Linux-Advocacy Digest #280, Volume #27 Fri, 23 Jun 00 15:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server (Pete Goodwin)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Lost Cause Theater!!! (Tim Kelley)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (void)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Loren Petrich)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling
Too Harsh (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Linux is awesome! (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Linux is awesome! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Henry Blaskowski)
Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS? (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Henry Blaskowski)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: 23 Jun 2000 08:24:59 GMT
"gooeydad[spammerssuck]"@excite.com (Dave) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>And if I get a program that misbehaves, I simply {kill -pid} it Can you
>do that in windows without the whole o.s. coming down with it? I am not
>a guru....I just read one book. It does not take a rocket scientist to
>use linux. If I did not play games, I could lose windoze altogether.
>And with wine, I can use about half the games I do play.
I select the task manager and kill it. Oh, sorry, I'm talking about Windows
2000. Windows 98 SE, trying to kill something is usually an excercise in
futility. Kill process... wait... kill process again... wait... dialog
popups saying its busy, so kill it again. Process dies. Well, sometimes.
Sometimes it blue screens with 'System busy', and after that, its pretty
much dead.
Windows 98 SE is not a robust system. Take a look at how it was designed
and you'll see why. Windows 2000 is _so_ much better.
--
============
Pete Goodwin
------------------------------
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: 23 Jun 2000 08:29:29 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bobby D. Bryant) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>You know, sometimes I honestly wonder whether that isn't the great
>divide between those who love the command line and those who hate it.
>I.e., those who never learned to type hate it because they haven't
>mastered the skills necessary to use it, and those who did learn to type
>love it because it's so powerful.
Then there are those of us who started on the command line, who moved to a
GUI way of working and never looked back. I still use command line stuff
for scripts but I rarely use it for day to day things. It's old fashioned
and not as much fun as a funky GUI interface.
Oh, but then I write GUI tools for a living.
--
============
Pete Goodwin
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: 23 Jun 2000 08:18:40 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Palmer) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> That I find highly doubtful. Typically when one IE5 window
>> tank they all tank. This can be quite annoying.
>
>More Linnux FUD.
I think he's confusing Explorer with IExplorer. Explorer runs as one
process with loads of threads. If you kill explorer, they all die. If you
run up two copies of Internet Explorer, they're two seperate processes. I
checked with PVIEW and sure enough, two seperate processes.
--
============
Pete Goodwin
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:48:04 GMT
On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:27:27 GMT, Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Work on a high throughput database, and get back to us.
>
>Yes, done that. Your point? I still didn't need to know anything about
>how the scheduler works then.
>
>At the time, it was more interesting to me to know how to present 50,000
>records to the user in such a way that he didn't have to wait for ages
You claim that you have worked on a high throughput database yet
you speak of a mere 50,000 records as something significant.
Does anyone else see the inconsistency here?
>loading _all_ the records, but only the first 20 or 30 and then grabbing
>the next page. All done on a Windows GUI.
>
>--
>---
>Pete
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:35:31 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> So, basically, you learned the bare minimum needed to accomplish your
> task.
>
> As I said in the beginning, you never truly learned Unix.
> Thanks for the confirmation.
ROFL. My god with logic like that...
You equate "self taught" with "bare minimum" huh? So the virtuoso violin
player (self taught) who plays beautifully never really learned to play,
huh!
Incidentally, I did do one course. Unix for Systems developers. Does
that count?
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[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: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:47:41 -0500
MK wrote:
>[A bunch of stuff about how great Microsoft is.]
So I'm curious. Does MK stand for Microsoft Klingon?
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lost Cause Theater!!!
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:51:25 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Actually I admire the Poles for trying their best.
Gee, how gracious of you. I'm sure they would've appreciated it.
The truth is you're a complete dork who obviously has little to
do with his time, like the other windows morons on here. What is
unbelieveable is that anyone bothers to answer the little turds
you, Tim Palmer or Jeff Szarka throw on cola.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (void)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: 23 Jun 2000 17:51:45 GMT
On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 16:29:17 GMT, Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (void) wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 19:31:18 GMT, Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >What part of this is confusing?
>>
>> The lack of transparency. I *want* something to stop being found if I
>> rename it.
>
>Why?
>
>I have a bunch of files that I'm working on. If I rename the hard drive,
>why would I suddenly want to lose those files?
I wrote an answer to this, but then I deleted it, because I realized
that I don't exactly understand the Mac way of doing this.
How is a Mac filesystem structured? What exactly is this persistent
ID that identifies a file independently of its name? How is it
guaranteed to be unique? Is there a way for a user to see it?
--
Ben
220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 18:04:22 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 16:28:41 GMT, Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >In article <8ivvh1$1l7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal
> >K. Fellows) wrote:
> >
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > I have 3 partitions on my drive: System, Applications, VM. I create
> >> > an
> >> > alias for the System and Applications drives and put them in my
> >> > Apple
> >> > Menu. That allows me to access any file on those partitions with a
> >> > single click.
> >> >
> >> > Now, I change the name of all 3 partitions to: "drive".
> >> >
> >> > Everything still works. VM still works on the partition formerly
> >> > known
> >> > as VM. The aliases still work.
> >>
> >> So MacOS hides the real names of everything from you, and only lets
> >> you look at the happy-happy interface on top? I suppose it is one way
> >> to do it...
> >>
> >
> >That't one way to put it.
> >
> >The way most rational people put it is "it just works".
>
> You can state the same for alternate methods of refering to
> the same sorts of media.
Nope.
Donal is saying that if he changes his drive name, he WANTS all his
aliases and links broken. That's a tech support nightmare waiting to
happen.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 23 Jun 2000 18:07:17 GMT
In article <8j03pa$14co$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Henry Blaskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In talk.politics.libertarian George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> Andy Grove of Intel was apparently furious when MS muscled Intel into
>> killing off their program to make JAVA run much faster on Intel CPUs.
>Notice the use of loaded language here... "muscled". Please explain
>how the CEO of MS has more power over Intel than the CEO of Intel.
>If this is really true, Andy Grove should be immediately fired for
>incompetence.
Intel has been dependent on M$ for mainstream OSes and if M$ does
not like what Intel is doing, it can get involved with Cyrix or AMD.
Which is why Intel has invested in alternative-OS companies like
Be and Red Hat. Despite Chairman Bill supposedly getting furious over the
latter.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 23 Jun 2000 18:09:35 GMT
On 23 Jun 2000 14:34:10 GMT, Henry Blaskowski wrote:
>In talk.politics.libertarian Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> When everyone is offered a discount, it's no longer a discount, it's
>> something that becomes a must-have if you want to compete. Microsoft's
>> threat to remove these "discounts" is, because of their power, essentially
>> a threat to put the company in question out of business ( especially in
>> more extreme cases where they threatened to refuse to distribute Windows
>> to the OEM, period )
>
>> Clearly, threatening to put an OEM out of business is a restraint of trade.
>
>They produce a product. Other people want it. Does the other people
>wanting it imply that the other people own it? Or do you think the
I'm not clear on what your point is.
>producer owns it and should be able to set the terms for it's release?
>will you apply the same principles to your life?
It's dangerous to allow the producer of a monopoly product to set arbitrary
terms of release. For example, ( the one Petrich already raised ), what
if $1- from every Windows purchase went to Gore's or Bush's presidential
campaign ? I'd have a problem with either scenario. I suspect you'd have
a problem with at least one.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awesome!
Date: 23 Jun 2000 18:10:00 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
: Works is true, but "very well"? Maybe at the console level, but not at the
: GUI level. That still leaves a lot to be desired.
: For instance, you have two kfm processes running. You want to copy the text
: from one t'other. CTRl-C CTRL-V is a standard key sequence (no, it wasn't
: created by Windows!) and kfm doesn't recognise it. Even clicking on the
: buttons doesn't work!
The X standard is left mouse button to select and middle mouse button
to paste. It should work across virtually every X app - even the
old crusty ones. Try that instead of the key combos.
<snip>
: Open Source does not mean good. There's a definate 'look and feel' behind
: Windows that is way ahead of Linux. Whilst corporations charge money for
: software, you at least get the feeling of some kind of coordination behind
: them. Linux appears to be a real mess of differing bits and pieces that
: haven't quite pulled together yet.
'look and feel' is far too subjective to really argue about.
Some believe a consistant look and feel is essential for a good GUI
while others think allowing the look and feel to be at the
developer's discretion to be more important. I don't think
you'll find a consensus on this point.
:>I have, and so have many others:
:>
:>Linux Was Already On The Desktops In 10% Of Companies One Year Ago!
:>http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=636626636
:>
:>According to the survey mentioned, Linux is probably now
:>used in desktop and workstation computers in 30% of all
:>businesses.
: One survey says 0.3% is Linux, another says 14%. Take your pick!
The "30% of all businesses" seems plausible since it only takes
one person in the business to use Linux in order to qualify.
The "14%" and "0.3%" sound like total desktop figures, but both
sound wrong. The exact figure is probably somewhere in the middle.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Linux is awesome!
Date: 23 Jun 2000 13:08:24 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Works is true, but "very well"? Maybe at the console level, but not at the
>GUI level. That still leaves a lot to be desired.
>
>For instance, you have two kfm processes running. You want to copy the text
>from one t'other. CTRl-C CTRL-V is a standard key sequence (no, it wasn't
>created by Windows!) and kfm doesn't recognise it. Even clicking on the
>buttons doesn't work!
Where are you trying to do this? It works fine for me in the
Location: window of kfm. Of course it works just as well
without the ctrl-c, since highlighted stuff is automatically
copied to the X clipboard.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 18:12:41 GMT
On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 18:04:22 GMT, Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 16:28:41 GMT, Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> >In article <8ivvh1$1l7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal
>> >K. Fellows) wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >> Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> > I have 3 partitions on my drive: System, Applications, VM. I create
>> >> > an
>> >> > alias for the System and Applications drives and put them in my
>> >> > Apple
>> >> > Menu. That allows me to access any file on those partitions with a
>> >> > single click.
>> >> >
>> >> > Now, I change the name of all 3 partitions to: "drive".
>> >> >
>> >> > Everything still works. VM still works on the partition formerly
>> >> > known
>> >> > as VM. The aliases still work.
>> >>
>> >> So MacOS hides the real names of everything from you, and only lets
>> >> you look at the happy-happy interface on top? I suppose it is one way
>> >> to do it...
>> >>
>> >
>> >That't one way to put it.
>> >
>> >The way most rational people put it is "it just works".
>>
>> You can state the same for alternate methods of refering to
>> the same sorts of media.
>
>
>Nope.
>
>Donal is saying that if he changes his drive name, he WANTS all his
>aliases and links broken. That's a tech support nightmare waiting to
>happen.
No, what Donal is saying is that if he changes the system level
volume identifier he wants the result to be considered by the
system to be considered unique from the previously identified
version and for there to be no possibility for any two volumes
to ever have the same identifier.
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Henry Blaskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 23 Jun 2000 18:15:07 GMT
In talk.politics.libertarian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>If this is really true, Andy Grove should be immediately fired for
>>incompetence.
> Microsoft probably made noises about moving the focus of their
> business from the product which Intel sells, and which is the
> largest chunk of Intel's business, and to another one sold by
> Irix, Motorola, or DEC.
>
> Theoretically, Intel is more replacable than Microsoft: even
> for Intel itself.
If Intel fell for something like this, Andy Grove should be immediately
fired. These people aren't morons, and Andy Grove would never bow
to blackmail.
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS?
Date: 23 Jun 2000 18:15:30 GMT
Adam Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip!>
: But again, if berlin turns out to be For Real, we may be looking at
: some X-vs-berlin pains a few years down the road, especially if
: there's no X-compatibility layer for berlin.
Not necessarily. Remember, X is just a protocol. It would certainly
be possible to write an X server that runs on top of berlin.
That way all the old X apps could be pointed to the berlin X server
and might appear in a window of some sort. Try out Xnest to get a
feel for what that might look and act like.
Very neat stuff.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 18:19:00 GMT
On 23 Jun 2000 08:18:40 GMT, Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Palmer) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>> That I find highly doubtful. Typically when one IE5 window
>>> tank they all tank. This can be quite annoying.
>>
>>More Linnux FUD.
>
>I think he's confusing Explorer with IExplorer. Explorer runs as one
Nope. They both exhibit this behaivor.
>process with loads of threads. If you kill explorer, they all die. If you
>run up two copies of Internet Explorer, they're two seperate processes. I
>checked with PVIEW and sure enough, two seperate processes.
I'm not convinced that that necessarily buys it anything. IE5 and
various other apps can adversely effect the performance and
responsiveness of other apps when blocked under NT. So one IE5 process
taking out several others would not surprise me.
Also, I specifically stated IE5, not "the version of explorer that
comes with NTW4". So your presumption is unsupportable.
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Date: 23 Jun 2000 13:17:29 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Ciaran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Its extremely relavent. Understanding the scheduler and and how
>> it affects your process running at different priorities in (for
>> example) multithread and SMP environments is something that
>> should always be understood to some degree by the coder.
>
>I agree that it is important, particularly for MP, but I would also argue
>that knowing assembly language is at least ten times as important to
>knowing how to effectively program. Ironically, I have met MANY Unix
>programmers who do not know assembly language for the machine they work
>on.
"The" machine???? How about the dozens of different CPU types they
might be using simultaneously or over some interval of time?
>In fact, I'd say that a majority of Unix programmers I know are
>completely dumbfounded by the sight of assembly language on their native
>machine. The excuse is usually some cruft about how assembly language
>isn't portable, which has nothing to do with the ability to read it ...
Or the usefulness, given compilers that accept portable languages.
>(and the scheduler is not portable either of course).
Yes, here too you should avoid being overly intimate with any particular
version. If you aren't writing device drivers that need real time
response, you can let the OS handle the details without knowing
how.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 23 Jun 2000 18:20:38 GMT
On 23 Jun 2000 14:31:29 GMT, Henry Blaskowski wrote:
>In talk.politics.libertarian Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>But "using your weight" isn't really a crime, or shouldn't be.
>After all, that's really how business works. If you want a product
>I produce, the more you want it and the more people who agree with
>you, the more I can charge. In fact, MS did the opposite -- they
>used their weight to charge LESS in return for concessions. This,
>also, is a common practice in all industries.
This is misleading. Here's a question -- if everyone's paying "less" for
a product, does it mean that they're really getting a discount, or does it
mean that the price is artificially inflated in the first place ? I
mean, "discounts" are all relative. If everyone gets something at a "discount",
it is no longer a discount. Quite the opposite, those that don't get the
"discount" are paying a punitive price penalty.
>"Peaceful" is a term related to violence, to physical force, not
>to "having a product other people really, really want".
Nonsense. There's nothing peaceful about a threat, even if the threat
doesn't involve physical violence. For example, blackmail is not "peaceful",
but it doesn't involve physical violence.
>> No, it doesn't. Take a look at what the definition of a monopoly is
>> some time. You are wrong, both in the sense of the dictionary definition
>> and legal definition of "monopoly".
>
>I've looked up the dictionary definition, and it says "having no
>competitors". That is common usage.
I guess you've got a special edition dictionary for those who cannot
understand big words ? Most dictionary definitions of monopoly talk
about "exclusive control", not 100% market share. Some also refer to
"owning all or almost all the market" for a given type of product/service.
> Any legal definition that
>disagrees with that is immoral.
Your opinion.
>> Whether or not something is a monopoly is not determined by the number
>> of competitors, so in this instance you and the person you are replying to
>> are both wrong.
>
>If is not about the number of competitors, then the term is meaningless,
No, it is not. It is about the level of control over the market that the
monopoly has.
>and we may as well just call it "punishing success", because that's what
>it really is.
No it's not. This is a straw man. Microsoft were not in court for being
"successful". They were not even in court for "having a monopoly". They
were in court for abusing their monopoly power.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Henry Blaskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 23 Jun 2000 18:21:08 GMT
In talk.politics.libertarian Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>It is the same issue, the same morality.
> And so is your right to sell yourself into slavery, or sell
> your body as a prostitute, or sell drugs at some agreed-upon
> price. These, and abusing the power of a monopoly just
> happen to be illegal.
You are correct. If I agree to work night and day for somebody
for some amount of money, it is nobody's business except mine and
the person I made the agreement with. If I want to sell my body
for sexual favors, it is nobody's business except mine and the
person I made the agreement with. If I want to sell certain
unapproved pharmaceuticals, that is nobody's business but mine
and the person I made the agreement with. Do you see? The
voluntary consensual action of others is NONE of your business!!
The fact that the gov't THINKS it is their business, and the
fact that YOU think it is YOUR business, doesn't make it so.
The fact that the gov't has the weapons to enforce its opinion
doesn't make it moral or correct. I haven't been arguing whether
the gov't has the force to make this case stick; my claim is it
is immoral and arbitrary, and your examples provide supporting
evidence of that.
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
