Linux-Advocacy Digest #779, Volume #25 Thu, 23 Mar 00 18:13:11 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows 2000 has 63,000 bugs - Win2k.html [0/1] - Win2k.html [0/1] (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Bsd and Linux ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: Bsd and Linux ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: Weak points (Itchy)
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary (Pete Jewell)
Re: Weak points (Craig Kelley)
Re: Weak points (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary ("Francis Van Aeken")
Re: Weak points (JEDIDIAH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 has 63,000 bugs - Win2k.html [0/1] - Win2k.html [0/1]
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 22:06:41 GMT
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 21:11:22 GMT, SetMeUp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> A few days from now, a 2.4 distro might be available with USB
>> built in.
>
> I guess there will be more than a few days, and much more till
>USB support is reasonably wide spread and stable.
My USB support has been stable for months now actually.
It's just that you would have to build you own kernel
to get it. I'm willing to tell an end user to wait.
>
>> Besides, for the price of an NT5 licence you can replace the
>> mouse and the printer and still have money left over for self
>> help guides or pizza.
>
> Well, may be the telephone cost of browsing to be able to
>get, configure and test Linux software let you buy Windows 2000
>and several software packages.
You are quite out of touch with reality.
--
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.
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
Date: 23 Mar 2000 22:13:01 GMT
In comp.os.linux.development.apps Paul Flinders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
:> In comp.os.linux.development.apps Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> : On 23 Mar 2000 08:41:54 GMT, Peter T. Breuer wrote:
:>
:> :>This is great until your server suffers a power cut while reading libpam.so and
:> :>comes back up without it, and won't let you log in even if you are sitting next
:> :>to it!
:>
:> : (a) Boot into single user mode, fix it, reboot.
:>
:> Can't. Single user requires root password. Try it. rm /etc/passwd and try
:> and recover your machine!
: pass init=/bin/sh on the kernel command line (if you're using
: LILO or any other boot mamager which allows kernel command line
: args to be given).
Oh, _I_ know that, but we really shouldn't tell people, you know :-).
: OR
: Boot up of your handy rescue floppy
Another thing that we really shouldn't allow. Remind me to disable boot
from floppy in the bios.
Peter
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
Date: 23 Mar 2000 22:10:19 GMT
In comp.os.linux.development.apps [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: In comp.os.linux.development.apps Peter T. Breuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> But I'd be interested to know what your links are. Could you list them
:> please! I'm somewhat suspicious that "grep pam" is not specific enough.
: Actually, a listing of /etc/pam.d is probably more constructive:
: chfn chsh ftp halt kbdrate linuxconf linuxconf-pair login other
: passwd poweroff reboot rexec rlogin rsh shutdown ssh su xdm xscreensaver
: xserver
Yes, that's about what I thought, with a few surprises. I see the passwd tools
from console-utils, and xdm. Surprising are rlogin and friends. Why is
rpc doing anything non-perilous for a change! Shutdown and reboot? Are you
joking? These just have to be executable only by root, and that's that!
(and I presume the frill comes via kdm's shutdown button).
:> Nothing needs to "authenticate". "Authenticate" means "check the
:> passwd". Anyone logged into the system has a right to do whatever they
:> like within their compass. It's only at the moment of login that
:> they need to be "authenticated" by having login check their passwd.
: Even with this rather ad-hoc definition of authenticate, it should be
: readily obvious that chfn, chsh, and screensavers all may need to
: "check the passwd." :)
Actually, they don't. Only the user should be able to change his
finger and shell. For that, you only have to check the real uid of
the process.
:> It works fine. What's wrong with being old?
: Actually, in the case of crypt(3) you're correct. There's nothing
: "wrong" with it. However, it suffers from the same problems as
: DES. It's likely that in the future it will be feasible to attack it
: by brute force.
I remember seeing the estimate of a couple of hours to crack des(56)
using a 1 million dollar special purpose machine in 1995. I'm still
waiting for it!
: Additionally, increasing the keyspace beyond eight characters makes it
: easier to generate an easily remembered password that is less
: vulnerable to a dictionary attack. (ie, a complete sentance)
Whilst this is true, since I've never changed my passwd, I don't have
too much trouble remembering it. As to a sentence,
well, I doubt I'd like to type it out instead of the passwd I have!
I rely on the rest of mankind to increase the possible search space
fast enough that I never have to bother to change my passwd.
:> And there is no other form of authentication than checking that you
:> know a secret known to mankind. Well, I'm being disingenuous here,
:> but you get the idea. Consider why you consider md5 better than crypt
:> and you'll find that it's not because it avoids going "via a secret".
:> It doesn't.
: This is a slight mistatment. What you mean to say is that there is no
: other form of authentication other than shared secrets currently in
: common use on linux systems. Fingerprinting, other forms of
: biometrics, physical tokens, photo ids, third party introductions, and
: zero-knowledge proofs of identify have all been used for
: authentication.
I'm somewhat dubious of all but the last two. I have no problem with
third party authentification. And zero-knowledge proofs are indeed
not a shared secret, though you might just as well generate such a
thing for the session, once you have established bona fides.
: The point behind pam is that it's possible, for example, to add a pam
: module for the Froboz-o-matic voice pattern analyiser and require it
: for logins at certain terminals, something the classic passwd approach
: is bad at handling.
Hmmm. Acquiring rights without going through passwd? An interesting idea. I see.
The classical approach is to run a dæemon that proxies for you.
:> All logins go via ssh on my systems, which are configures - without pam
:> - to use RSA-based "authenticatio", silently, without passwd. Now if I
:> could just remember my public key ...
: Or if only someone managed to copy your private key. ;) Just because
: this is a viable authentication for you, doesn't mean it is for the
: rest of the world. Hence, abstracting it into the pam layer.
Well, it's &%&%&% annoying to those who don't need or want it. Get me
logins by voice based question and answer sessions in the morning,
and I might give way. Hello eliza, and how are you feeling today?
Peter
------------------------------
From: Itchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Weak points
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 22:31:23 GMT
On 24 Mar 2000 06:07:36 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry
Porter) wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 15:50:48 GMT, SetMeUp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Well well well, a new wintroll or a old wintroll in discuise.
>
>>
>> 1) Serious and easy modem/fax and printer support.
>Serious and easy ???
>
>> (sendmail makes me laugh, postscript printers suck)
>Sendmail is the backbone of the internet, IBM and HP dont think
>postscript printers suck, but hey, who are they to argue with a troll like you ?
Running a system that needs a large number of users with Email and
don't mind, or actually are able to decipher sendmail, then it works
fine. You know you might be in trouble though when the package
description (SuSE I believe, but might be Redhat) says something along
the lines of not for the faint of heart. At any rate it is a powerful,
though somewhat difficult program.
There is nothing wrong with PS printers except the price. Why pay 3x
or more the going rate for a normal printer for one? You could walk
into CompUSA and pick any printer with a blindfold on and chances are
it would work up to it's full potential under Windows. Same can't be
said for Linux.
Why do you call everybody who does not wave the Linux flag a troll?
He made some good, and valid points.
Take off the blinders Terry.
>>
>> 2) Coherent window manager configuration files and behaviour.
>You'll need to speak to Coherent if you want to use their products ;-)
Don't quit your day job:)
While SuSEWmConfig is a big step it is far from perfect and tends to
lose icons or menue items that were present in one WM and now are not
there in another.
>>
>> 3) If easy installation methods are to be so, better go back text mode
>>installations or else improve the so called "easy" installations, because
>>they really suck.
>What really sucks, youv'e left words out ?
??????
BTW that is you've not youv'e.
You must find a better spell checker Terry.
>>
>> 4) Apart from saying that there's decent software lack, just point that
>>the tries to make it (aka Staroffice) produce such a bloated software as you
>>claim Microsoft Office and the kind are. I disagree, Microsoft Office is far
>>ahead from Staroffice, not to mention Applixware, LyX (huuhuhu), ...
>Far ahead ? In what way ?
Take one 10 minute tour of both and you will see. Remember YOU are the
one claiming Linux has been your ONLY desktop since 1997 (year
correct?).
Windows has come a long way since then.
>>
>> 5) Games ... yeah yeah, not every one like the 10 decent games. And
>>besides, X11 was awful and slow, perhaps XFree86 4.0 get it closer to
>>Windows desktop, though I don't think so. KDE ? Don't make me laugh, have
>>you ever tried to change an icon on a 350MHz and 256MB SDRAM machine, hehe,
>>pitiful.By the way, I do not like Quake, any more ? Huhu
>Yeah well I'm sad to hear you dont like Quake anymore, bore easly ?
I absolutely hate Quake. It is dark and miserable looking and quite
frankly I can't figure out the fascination behind it.
Give me Frogger.
>>
>> 6) Serious internet tools : pine sucks, Netscape breaks more than Windows
>>3.11 and is awful and slow. Nothing like IE 5 (the browser) and Outlook
>>Express (yeah yeah, virus are a problem ... but prefer them than slrn, tin,
>>krn and such sucky tools).
>If you think slrn is sucky, you havent a clue. Allow me to demonstrate,
>the power of slrn.
>
>"k"
>kill from: subject: etc ?
>"from"
>kill -9999 ?
>-9999
>expiry date ?
>01-12-2000
>activate kill now. Y, N ?
>Y
>
><plonk>
And allow me to demonstrate the power of Agent, which by default is
running offline withoput any helper programs like LeafNode, Suck,
SlrnPull etc and thus keeping my phone bill in check.
You can run SLRN offline without any of the above right?
Click on message.
Click on Filters.
Author (tjporter in this case) is already filled in.
Click on kill
By by...You are gone.....
Whant to do the same for subject?
one extra step. Click on subject, which will replace tjporter with the
subject of the thread.
By By...gone again...
BTW I can change the date also, but that's redundent because most
people would want to kill future posts.
>> 7) Yeah yeah, Apache runs very well under Linux ... but do not forget
>>that under Solaris, FreeBSD, and even NT/2K too, and besides, home users
>>don't really need a web server. Is Linux offering anything to home users ?
>Apart from lack of virii, free networking, free servers, irc, http,ftp,nfs
>free games, free word processing, free spreadsheets, free OS, oh and stability
>and security, I can't think of one thing.
>
>>And be serious, do not tell me about BSOD's evey 5 minutes because Windows
>>2000 (and NT almost) has never frozen.
>Win95 almost never froze on me in 2 years, but its still a piece of junk.
I had mixed results with Win95. Win98 has been fine and SE has been
even better.
>>
>> 8) I am going to stop in here, and wait for your answers, I hope you to
>>do it without FUD and with real arguments (if any).
>Why should we ?
>Your whole article is full of emotional terms, and no real substance,
>do you think you deserve any kind of answer ?
>
>You're entertainment value only mate :)
This entire group is nothing but entertainment :)
Steve
>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>Kind Regards
>Terry
------------------------------
From: Pete Jewell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 22:17:09 +0000
Francis Van Aeken wrote:
>
> mr_organic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Why do you see software as a "product"? You can sell the *media* it
> Because it has been "produced" by people. Hard work has gone into it.
>
> What about movies, novels, music, should it all be free? What about the
> artists and the craftsmen, should they all do SUPPORT (of all things)
> to make a living???
Completely different industry. You must remember that the computer
industry is still a young industry, and still evolving at an extremely
rapid rate.
I've worked in the software industry for the last 10 years, and I've
seen how difficult it is to make money selling software. There was far
more margin in selling services than there was in selling the software
(I'm talking about vertical markets here, which I think you'll find
makes up a large majority of the software companies out there).
> > comes on, and still make the software Free; you can sell services,
> > consulting, tech support, you name it. That's how most Linux companies
>
> I prefer not to need support. Red Hat might make a living off bugs,
> incompatibilities and cryptic manuals, but I don't really like that approach.
That's a great ideal. I like to think of myself as a computer
professional, and far prefer finding out the answer to a problem myself
than using support services. However, not all people want to do this,
they just want to /use/ a computer as a means to an end, and they make
up a far larger proportion of the computer using population than the
likes of you and I. It's far more cost effective for these people to
use support services than to work it out for themselves.
If you can show me a sophisticated business level system that can be
used without referring to some documentation, or support services, I'll
buy your argument, but I'm confident you wont find it. It's like saying
you can buy a block of wood, a hammer, and a chisel, and instantly be
able to make an ornately carved table leg.
> > are doing it; trying to sell the actual *software* is a losing
> > proposition (in fact, you never *sell* it, but license a given user
> > to use it, which is a losing proposition in a different way).
>
> Economics is about offer and demand. Limited offer of software
> can only be guaranteed by laws or morals (because it's so easy to copy).
> Now, tell me, are you against laws and morals, mr_organic?
You're clearly missing the point of 'free' software. It's 'free as in
speech'. It just so happens that so much software out there is also
'free as in beer'. Would you advocate the licensing of discoveries by
scientists to other scientists?
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Weak points
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 23 Mar 2000 15:55:17 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 21:11:22 GMT, "SetMeUp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >Server, that is not FUD, Redhat was there. The only thing Linux
> >has better today is price and open source, if you do not need these ...
>
> That is exactly the bottom line. Linux is a true lamer when compared
> to Windows. Every benchmark has proven it and all of the simple basic
> questions in the Linux setup groups everyday just confirms it.
> Price and Open Source are the only things Linux has going for it and
> like you said if those are not an issue.......
>
> Where are those darn TPC benchmarks anyway?
And where is NT on the top 500 computers of the world?
We're waiting....
--
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: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Weak points
Date: 23 Mar 2000 23:00:51 GMT
SetMeUp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> You can't possibly
:> be serious about the "suck"ness of Postscript printers.
:> The price is higher in some cases, but so is the quality
: Exactly, higher enough that home users prefer other
: printers just like Canon, HP, Epson, ... no postscript,
So what "sucks" about them, except for a modest increase
in price? Linux does support a wide range of non-Postscript
printers, but why would I settle for some nonstandard
printer (with no guarantee to work with different hardware
or OS) when I can get a standards-compliant Postscript or
HP PCL one?
: now tell me that printers as are easy to configure at
: Linux that at Windows ... and I'll tell you lier.
Assuming a network printer, on the printer side it's just
a matter of setting the IP (in my case on the front
LCD panel - just a few button presses). On the computer
side, Printtool just needs me to:
add -> remote printer
and then I just plug the IP and "Postscript" filter into
a dialog box. No rebooting. No app restarting.
How hard is that? It's certainly no worse than the
wizard-driven Windows driver installs.
:> not
:> to mention the interoperability. If I want to swap Postscript
:> printers, all I need to do is give it the IP of the old one and
:> my apps don't know the difference.
: If I change my printer under Windows I just change the
: hardware and insert cd drivers CD, it autoplays, and
: installs perfectly ... that's end user usability.
But why put up with a drivers CD? Wouldn't it be so much
easier not to have to install anything just to get a new
printer to work?
:> Most modern window managers use GUI-based configuration.
:> You shouldn't need to mess with the files unless you want to.
: What about similar behaviour ? You do not tell anything about
: it : compare KDE, GNOME, icewm, Windowmaker, amiwm,
: mlwm, fvwm, fvwm95, afterstep, ... I thought that copy and
: paste was a big thing, and please, don't send me to gpm.
Copy and paste is easy - and window manager independant.
Highlight with left mouse button, and paste with middle
mouse button. X should take care of that part for you.
As for similar behavior, the whole point of having different
window managers is to manage windows differently. One size
definately does not fit all. I don't want my manager acting
like the default Windows behavior, that much I'm sure of.
Your window manager should adapt to suit how *you* want your
windows to act - you shouldn't have to adapt to its way of
doing things.
And as a nice bonus, most modern ones let you control how
they look too.
:> I've never used graphical distribution installers. As for
:> application installers, programs like gnorpm makes the process
:> virtually trivial.
: I do not like either, but it seems that the last distros tend to
: force you to do it. Corel, Redhat and SuSE to me know. Why
: to imitate Windows like installation ? Wasn't it so bad ? I think
: the real bad are the imitations. Let's mantain Linux as server
: and try to reach FreeBSD.
RedHat offers a text-based installation for its distribution also.
I stick with that. The graphical one not only scaled poorly
on my LCD display, but took *way* too many clicks to get things
done. Unless graphical installations can let me do things faster
or give me more information (which seems doubtful), I'd much
rather used the text-based ones.
:> I don't use "office"-type software. Non-frontended LaTeX handles
:> my typesetting needs and I don't do spreadsheet work. Staroffice
:> didn't look terribly impressive last time I checked, but perhaps
:> Corel's WordPerfect suite is better. I just haven't had the
:> inclination to check. All the software I use runs best on
:> UNIX-like systems so IMHO Windows is the platform that needs to
:> catch up.
: Well, I use Office 2000, Photoshop 5.0 (yeah yeah, GIMP is as good
: as it uh!), Outlook Express and IE 5, I think those programs can today
: hardly run better (or even at all) on a Unix like system. As I said and you
: could not negate, StarOffice is as bloated as you use to say Office is.
If those are the programs you need, then by all means stay with Windows
since you're unlikely to find them anyplace else (except Photoshop,
which might be as good or better on the Mac platform). Use what works
best for you.
As for bloat, the entire latest MiKTeX distribution (TeX/LaTeX for win32)
takes only 22 megs total - less than half of that for the core
functionality. It does everything I need, produces better-looking
output with less effort and my documents will be readable 10+ years
from now. I don't see any reason to switch. (tho naturally I use
teTeX on my Linux box instead)
:> If you count xmame, add about 1900 games to that - most perfectly
:> emulated and some quite recent. I prefer classics like Nethack, Tempest
:> or SF2Turbo, myself. Linux isn't a great gaming platform, but if
:> games are what you want, a PC is a pretty poor economical choice
:> anyway.
: Please, be serious, I meant native games, remember that Windows has
: MAME23 too, and it in fact runs better than XMAME (at lease the versions
: I tested), so, which is the game ratio between Windows 95/98 (or even
: Windows 2000) and Linux ? 10 to 1 ? I know that buying a computer to
: play games is not the best idea, but what's wrong to use it for that too ?
Mame32 has been terribly unstable every time I try it, but xmame gives
me no problems (nor does the K6-optimized DOS version). The games
may not be native, but they *are* games and I find them quite enjoyable.
No one can argue that Linux has less games than DOS/Windows, but
there's nothing anyone can do to quickly improve that situation.
It would be nice, but it will take time.
:> X11 was fast for me 7 years ago on Sparc5s running fvwm.
:> X isn't slow, it's the desktop environments.
: But these environments are exactly what evolution and home
: users has become to need, though I admit, sometimes, they are
: not fully neccessary.
I think this emphasis on desktop environments doesn't help
less technical users all that much. X allows for quite a bit
of functionality, but what these people need is the desktop
equivilant of the PalmOS. More advanced users could use less
desktop clutter and more clearly presented onscreen information
without all the icons getting in the way of usefulness.
:> No. I don't run KDE. Or GNOME. And X runs very fast for me.
: I suppose that you have not desktop funcionality, have you ?
I don't click & drag icons around my screen, and haven't missed
it. I *do* have virtual desktops and a very handy desktop pager to keep
track of my works in progress. None of the desktop environments have
helped my productivity, so I don't use them.
:> You'd rather have viruses than a tool you don't care for? You can't
:> be serious.
: Sure I was not, you got me :), but protecting a computer against
: Outlook virus is pretty simple, don't you think so ? Honestly I think
: Microsoft internet tools are the easiest and most powerful around.
They're easy, that much I have no problem with. I just wish they'd
focus more on being secure and standards-compliant than on trying
to display HTML in email (along with security holes) and all the
other assorted nonsense.
:> consider IE (or Netscape) a "serious internet tool". If I want to
:> get serious, I'll use tools like wget to extract data from the internet.
:> If you want pretty applications, just say so.
: IE 5 at W2K gets data from URLS very well, and it resumes all
: of them transparently to the user. I know wget is a wonderful piece
: of code, but it compiles too for Windows. Anyway, browsing is
: today important to get information, and even commerce, and it will
: become more and more important; Unix lacks a good browsing tool
: in my opinion (I tested Hotjava under Solaris, Netscape, Lynx, KDE
: integrated browser, Arena and Mosaic), and that you do not consider
: browsing serious does not mean you have given to me an answer
: negating my argumentation.
Mozilla promises to be a great improvement, which is nice.
But I don't think there's any browser that does a good job,
unfortunately. The web has evolved through such heated
competition that standards have degraded making the entire
mess a *very* difficult place to live in. IE is a fine
browser implementation, but I think we all deserve a web
that shouldn't need such clunky browsers to get around in.
Maybe I'm getting old, but I yearn for days when almost
anybody could make a decent browser because the standards
were working as they should.
:> Home users can't be lumped into a group because they all need
:> different things. Linux offers plenty to some, and little to others.
: Sure, then why in this group, does Windows always suck and Linux is
: always the thing to use ?
It *is* the Linux advocacy group, after all. I don't believe Windows
is terrible for everybody, but it's not the best for everybody either.
Everybody's different.
:> If you don't care for Linux, don't run it.
: I care, and I run, but that does not get me blind on seeing its
: own faults. I like to see Linux as a server product evolving
: towards desktop computing, not as the all purpose OS as this
: group uses to say. It is very easy to take a Win9x user, show him
: or her Linux, and convince that it is much more better that Win9x,
: even when after at about 85% backs to Win9x; but those Win9x
: users would the same be impressed with Windows NT/2000 and
: in this case backing won't reach 15%.
Linux certainly has its faults, but I find it a better place to live
than with Windows. It's getting better all the time, and is growing
rapidly in use and support. But I like to hope there's room
enough for both and there'll be enough competition to strengthen
both - and hopefully improving standards rather than compromising
them for monetary gain.
Choice is good, that's what I think.
------------------------------
From: "Francis Van Aeken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 19:30:02 -0300
David Damerell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:VJA*[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>Francis Van Aeken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>Economics is about offer and demand. Limited offer of software
> >>>can only be guaranteed by laws or morals (because it's so easy to copy).
> >>>Now, tell me, are you against laws and morals, mr_organic?
> None of the (somewhat incomprehensible) blather you write here changes the
> fact that the paragraph of yours above ending "Now, tell me, are you
> against laws and morals, mr_organic?" is the most stunning logical
> fallacy I have seen for some weeks.
I'll be polite and blame it on my rusty English. Let's try again.
Premise: we want economics (you might not agree, but that's another thing) (1)
Consequence: we want limited offer (with unlimited offer, there's no economics) (2)
Premise: unregulated copying leads to unlimited offer (fairly reasonable) (3)
>From (2) and (3): we don't want unregulated copying
Consequence: we want laws and morals (regulation)
Still, we might not want laws and morals if something is really wrong with them,
hence the question "Now, tell me, are you against laws and morals, mr_organic?"
Clearer now?
Francis.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Weak points
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 22:58:13 GMT
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 22:31:23 GMT, Itchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 24 Mar 2000 06:07:36 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry
>Porter) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 15:50:48 GMT, SetMeUp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Well well well, a new wintroll or a old wintroll in discuise.
[deletia]
>There is nothing wrong with PS printers except the price. Why pay 3x
>or more the going rate for a normal printer for one? You could walk
This is a red herring. There are plenty of reasonably priced
PCL printers to go around. This 'only PS printers' mantra is
a bald faced lie that's constantly being disputed.
>into CompUSA and pick any printer with a blindfold on and chances are
>it would work up to it's full potential under Windows. Same can't be
>said for Linux.
The same can't be said of MacOS or NT4 either. Plus, with PC
hardware you always run the risk of buying a total piece of
crap if you're totally ignorant.
'blindfold buying' simply isn't in anyone's best interest,
even a novices. Sure you can hobble along. However, that's
no better than dealing with a printer that's 'kinda supported'
or not at all in some AltOS.
>
>Why do you call everybody who does not wave the Linux flag a troll?
>He made some good, and valid points.
>Take off the blinders Terry.
No he didn't.
Anyone that willfully repeats the 'only PS printers' mantra
is not just a troll by a LIAR as well.
[deletia]
--
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
******************************
