Linux-Advocacy Digest #258, Volume #27 Thu, 22 Jun 00 18:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling
Too Harsh (z)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling
Too Harsh (Henry Blaskowski)
Re: It's all about the microsurfs (abraxas)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: X can't be that slow (OSguy)
Re: Linux, easy to use? (abraxas)
Re: A contrived strstream performance test. (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. ("John Hill")
Re: High School is out...here come the trolls...who can't accept the future. (Mig)
Re: Windows come in, your time is up.
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Linux, easy to use? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is awesome! (Terry Porter)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Mark S. Bilk)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: z <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 17:08:03 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
>Microsoft's practice, as a monopoly, of denying computer
>vendors the ability to sell Windows, if they sold any other
>operating system too, is an outrageous and illegal restraint
>of free trade.
Hmm ... you know, I don't recall any Ford dealer
that sells new Chevys too. Could it be that MS
was simply following a common business practice ?
------------------------------
From: Henry Blaskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 22 Jun 2000 21:12:44 GMT
In talk.politics.libertarian Mark S. Bilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Later in this thread, this poster identifies the source of
> "The New Trustbusters" as the so-called "Reason" magazine,
> a (Right-wing) Libertarian publication that defends unregu-
> lated Capitalism without regard to the harm it does to most
> of the population.
That's a pretty funny description of the magazine. You should
try reading it sometime, and see what it's really about.
>>the charge was changing with time.
> That's because the coercive, fraudulent, illegal practices
> of Microsoft were gradually being identified.
No, it's because the case was incoherent, and they had to find
one that would fly politically.
>>In general I think it is just result of vague
>>feeling "we have to punish MS for something, even though we don't
>>know exactly what it is"
> Microsoft's practice, as a monopoly, of denying computer
> vendors the ability to sell Windows, if they sold any other
> operating system too, is an outrageous and illegal restraint
> of free trade.
Sigh.... MS did not deny ANYONE the right to sell Windows, ever.
They wanted people to sell copies, since that is a big part of
how they make money. What they did do was offer discounts in
exchange for certain terms. I have yet to see a description
of why this should be a federal crime, and furthermore, how this
differs from every other business from grocery stores to steel
mills.
> Reason magazine's website says they get
> half their income from private donors whose identities they
> keep secret.
That's so psychos like you won't stalk them :-)
> The *actual result* of this maldistribution of wealth is
> starvation, sickness, and death for many poor people under
> Capitalism.
Yes, I know some of you would prefer to see the equal distribution
of poverty that occurs in countries that try to create a uniform
society, but in the US we think that is sick and cruel.
> Mark K, I don't mean to attack you personally, especially
> seeing as you're posting from Poland. But in Russia they
> are finding that unregulated Capitalism is worse for people
> economically than Communism. Both of these systems are
> coercive and cruel. Social Democracy is much better.
You know nothing about Russia, apparently. Capitalism requires
Rule of Law, and Russia does not have it. They have mob violence.
Don't pretend the two are the same. You'll just look silly
and uninformed.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: It's all about the microsurfs
Date: 22 Jun 2000 21:13:34 GMT
Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> abraxas wrote:
>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > It doesn't even matter because half the hardware in those machines
>> > won't run Linux anyway so Linux isn't even an option.
>> >
>>
>> "Half the hardware", eh simon?
>>
>> Tell me, which half would that be?
>>
>> And what, specifically?
>>
>> Shouldnt be too hard for a 42 year old who knows what a punchcard reader
>> is, eh?
>>
>> -----yttrx
>
> I suppose tek (aka simon) wants to connect his card reader and 1403 printer
> to Linux. Of course, for someone so knowledgeable with this ancient
> hardware, he should be able to write the necessary drivers in a couple of
> hours :-). After all, I managed to boot up Linux for S/390 on my PC
> running the hercules S/390 emulator with virtual 3505 card reader, 3525
> card punch, and 1403 printer.
>
Id actually be interested in hearing more about this; we're about to run
an s/390 test environment under linux (running linux--%)) to see what
happens to some strange java stuff...
If all goes well, we'll be purchasing one of the low end dual G6s...
How does your s/390 emulator manage your linux install? Is VM functionality
or real live VM?
And do you have a url? :)
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 17:19:13 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MK wrote:
>
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:46:20 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> >>> Your argument is based on nothing more than semantics.
> >> >>
> >> >>No, it's based on morality. Offering incentives to people is not
> >> >>illegal,
>
> >> >Bribes?
>
> >> You would have to call every discount as bribe then. Bribe is when
>
> >There is a difference between offering a discount, and requiring
> >your supplier chain to collect money from THEIR customers for
> >every unit sold INCLUDING those units which do NOT have your
> >product on it, because the customer chose the competitor's product.
>
> I'd say there isn't such difference, if you think about it for a moment.
> That's simply paying this vendor for a privilege, or hiring the vendor. If
> company A hires company B to do the hardware for them, it is all OK. E.g. the
> Sun has separate companies for software and for hardware. I do not see any
> difference really between Sun hardware company producing only the hardware for
> operating systems produced by Sun software company and the deals between
> MS and hardware vendors.
>
> Also, you could charge lots and lots of companies that they obstruct
> trade this way, too -- many companies have exclusive deals for something.
> E.g. my company has exclusive deal with certain intl corporation for technical
> translation jobs done in my country. Nobody else in Poland will get the
> job from that corporation, we're their exclusive subcontractor. Why?
> Bc it simplifies matters and delivers certain mutual benefits and duties. In
> order to get the job done the way they want to be done, we specialize, we add
> certain qualities and maintain certain standards we would not upkeep without
> such deal. I don't see that as "obstruction of trade". Everything here is
> done in conditions of informed consent. Everybody knows what they get
> and what they don't get. That makes deal fair.
>
> >That is OBSTRUCTION OF TRADE and it is ILLEGAL.
>
> I don't think that is obstruction of trade -- the other competitor
> is perfectly free to outbid the previous competitor. Which is
> what e.g. BeOS maker tried to do. Explain to me please, how
> can what MS does be obstruction of trade and the same
> thing practiced to even higher extreme by BeOS -- 100%
> DISCOUNT -- not be obstruction of trade? Either both are
> guilty of obstruction of trade, or none is.
>
> >It is the very ANTITHESIS of free trade.
>
> I disagree. The informed consent of anybody is not violated in such
> deals -- while violation of informed consent is certainly involved
> in a bribe. Everybody knows to what they agree. And customers
> only gain on such deals -- if many hardware vendors compete
> and many hardware vendors get OS with discount, that certainly
> lowers prices for consumers.
>
Wrong.
You cannot force a patron to purchase a license for YOUR product
when he chooses someone else's product INSTEAD OF YOURS!
There is no getting around this.
Gates tried, and the courts saw right through it for the
OBSTRUCTION OF TRADE which it is.
Gates is a firm opponent of free markets.
> BTW, even if other competitors don't want to enter the bid,
> they can still get their niche hardware vendors. You can
> buy the hardware with Linux preloaded, can't you? Everybody
> gets their niche vendors. Instead of hardware vendors A and
The cases mostly revolve around incidents 5-10 years ago.
Example, computers pre-loaded with DR-DOS having to have an
MS-DOS license included in the price.
...computers with GEM, Quarter Deck, and other windowing systems
having LoseDows included in the purchase price, even though the
customer didn't want it.
IE was just as continuation of the same OBSTRUCTION OF TRADE bullshit.
> B both selling Windows preloaded machines and Linux preloaded
> machines, you get vendor A selling Windows preloaded machines
> and vendor B selling Linux preloaded machines. That's specialization,
> not obstruction of trade.
Sophistry doesn't justify obstruction of trade.
>
> I would fully support RH making precisely the same deal with
> some hardware vendors as MS made with their hardware
> vendors. It would help Linux -- machines that would result
> in the long run would HAVE to be better. The hardware vendor
> could not make up losses from selling poor Linux machines
> by revenues from selling Windows machines. He would
> HAVE to deliver very good machines to survive at all.
>
> If you know somebody at RH or other Linux company, try
> to persuade them to make the same deal as MS did.
What, you think they're stupid?
>
> >If Gates is soooooooo gung ho on free trade, why does he do everything
> >possible to resist allowing free trade in his industry???
>
> I don't think it's fair to say that it is MS that obstructs free trade _most_.
You don't think.
That's your problem.
> I think some evidence can be found, but not where you look for it. You
> want possible obstruction, look at what happened when AOL wanted
> to use Netscape as browser. But it's not in the deal you talk about.
>
> If you want REAL obstruction of free trade, why don't you look at
> what Apple was doing. That's obstruction. Which, BTW, backfired
> on Apple, so intervention of anti-trust was not even necessary.
>
> Closed standards die, and that is why Apple has problems. If MS
> practiced closing standards as hard as Apple, I don't see why it
> would not hit MS. Laws of physics still apply to 800-pound gorilla.
> Also the mechanisms of trade definitely apply to MS, too -- look
> at the relative lack of successes of MS in DB market.
>
> Leave it to the market. It really does the job best.
>
> MK
>
> ---
>
> Equality requires slavery.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: OSguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: X can't be that slow
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 15:46:41 -0500
"Robert L." wrote:
> I never use X as root.
Good idea.
>
> My user use qvwm, else, it's too slow. ( Do you know some other wm faster
> than that?)
I've never used qvwm, but I understand fvwm is fairly easy on the resources (no
idea on how fast).
> I know i have to start X before my window manager start.
I apologize to you. I misread your post, but too late to pull back my response
which I cancelled (which is futile since the message always shows up anyhow).
Next time I try to read your posts more carefully before replying.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: 22 Jun 2000 21:20:46 GMT
Gary Connors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Anyhow, it is you who have missed the point. Linux without a GUI or tools
>> > its absolutely useless.
>>
>> Wow. Youd better run off and tell the good folks at Google this important
>> news. They run a 4000 node linux cluster RIGHT NOW, which theyre expanding
>> to 6000 nodes to handle their search engine.
>
>
> AMAZING!!!! HOLY SHIT!!!...So they have taken the Linux Kernel and added
> Database ability to it, an HTTP server, and other stuff need to run a
> search engine. OR, did they create "TOOLS" (see above) that run on top of
> the kernel that does that. If they did, my point still stands.
>
>
>
>> It doesnt have a GUI! UH OH! HOW CAN IT POSSIBLY WORK?????
>>
>
> Never said that. Watch the stawman die.
>
Actually you did:
>> > Anyhow, it is you who have missed the point. Linux without a GUI or tools
>> > its absolutely useless.
You used the operative 'or'. What youve said is that linux without a GUI
is useless, AND (exclusively) linux without tools is useless. If on the
otherhand, you had said 'GUI AND tools', you may have had a very, very
small point.
So now youre twisting your own words around in the face of argument, and
breaking rules of linear aristolian logic right and left.
What was your point again?
>> If you were a 'unix user' you would understand that the bits and pieces
>> of the GUIs that are layed atop X11 have nothing at all to do with the
>> usefulness or stability of the system in question, since they are
>> utterly configurable.
>>
>
>
> What part of "GUI AND TOOLS" dont you understand?
The part where you replaced your 'or' with an 'and', doubtlessly to obscure
your own error. Your point is invalidated by virtue [sic] of error of
argument.
> What part of
> "A kernel without init, cp, mv, ls" do you not understand? You are
> placing an artificial constrain on my words that was never there. Watch
> that strawman fall.
>
You're not doing a very good job of diverting the crux of my focus away
from your horrific argument building skills and complete lack of logical
ability. But you can go ahead and keep trying if you like.
You'll get better with practice.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: A contrived strstream performance test.
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 21:28:40 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, The Ghost In The Machine
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Thu, 22 Jun 2000 21:08:55 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote on 22 Jun 2000 20:41:19 GMT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 19:36:41 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>>#include <strstream.h> // strstrea.h on NT
>>
>>BTW, here's something that confuses me -- all the C++ books I read
>>talk about "sstream", and all the associated functions have slightly
>>different names to the UNIX versions. What gives ?
>
>I for one know nothing about "sstream"; neither does my version of Linux.
>It's possible this is something new, but I rather doubt it. :-)
Followup: Yes there is an sstream file, which contains the classes
basic_stringbuf<>, basic_istringstream<>, basic_ostringstream<>,
and basic_stringstream<>. Each of these classes takes the three
template arguments '_E' (usually a char), '_Tr', which defaults to
char_traits<_E>, and '_A',which defaults to allocator<_E>.
I don't know much else about it, apart from being able to read the
#include file :-) .
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: "John Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 22:41:10 +0100
Tim Palmer wrote in message ...
>On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 16:19:21 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>>On 19 Jun 2000 06:01:22 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>On 18 Jun 2000 07:18:42 GMT, Marada C. Shradrakaii
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>Noboddy cares if Linxu can run on some geaks' obsolete 386 in 2MB of
RAM.
>>>>
>>>>True. It doesn't matter what it can run on DIRECTLY, but the indirect
effect
>>>>of this is important. Something small enough to run on a 2M system
won't take
>>>>up too much overhead on a 160M system in all likelihood, and I'd rather
run
>>>>apps in my RAM than operating systems.
>>>>
>>>>>Linux ganes NOTHING over Windows by being multi-user
>>>>
>>>>One computer for a family. Life is simplified by giving each family
member his
>>>>own directory to organize files, and his own user configuration. Even
Win9x
>>>>offers primitive multiuser support for that reason.
>>>
>>>But moast peopel don't USE it, and it can be turned off.
>>
>> You can also make passwords in Unix blank if you like, if you
>> or your family members are unable to remember a simple password.
>
>Thanks for the tip. I woant need it because I'm running Windows 98SE..
>I woant need the
>Blank-Password-HOWTO for it either.
Oh dear - you poor demented creature. You obviously have the same
grasp of Linux as you do of spelling.....
>
>>
>>[deletia]
>>>>That doesn't follow. How is Windows, which provides no over-network
feature,
>>>>winning?
>>>
>>>Nobody neads an over-network feeture. Windows wins without it.
>>
>> Then how come you keep bringing up the equivalent windows hacks?
>>
>>[deletia]
>>
>>--
>> If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
>> tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
>> the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
>> |||
>> / | \
>>
>> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
>
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: High School is out...here come the trolls...who can't accept the future.
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 23:37:55 +0200
Leonardo wrote:
> This only means that 10% of companies are using Linux and 90% are not.
> This does not mean that 100% of the users at those 10% of companies are
> using Linux.
> Actual figure can be between 1-100%.
> Indeed, if you presume that 3% of those users are actually using Linux today
> then you get the same figure as in all the other recent studies, and that is
> 0.3%.
>
> --L
The assumed number og Linux users [conservative estimat] was around 10 mio.
in 1999, There are about 260 mio computers around. IDC says that the usage
on the desktop is 4% for Linux.
Everything fits together. 4% og 260 mio is round 10 mio. Far away from the
.3 % you claim. That number has grown sice so now 5 to 6% certainly use
Linux.
Cheers
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Windows come in, your time is up.
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 21:38:14 GMT
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 19:49:21 +0200, James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Geez, does Wine only support 2 winapps? Not according to 1/2 !!!!!!
That's merely a side effect of the M$ hegemony reducing
the number of applications that are socialy acceptable
to run... <snicker>
>
>
>"Karri Kalpio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> >
>> > RIP W2k.
>> >
>> > James
>> >
>> > "2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > >
>> > > I just downloaded the latest version of Wine. it's pretty impressive.
>> > > Soon, one of the main advantages of windows --- the applications
>> > > avaliable (although I'm happy with the linux ones), will cease to be
>an
>> > > advantages.
>> >
>> > From your enthusiasm I assume I will be able to run all those great Win
>apps
>> > within weeks.
>>
>> Probably yes... Both of them...
>>
>> --karri
>>
>> --
>> You have moved your mouse, for these : Karri Kalpio
>> changes to take effect you must shut : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> down and restart your computer. Do you : [+358] (40) 5926895 (mobile)
>> want to restart your computer now? : [+358] (9) 75111771 (work)
>
>
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 22 Jun 2000 21:44:25 GMT
Liberty requires freedom from the initiation of force and fraud.
It seems very clear that Microsoft has committed fraud against
competitors, customers, and end users alike. (Examples abound in the
Findings of Fact, and I won't rehash them here.) Fraud consists simply
of making false claims for financial or other advantage. It is not
compatible with the notion of free markets, which require the freedom
on the part of both buyer and seller to give *informed* consent and to
enter into transactions that each side reasonably believes to be to
its benefit.
In light of this, it is hard to see why so many alleged libertarians
are willing to exonerate Microsoft. If you're willing to let a
Microsoft, or any other entity, initiate fraud against other persons
or entities with impunity, you can't pretend to be a supporter of free
markets or of freedom in general. It's a self-contradictory position.
Joe
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 21:44:33 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Culleton) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>I have this feeling that modern distros by making everything so
>easy and graphical have ultimately made everything harder and
>more confusing. I have used Slackware for years, and the
>installation program features an ncurses based presentation that
>does not require that X window be active. Of course it doesn't
>fool with those silly RPM packages; the old-fashioned tarball
>works fine and still allows for easy install and uninstall.
>Perhaps for the gui generation such a basic approach may seem
>intimidating. I am grateful for its simplicity.
>
>But to each their own.
Oh I've installed Slackware a few times. It is one of the more difficult
distros to install in that it provides very little in the shiny helpful gui
way of things.
Setting up X involved xf86config. If you want intimidating, try it and see!
Oh yeah, and make sure you don't type any characters like " in any of the
parameters. Oh dear it barfs big time if you do that!
Pete
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux is awesome!
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 23 Jun 2000 05:49:43 +0800
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:07:20 -0400,
Secretly Cruel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>Linux sucks Mark and you know it.
Simon sucks and COLA knows it.
>> The only reason you support it is
>>because it fits into the cult like left wing, screw the establishment
>>ala "Pacifica Radio" which you seem to believe in and support.
BS
WE support it because of many reasons, and unfortunately for this winShrill
theyre all bad news for him.
>>
>>You are entitled to your opinion as I am, but if you look at Linux vs
>>just about any OS out there you will see that it is a work in prgress
>>and in need of a lot of help.
Simon coloured glasses, look to your own POS OS first, please.
>> If you are willing to settle for second
>>rate hardware support and second rate applications than Linux may be
>>just the ticket to your left wing dreams.
Your the one dreaming mate, Linux supports a huge amount of hardware,
the software is FIRST class, due to the nature of "Free Software".
>
>As a new Linux user, I agree that Linux is still a little less than
>intuitive for those of us moving over from Windows systems.
That not intuition youve learnt, its Windows.
>
>Concerning hardware, it has some catching up to do, sure. But things are
>getting better very quickly.
Everything in the world has catching up to do, Microsoft has some catching
up to do in the area of NOT breaking the law.
>
>Second rate apps? Maybe as far as browsing the web, because Netscape
>(for me anyhow) is a POS. But the Opera browser is going to be an
>awesome app once it's finished. Word processing? Wordperfect is good
>enough for me. Email? There are many clients that do all I need -
>multiple POP, filtering, etc. Graphics? The Gimp handles my needs.
Well said.
>
>I am an average home PC user. I have used Windows for many years. After
>using Linux for 6 months, I have no intention of ever going back. :-)
There ya go simple simon, another EX Windows user, I hope you can cope
with the racking dissapointment as your Ms stock drops yet another notch.
Pity you've waited too late to dump it too, now that so much has been shaved of
the top after Paul Allen dumped so many of his MS shares.
>
>--+==]Secretly Cruel[==+--
>
>(Antispam measure is obvious in email address)
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 week 1 day 20 hours 53 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 22 Jun 2000 21:50:28 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>> "Mark" == Mark S Bilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Nope -- I didn't say any of that stuff;
attributions fixed below.
http://www.eatthestate.org/02-41/FreeSoftwareAnyone.htm
"Eat the State!" magazine wrote:
}}}}Needless to say, RMS often is accused of being a communist
}}}}(possibly true)
Richard Stallman wrote (in a followup to the ETS interview,
not in this thread):
}}}I'm used to occasional accusations of being a Communist, but
}}}usually this is done by people who would rather argue against
}}}Communism than against my actual views. But it's a new
}}}experience to see someone who means me well by it.
}}}It isn't accurate, though. I work on free software to give
}}}software users freedom, which is nothing at all like Commun-
}}}ism. I've been partly influenced by leftist Anarchism, by the
}}}idea of a world in which people voluntarily arrange to work
}}}together for the general good, but not at all by Communism.
>Thats actually quite interesting.
>
>I don't think that it would make sense to call RMS a communist
>for one simple reason, which is that he is part of a large "single
>issue" movement. My own feeling is that whilst single issues are
>important, you need to look at the whole picture. The environmental
>movement, and the free software movement currently come up against the
>same problems, for the same reasons. To be described as communist RMS
>would need to feel that the system as a whole was wrong.
Richard Stallman said:
http://www.linuxworld.com/linuxworldtoday/lwt-indepth7.html
}}}Richard Stallman: Well, I guess I am a sort of combination
}}}between a liberal and a leftist anarchist. I like to see
}}}people working together, voluntarily, to solve the world's
}}}problems. But, if we can't do that, I think we should get
}}}the government involved to solve them.
}}}
}}}The idea of democracy is that it enables the citizens in
}}}general to put a check on the power of the richest, and
}}}these days in America we are failing to use that tool,
}}}which of course, leads to a harsh life for most people.
Stallman's last sentence here does say that "the system as
a whole [is] wrong" in some ways. But he's not a communist
(believer in people sharing *everything* equally), nor a
Communist (believer in Stalinism), because his general
political beliefs, as expressed in these two paragraphs,
are neither.
>Of course to say that he has been influenced by "leftist
>Anarchism" but "not at all by communism" is rather nieve. Leftist
>Anarchism and Communism have been intertwinned through out their
>existence. Sometimes happily so, and sometimes much less so. Still
>they have influenced each other heavily, and if you are influenced by
>one, then you are by the other as it were.
Presumably you are talking about small-c "communism" here,
but Stallman was referring to the big-C Russian kind, because
that's what his red-baiting critics accuse him of.
And indeed, a sort of small-c communism, or leftist anarchism,
"From each according to their (voluntarily exercised) ability;
to each according to their need (as fulfilled by copies of
software that require almost no effort by its creators to
reproduce)" does describe the workings of the Free Software
movement.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
