Linux-Advocacy Digest #371, Volume #27 Tue, 27 Jun 00 19:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Re: Do not like Windows but ...
Re: Linux is junk ("TimL")
Re: where to download C# compiler for Linux? ("KLH")
This is a Troll, do not resond (was Re: Linux is junk) ("KLH")
Re: This is a Troll, do not resond (was Re: Linux is junk) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: This is a Troll, do not resond (was Re: Linux is junk) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: How many times, installation != usability. (Michael Marion)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling
Too Harsh (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy lies....
(abraxas)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (abraxas)
Re: Windows98 (abraxas)
Re: Linux is junk (abraxas)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (Gary Hallock)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling
Too Harsh (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy (Gary Hallock)
Re: This is a Troll, do not resond (was Re: Linux is junk) (David Steinberg)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling
Too Harsh (Donovan Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 23:28:04 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Volker Hetzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jay Maynard wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 16:04:16 +0000, Volker Hetzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> >Protectionism is done by companies to protect their profits from the
>> >competition.
>> >The hard kind goes to the government for import dues, the soft kind
>> >starts a "buy american/british/german/whatever" campaign.
>>
>> Nice try. How come Big Labor is universally on the side of protectioninsm,
>> while business isn't? (Yes, I know some businesses are, but others aren't.)
> Which business isn't? No company I ever worked with liked their competitors.
> But all said otherwise in public.
They don't have to like them to favour "free trade".
Consider that there are several aspects to free trade.
- it gives businesses in less developed countries (read "lower salaries")
access to markets in rich countries
- it allows rich, large companies to squash emerging competition in
developing countries, a
- it allows multinationals to produce cheaply and make big profits
that don't benefit the producing country as much as a locally
owned business would.
> Counter example to "big labour". The german green card. Instead of lobbying
> against the import of foreign labour they made sure that they don't get paid
> less than their german counterparts. I call this "social conscience", not
> "protectionism".
Nonetheless, when confronted with cheap imports, unions react
with demands for protectionist measures. You see, foreigners
working for less than a German are a threat to their members, so
they can proceed in two ways:
- make the foreigner non-competitive (someone who speaks poor German
and is paid the same as a native German speaker is at a disadvantage),
whilst holding the upper moral ground.
- refusing entry and looking like racists.
Which alternative would _you_ prefer, knowing that in both cases the
result is the same?
You have to understand that the reactions of companies and unions is
wholly self-serving. Mealy-mouthing about free trade, or solidarity
is just selfrighteous bluster designed to hoodwink the public or
allow people to feel good when choosing sides.
Take care,
--
Stefaan
--
--PGP key available from PGP key servers (http://www.pgp.net/pgpnet/)--
Ninety-Ninety Rule of Project Schedules:
The first ninety percent of the task takes ninety percent of
the time, and the last ten percent takes the other ninety percent.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Do not like Windows but ...
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 14:31:32 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The real killer for me is the ability to take that LyX or TeX file after
> you are done and spit out PDF or Postscript files without paying any
> money to the gods of computers (Adobe and M$). Thus, you are ready to
> ship to the publisher, or even to post to "standards" based web sites
> (You know, the ones that require you to post files in postscript or PDF,
> hoping you will generate some money for Adobe in the process.) Not only
> do you get the ability to generate these files for free, but you also
> get the ability to work on a huge file without bogging your system into
> senseless oblivion. I know it hooked me.
You can also generate HTML documents from the same LaTeX source that
generates DVI files. The DVI translations programs which are called drivers
then translate the DVI files into PostScript, PDF, PCL, and another of other
formats. Which puts the lie the statement that so many detractors use, that
unix can only use PostScript printers without going through GhostScript.
------------------------------
From: "TimL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is junk
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 22:11:00 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Not to mention when the dam printer went beserk trying to print using
> Lie-nux and it spit out page after page with one ascee charactor on each
^^^^^^
By any name (Tim Palmer, Jerry Butler) you're still a fake.
> Jerry Butler
>
------------------------------
From: "KLH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: where to download C# compiler for Linux?
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:11:57 -0700
<roger@news> wrote in message news:8jatf0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> any one knows where I can download C# for Linux?
> thanks.
> /roger
>
I don't know of *any* C# anywhere else but somewhere deep in Microsoft's R&D
department. Translation: C# is vapourware until Microsoft releases it.
But I would imagine that there will be a C# compiler for GNU/Linux, given
some time. There are already compilers for all kinds of programming
languages (with the curious exception of Java), like Eiffel, Sather, Ada,
and Pascal---most of them from GNU.
Compilers is something we have no shortage of :)
------------------------------
From: "KLH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: This is a Troll, do not resond (was Re: Linux is junk)
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:15:15 -0700
This is a Troll. Do not respond.
Reason: This guy is griping too much. I never had as much problems with
GNU/Linux as this guy has and they all are rather simple to avoid or fix
with a little RTFM.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: This is a Troll, do not resond (was Re: Linux is junk)
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 22:30:41 GMT
DING DING DING...LINUX DAMAGE CONTROL!!!!!!!
Sure it hurts when Linux is exposed for the piece of trash that it is.
Accept it and go to the setup groups and actually try and help people
instead of denying the fact that a lot of people seem to be
complaining about and that fact is Linux sucks.
Fact is there are a lot of people complaining about the same stuff.
Linux sucks the big one.........
On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:15:15 -0700, "KLH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>This is a Troll. Do not respond.
>
>Reason: This guy is griping too much. I never had as much problems with
>GNU/Linux as this guy has and they all are rather simple to avoid or fix
>with a little RTFM.
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: This is a Troll, do not resond (was Re: Linux is junk)
Reply-To: the wobbler
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 22:35:15 GMT
Griping too much?
I tried Linux and it didn't recognize one piece of
hardware I had.
A total waste of time.
You can take Linux and stuff it up your ass where
it belongs.
On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:15:15 -0700, "KLH"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>This is a Troll. Do not respond.
>
>Reason: This guy is griping too much. I never had as much problems with
>GNU/Linux as this guy has and they all are rather simple to avoid or fix
>with a little RTFM.
>
------------------------------
From: Michael Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How many times, installation != usability.
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 22:41:41 GMT
Tim Palmer wrote:
> I'd rather go into a computer store, pick up the first kind of what I need that I
>see, and bye it insted of worrying wether its on the HCL or not.
Guess you never used NT then either. It lacks in hardware support often
more then Linux does.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
"The day that Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is the day
that they
start making vacuum cleaners." - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
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: 27 Jun 2000 22:47:19 GMT
On 27 Jun 2000 17:46:21 GMT, Henry Blaskowski wrote:
>In talk.politics.libertarian FM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You are right. Of course, having conceded that, I now have the
>right to all your property, because you don't own it, the government
>(we the people) does.
What kind of drivel is this ? You *DO* own your house.
You *DON'T* own your software. You own an exclusive, government granted
right to make copies of the software.
One could invent some notion of creative content as property, but the
precedent both legal and philosophical is much greater for tangible property.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy lies....
Date: 27 Jun 2000 22:47:23 GMT
Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I halve a Linux machine that goes down every day because of Netscape.
>
Then you are the biggest fucking idiot who has ever lived, bar none.
Your linux box isnt going down because of netscape, its going down because
youre an idiot...if its even going down at all...which is to say, if it
even exists...
Which of course, it doesnt.
Quit making up stories, troll.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: 27 Jun 2000 22:49:29 GMT
Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Are you telling me that corporate customers should spend billions
>>of dollars on Windows 2000 only to have it rendered useless junk
>>in 2 years? Are you saying that the $200 billion in Windows 98
>>PC sales should be written off this year because ME will render it
>>obsolete in 9 months? -- Thank you, I'm glad I'm using Linux.
>
> I'm saying peepal want the best tecknollagy there is, and that
> tecknollagy requiars the latest hardware.
>
Hmmm. The best technology there is doesnt seem to be able to help
you spell any better.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: 27 Jun 2000 22:50:25 GMT
Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 26 Jun 2000 10:56:30 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>On 26 Jun 2000 06:29:45 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:17:15 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>> 2) Presentation
>>>>>> Fonts are ugly. I know it is an old issue (since I first tried Linux in the
>>>>>> mid 90s). I understand that this is a patent X problem. Saw some paper on
>>>>>> the xfree website to improve matters, but no real action. Won't be
>>>>>> surprised if it takes another few years to solve this problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>read the font deuglification HOWTO
>>>>
>>>>I have a better solution: Run Windows 2000.
>>>
>>> Got an extra $300 he could have?
>>
>>That gets you a bare OS - not even a compiler. You'd need a few
>>thousand at least to match the functionality of the things included
>>in almost every Linux distribution.
>
> James wants fonts that don't look like shit. Windows has them. Lie-nux doesn't.
>
Actually, youre wrong. Linux *does*.
You dont know what youre talking about.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Linux is junk
Date: 27 Jun 2000 22:52:02 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> He sure is a fucking retard, for trying Linux in the first place.
>
> He got what he deserved.
>
I see you're pretty dumb yourself. Whats the matter, couldnt figure
out linux? Can you tie your own shoes yet?
=====yttrx
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 18:55:02 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Tim Palmer wrote:
> >
> >With Microsoft, there is too much performance overhead to using
> >multiple processes, which means that you have to hard link every
> >component into a single monolithic application.
>
> There is a preformmence hit on UNIX too, thats' why UNIX is slower.
>
Unix (including Linux) processes are much lighter than Windows processes. A context
switch
is very fast on Unix. A Windows context switch is very slow which is why Windows
apps are
forced to use threads in places where processes would offer better stability. Again
you
have shown your total ignorance.
>
>
>
> >The search engines used by the web were
> >originally developed by Brewster Kahle, Paul Duehring, and the
> >others at Thinking Machines - developers of the first massively
> >parallel computers with over 1000 processors. Microsoft is bragging
> >that it can limp along with 8 SMP processors, while UNIX and Linux
> >have MPI and PVM capaabilities that can exploit thousands of concurrent
> >processors.
>
> In a singal machine? Didn't think so.
Ever here of an SP2? How about ASCI White? I didn't think so. 8192 processors
running
AIX.
http://www.llnl.gov/asci/platforms/white/
Again you show your total ignorance.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 27 Jun 2000 22:57:26 GMT
On 27 Jun 2000 17:43:16 GMT, Henry Blaskowski wrote:
>Group huddle again, MS bashers... previously it was defined as
>"non-server Intel-based PC operating systems". You guys gotta
>get your stories straight.
The people that disagree with you are not some kind of borg collective.
They do not speak with one voice.
If you can show me a single place where *I* have changed my story,
please do so.
Otherwise, cease and desist from constructing half-assed straw men based
on something that somebody else posted.
>Of course it does.... I know many people who have dumped Windows in
>favor of Linux.
Those "many" are an overwhelming minority of the user base.
> That's the definition of "compete" -- if the one
>product can replace the other. It happens all the time, and is
>occurring more frequently. This seems to be the basis of the
>case against MS: ignore all the real competitors.
Linux's market share on the desktop is extremely small, possibly less
than 1% ( or so the Windows advocates tell us ).
Given these circumstances, I cannot with a straight face call it a competitor
to Win98.
>> Sun do not make a product that competes with Windows 98.
>
>Of course they do. Businesses are faced with the option of which
>to choose all the time.
Yeah, sure. They all agonise over whether to put Suns on the secretary's
desktop or PCs. I'm sure it's a tough choice !
>Ignoring the real world just demonstrates the total lack of
>integrity in the case against MS. This pretend game of acting
Who is ignoring the real world ? Linux is a serious competitor to
Windows on the desktop, with its infinitesmal market share ? Solaris
is also a serious competitor as a desktop OS ? Give me a break.
>like those other companies don't matter is really sort of sickening,
>it lacks a reasonable moral basis,
It has a FACTUAL basis, unlike your arguments. The factual basis is this --
the desktop market share of the so called "competitors" to MS is
insignificant.
>> Java doesn't compete with Windows 98.
>
>Not exactly directly, but Java can make Windows obsolete once
>internet connections get fast enough.
Nonsense. Java does not remove the need for an OS since it runs client side.
> When you applications can
>run on any machine without recompiling, those other choices that
>you tried to ignore above become even more viable.
So java removes barriers to competition. In theory. But it is not in itself
competition. And in fact it is not even a terribly good language for
developing typical end-user applications.
>What? I've listed a set of products that are direct threats to
>MS's dominance.
I'm dissappointed that you can't do any better than that. The fact that you
raise Linux and Solaris as "threats" to MS's dominance on the desktop
makes my point.
> They are companies that MS worries about every day.
They are worried more about server market share than desktop market share.
They are worried, because in some ways, NT is still an underdog.
>You can pretend that they are no threat, but it just makes you
>look foolish and demonstrates an ignorance of the industry.
Whatever.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 19:02:26 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy
Tim Palmer wrote:
> I halve a Linux machine that goes down every day because of Netscape.
That is so obviously a lie. If you had said Netscape crashes every day , that would
be believable, But Netscape crashing will not bring down Linux. You should really
try to come up
with more convincing lies. You are really bad at it.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: This is a Troll, do not resond (was Re: Linux is junk)
Date: 27 Jun 2000 23:04:31 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Fact is there are a lot of people complaining about the same stuff.
And if COLA is any indication, all those people complaining about the
same stuff are...you.
--
David Steinberg -o)
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,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: 27 Jun 2000 23:05:34 GMT
On 27 Jun 2000 17:30:39 GMT, Henry Blaskowski wrote:
>>>The "voluntary, consensual" contracts have already been discussed. We
>>> do not believe that they are substantially more voluntary and consensual
>>> than anal rape at gun point.
>
>You owe rape victims everywhere an apology. You ought to be ashamed
>of yourself. You are disgusting.
Great, when you have no argument, resort to insults.
Sorry, I don't see why saying that something is not voluntary and consensual
requires me to apologise to rape victims, or for that matter, anyone else. I
don't believe my post condoned rape, or belittled the suffering of rape
victims. My post addressed whether something was consensual or not, the degree
of consent was being compared, not the degree of suffering. So if I've
belittled anyone, it's people who've had a gun pointed at their head. Perhaps
I should apologise to them. But then, the "gun at the head" metaphor is
widely used.
If a rape victim were to follow up to my post with a demand for an
apology, I might take this seriously, but as it is, I'm just chalking this
up as a petty attempt on your part to score points.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
