehow the fault of NT ?
>
> Look, it is obvious. If winnt was not hindered by having to be
> backward compatible with other windows apps (a purely economic
> focus on MS' part), they could've used a sensible multi-user
> interface and filesystem standard, as unix has. They didn't. It
> shows.
> This is NOT the fault of any developer, that is absolutely
> LUDICROUS. It is clearly MS' fault.
NT provides the ability for apps to be truly multi-user and not
have to write to HKLM for user-stuff and to the SYSTEM32 folder
for user stuff as well.
Granted, there are many apps that do this, and yes, MS allowed this
to happen for backwards compatability.
However, it's still stupid developers that CONTINUE to develop apps
that aren't multi-user or at least securable.
YES, those are stupid developers, and YES MS could do more to stop it.
However, MS got where it is by pandering to developers, so rather than
cutting them off and forcing them code correctly (which would be the
best long-term solution), they're strongly encouraging them to program
correctly by changing some of the APIs (like disk space usage reports
the current user's disk quota usage, instead of the total space available
to all users). With the whistler technology, this will all be irrelevant
because pseudo registries and psuedo SYSTEM32 directories will be created
for applications to keep them seperated. This will be a god send as it
will end DLL hell and will make it simple to uninstall applications without
fear of nuking system files.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "DGF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: US politics
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 11:55:21 -0500
Look like I said I don't argue with liberals anymore. I'm not here to argue
whether China is communist or not. You can argue all you want that China
wasn't communist, that Stalin wasn't a communist. I know you guys, I know
everything you will say that is why I don't argue with you anymore. Fine go
ahead and believe your delusion that China isn't communist, that Stalin
isn't communist and that communism hasn't been tried. Just as some
conservatives are deluded when they say the Nazis weren't a right-wing
movement. Fine go ahead and live in your fantasy world where China isn't
communist.
> No, they want to use force *against* it. The liberals don't want to
> force anyone to make a choice one way or the other, but the conservatives
> want to use the law to force people not to use birth control ( whether
it's
> by restricting access to contraception or criminalising abortion )
Oh so you mean they want to force people not to use birth control? If you
mean abortion then that is so. But other than that I have not heard any
conservative that wants a law outlawing ordinary birth control. That there
are some people that may want to do it? Maybe so but I've rarely heard of
them. That appears to be a myth about conservatives spread by liberals as
political propaganda.
> * sweeping police powers
> * strong punitive sanctions against "sexual immorality"
> * overly punitive criminal justice system
> * lack of social mobility. wealth is a birthright, not something you
> earn
> * extremely wide gaps between rich and poor
That is a communist system. Actually there are less gaps between rich and
poor in China. You will not find a Bill Gates there and most "businesses"
are ultimately owned by the people's Liberation Army. You are trying to say
that China is fascist. Well the fact is that there is more personal freedom
even in fascist regimes than in communist regimes. You may be surprised to
find that fascist regimes have less regulations on "sexual immorality" than
communist systems. For instance, eastern European countries had something
like strip bars under the Nazis, they did not under the Russian communists,
when communism fell they had them again. Sure there is a secret police in
fascist regimes and no freedom of speech but they are authoritarian not
totalitarian. You can still own private property or choose your religion
for instance. In a communist system your socialist ideological brethren
tell people where to work, what they will study in university, where to
live, impose their religion(atheism), impose how much money they'll make.
Sure China may have lost some of its ideological purity but they are still
communist.
Socialism, communism and liberalism are totalitarian. Study Hillary's
health care plan of 93 and you will see that she wanted to tell doctors what
to study in college and where to live. Oh my, I guess now you'll say
Hillary was a fascist and not a liberal!!! How do you achieve social
equity? It can only be done by force of government. Economic equity can
only be done by raising taxes which translates into a loss of freedom.
Everything liberals want to do entails a loss of freedom. You just don't
want to believe that right? Wake up man, everything that the liberal
movement supports results in a loss of freedom and takes us one more step to
totalitarianism. Look at who are the ones trying to eliminate pornography
now! It is the feminsits not the religious conservatives anymore!!! Look at
sexual harassment laws where a man can't even look at a woman without fear
of a lawsuit! Is it religious maniacs imposing those laws? Look at social
security! Money is taken from me and the government takes it from me. I
have no choice in the matter!!!! If I refuse I go to jail!!! And why?
Because you liberals think that you know better than me how to administer MY
money!!! You are taking away my freedom beacause you think you know better
than me!!! And what are liberals doing now? They are moving to outlaw
smoking because it is "unhealthy". They are moving to outlaw guns. What's
next? Outlawing hamburgers? If you really want freedom as you say then wake
up from your delusion becuase you are an unwitting supporter of
totalitarianism. WAKE UP BECAUSE THE LIBERAL MOVEMENT IS TOTALITARIAN.
> >that liberalism as a movement, when it gets what it wants will move on to
> >some other cause and then another and then another for all eternity.
That's
>
> You could say the same thing about conservatism.
No. When conservatives get what they want they don't go on to some new
cause. The same goes for libertarians or any other non-leftist group. They
are satisfied when they reach their goals because those were their goals.
The leftist is never satisfied because he is not truly interested in his
supposed goals, what he interested is to have some cause by which he can
feel good about himself. For instance first liberals wanted equal
opportunity with minorities which is fine. But when they got that, they
then wanted statistical representation of minorities by affirmative action.
Here they make themselves feel good about themselves by "fighting racism"
and get a kick out of calling anyone who disagrees with affirmative action
"racist bigots". They get a kick out of calling people who disagree names
like "capitalist pig", "sexist pig", that satisfy their own inferiority
complex by putting down as "EVIL" anyone who disagrees with them. They
display an extreme level of moralistic bigotry where they want to impose
their morality on everyone. A new cause after they got what they wanted at
first. First liberals wanted to stop child abuse which is reasonable, but
then they move to outlaw all spanking. Again moralistic bigotry where they
are out to impose their morality on everyone. If I were dictator and gave
the liberals every single thing they wanted on their wish list in a few
years they would come again to me complaining about some other "social evil"
either real or imaginary.
Now you'll say oh look at the EVIL Christian Right how they are out to
impose their morality on everyone. Maybe so. That is not the point. The
point is that liberals and leftists are out to impose their morality on
everyone. It is characteristic of leftist movements. While some in the
right may want to impose their morality on everyone, that is not a dominant
charcateristic of right-wing movements in general. While moralism is a
dominant characteristic of left-wing movements in general.
> I didn't see any such thing. While I was in Texas, I saw right wing
> nut preachers come to air their views on premarital sex, homosexuality,
> and back to front baseball caps. I can't say the crowd gave them a warm
> reception, but certainly a fair hearing ( / debate )
There are differing degrees of political correctness in different
universities. That it doesn't happen in your own university doesn't mean it
doesn't happen in others. The fact is that it does happen in other
universities. For instance my own aunt was prevented from entering law
school because the leftists running the show didn't like her non-leftist
views. My mother got in because she kept her mouth shut. Political
discrimination. You liberals yell and scream about McCarthy's black list in
the 50s but you and your friends are doing the same thing and worse at the
moment. There are plenty of people who have been harassed by the political
correctness of your liberal alies. You still prove my point. You remain
silent and do not condemn political correctness, instead you try to deny it
by saying that it doesn't exist. Similarly you remain silent about the
crimes of China or try to claim that China isn't communist. Just as you
remained silent of the crimes commited by the USSR or claimed the USSR
wasn't communist. If you think China or the USSR were/are not communist,
you are deluding yourself. Either you remain silent or you deny that the
crimes have been committed. Wake up! Again Liberalism is a totalitarian
force. If you really want freedom and not to merley pay lip-service to it
you cannot suppoprt the liberal movement. The liberal movement is taking
away our freedom.
Again if you are truly sincere in your desire for freedom I sincerely
implore you to wake up and see reality. Liberalism is totalitarian. If
what you want is human freedom then you should join the non-leftist movement
called Libertarianism.
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 23:56:19 -0500, DGF wrote:
>
> >that liberalism as a movement, when it gets what it wants will move on to
> >some other cause and then another and then another for all eternity.
That's
>
> You could say the same thing about conservatism. But that doesn't mean
that
> all conservatives are like Pat Buchannan.
>
> >eliminiate freedom of speech the "decent" liberals sit idly by and do
> >nothing while libertarians, conservatives and other non-leftists have
their
> >mouths shut by the liberal GESTAPO in American universities.
>
> I didn't see any such thing. While I was in Texas, I saw right wing
> nut preachers come to air their views on premarital sex, homosexuality,
> and back to front baseball caps. I can't say the crowd gave them a warm
> reception, but certainly a fair hearing ( / debate )
>
> >Really? I did not know that. News to me. As far as I know the strongest
> >advocates of birth control are communists(as in China)
>
> The Chinese government are not "liberals". They are not even communists.
> They are "state capitalists". There are entrepreneurs in China -- this in
> itself means that they are not communist. The entrepreneurs are hand
picked
> by the government. ( IOW they are a very corrupt capitalist police state )
>
> Let's take a look at some of the characteristics of the Chinese government
> system:
>
> * sweeping police powers
> * strong punitive sanctions against "sexual immorality"
> * overly punitive criminal justice system
> * lack of social mobility. wealth is a birthright, not something you
> earn
> * extremely wide gaps between rich and poor
>
> to me, this looks very much like an out-of-whack right wing government,
> even if the US like to call them communists.
>
> >who for example want to give condoms for free in public schools. I do not
> >recall any "conservative" wanting to use force to implement birth
control.
>
> No, they want to use force *against* it. The liberals don't want to
> force anyone to make a choice one way or the other, but the conservatives
> want to use the law to force people not to use birth control ( whether
it's
> by restricting access to contraception or criminalising abortion )
>
> --
> Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead?
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 16:47:49 GMT
On 22 Mar 2000 15:59:01 GMT, Donal K. Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It wont take 10 man hours of labor to recompile Oracle, just a few
>> minutes. It's not like you hand compile the thing.
>
>It depends on whether Oracle is written in C or C++, whether you need
>to relink, whether the header files have changed between versions, and
>loads of other factors. It isn't as if the glibc people are all that
>skilled at maintaining compatability between versions either...
Got any good examples of apps that have broken thusly?
--
So long as Apple uses Quicktime to effectively |||
make web based video 'Windows only' Club, / | \
Apple is no less monopolistic than Microsoft.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
** 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.advocacy) 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-Advocacy Digest
******************************
