Linux-Advocacy Digest #394, Volume #27 Thu, 29 Jun 00 15:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Hyman Rosen)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (Henry Blaskowski)
Re: Linux is junk (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: CommyLinux vs Microsoft (was: Re: Windows98) (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: startx (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: M$ Exposed (was Re: Oracle's Dirty Tricks Department) ("Marcus Turner")
Re: M$ Exposed (was Re: Oracle's Dirty Tricks Department)
Re: M$ Exposed (was Re: Oracle's Dirty Tricks Department) (Bob Tennent)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
(Darren Winsper)
Re: Corel Does Nothing To Help The Linux Cause (Gary Hallock)
Re: How fast is your text? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: startx (sylvain hutchison)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 29 Jun 2000 13:25:23 -0400
Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hyman> You perception that our political systems do not openly
> Hyman> discuss ideas is simply a consequence that on divisive
> Hyman> issues, an elected representative must speak cautiously to
> Hyman> avoid offending a large number of constituents.
>
> No I don't think that this is true. There are a number of
> issues for instance that very few politicians will speak on. It is
> impossible in the UK to discuss several issues. Drugs is an obvious
> one, the Royal Family another. And the single currency is fairly
> dubious. The point is that no MP is prepared to stick their head above
> the trench because it will inevitably get shot off. So our political
> system never discusses the issue.
You say that you don't think what I said is true, and then you give
examples which confirm what I say! All you have said is that some
views are so unpopular that representatives attempting to espouse
those views would hurt their careers, so they don't do it. Perhaps
you want your MPs to discuss the possibility of occasionally offering
a virgin sacrifice to improve the economy?
> Hyman> And the right to free speech means that you may buy as much
> Hyman> speech as you are willing to pay for.
>
> And you do not see this as a problem?
No, I see this as freedom. If I am sufficiently motivated, I am
permitted to use all the resources at my disposal to convince other
people of my views. This is no guarantee that my views will be
accepted, as has been amply demonstrated by the many super-rich
candidates who have failed to win office despite expensive
self-financed campaigns.
------------------------------
From: Henry Blaskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action
Date: 29 Jun 2000 17:26:52 GMT
In talk.politics.libertarian Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>This is a naive analysis, assuming a static world. It assumes that
>>poor people are poor because there are not enough resources in the
>>world, rather than because they lack opportunity.
> Your free market theories say that competition in goods and services
> lowers prices. There is even abundant evidence that this is true. Do
> these theories not apply to wages? A sudden influx of millions of
> people to the West would surely depress wages in the short run. If
> not, you should explain why rather than resorting to ad-hominem.
Ad-hominem? Huh? Anyway, first of all, it wouldn't be a "sudden"
influx, it would occur over time. But yes, assuming that large
numbers of people came here, it could have the effect of depressing
wages *in certain sectors* of the economy. There is no reason to
believe that it would occur in *all* sectors, and in fact would,
in the long run, lead to increases in most sectors and an overall
increase. This is because newcomers will eventually purchase
things with their income, increasing demand, which drives up wages
in the industries where demand increase.
> astronomically high by world standards, and going higher every year, so
> it is hard to see how this mass migration from the third world will
> benefit me or any of my neighbors in the short run (i.e. my lifetime).
So you feel that it is moral to oppress others for your personal
gain?
> Does not your economic theory also state that it is good to act out of
> one's own self-interest?
Only within the rules of free exchange. Political oppression of others
to meet your personal goals is not good for the economy. On the
other hand, achieving your goals through voluntary consent *IS*
good for the economy overall. Locking the door to foreigners is
political oppression and hurts the economy.
>>I'm not afraid of freedom. Why are you? Do you think
>>eveyone else is smarter/harder working/better than you, and that you
>>will suffer by comparison?
> That's not an argument, that's just you being an asshole.
No at all. It's an honest question. Do you think that the rest of
the world is so much smarter than you that you fear their input
into the economy? Because I don't think it is bad for me. I think
I will do well no matter how many people are allowed in.
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is junk
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 17:23:05 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) wrote:
>
> > I'll concede that Windows is easier to LEARN! That is, if there are
> > still 5,000 rednecks in some cactus town west of waco and south of
> > Santa Fe who have never used a PC before, they could probably walk
> > up to Windows 2000, loaded with $2000 worth of software, and
> > actually
> > get to the point where they could create
> > a ransom note to mom on word,
> > a pretty picture on powerpoint, and might even be able to use excel
> > to graph the growth of 5 cows. That's believable. Heck, they might
> > even get all that done before they crashed the system. With Windows
> > 2000.
>
> Wrong analogy. The right analogy is this: you give each of those
> any-coloured necks one PC randomly chosen from the shelves of
> a randomly selected computer shop, and a Win2000 shrinkwrapped
> box with its umpteen CDs, and you tell each: now you open the
> box, and get Win2000 working. Then you call me.
This is why I specifically focused on the ability to LEARN to use
Windows (actually Microsoft Office).
If you gave someone a fully configured Linux System, complete with
fully configured KDE, Applix Office or Corel Office, and the full
compliment of Linux Distribution software, they'd get Office mastered
in a few days. The browser in a day, and then they'd get curious
about those other 200 applications in the KDE menue tree (Mandrake or
SuSE) and then they'd notice the 50-60 applications under GNOME, and
then they'd finally plop into a terminal, discover that there's a whole
bunch of ADDITIONAL applications that they can get to by typing
commands on the command line (which start older X11 applications), and
then they'd discover that there are a whole suite of applications under
CPAN - (about 500 these days) which are accessible from the web
browser.
It takes a little bit of time to teach a kindergartner "same or
different" (MS Windows/Office) it takes a bit longer to teach them
how to drive a car in New York (Linux/Offices). And full Mastery
of Linux is a bit like learning every specialty in the medical
profession. There is a great deal more available to LEARN.
Not that you HAVE to learn EVERYTHING (most people can have a
"Mac Experience" with Linux in less than an hour, with a friend
guiding them to the best goodies.
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 90 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: CommyLinux vs Microsoft (was: Re: Windows98)
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 17:38:51 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 28 Jun 2000 15:56:06 -0500 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[snip]
>And you work for the Commy IWW. You genuin COMMYLINUX BASTARD!!!!![...]
>
>Why run CommyLie-nux when you can run Cappittalist Microsoft!!!!!![...]
>
Meds, man. Take your meds.
One reason why people might run Linux is the increased reliability
for an application that does not need all of the nifty neato
useful gadgetry that Windows provides -- some of them *are*
useful, else Windows wouldn't be here.
As for capitalism...Bill Gates is now the richest man, or one of the
richest men, on the planet. While it is clear that capitalism
is a nice ideal, I'm not sure it strictly applies any longer, for
it requires competition in order to do so -- and while there is
some competition to Windows, at this time there is a perception,
at least, that Windows is the only choice, at least at the
consumer level.
I am hopeful this perception can eventually be rectified.
Ideally, Microsot would fall under its own weight and/or generate
much higher quality product -- but it will only do so if there
is competition and demand for higher quality product. If
users prefer the status quo, guess what they'll get? :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: startx
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 17:27:09 GMT
In article <8jfs2r$f7n$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to run X on my linux machine.
> All I get is a resolution of 320x204
>
> My monitor ID is CTX 1551
Which video card are you running?
Which chipset does the card use?
Which distribution are you loading?
> I ran the following command : X > /tmp/x.out 2>&1
>
> "I got Mode 640x480 needs hsynx freq of 53.01Khz deleted"
>
> I need to run X in 640x480.
>
> Any advice?
>
> Thank you
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 90 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Marcus Turner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: M$ Exposed (was Re: Oracle's Dirty Tricks Department)
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 16:47:57 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 29 Jun 2000 14:49:13 GMT, Henry Blaskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >In talk.politics.libertarian Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>>>NEW YORK (AP) -- The Oracle Corp. has confirmed it hired a detective
agency
> >>>>to investigate allies of rival Microsoft Corp., and said the work
showed
> >>>>that Microsoft paid the trade and policy groups to ``influence''
public
> >>>>opinion during its federal antitrust trial.
> >
> >> Welcome to Washington DC.
> >
> >What's funny about this is that earlier in this thread, the MS bashers
> >called me all sorts of names for claiming that politics and influence
> >had anything to do with this trial, and claimed that federal judges
> >were above this sort of petty politics. Now they are claiming that
> >this 'proves' that MS influenced the trial and apparently corrupted
> >the judge. Once again, this is typical of the MS bashers -- their
>
> Actually, Oracle is only doing what the yellow journalists
> and muckrackers should already be doing in this instance.
> They must all be asleep at their posts...
Perhaps you should focus on the fact that while Oracle has made accusations,
they have provided no proof. Of anything.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: M$ Exposed (was Re: Oracle's Dirty Tricks Department)
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 18:00:29 GMT
On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 16:47:57 GMT, Marcus Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On 29 Jun 2000 14:49:13 GMT, Henry Blaskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >In talk.politics.libertarian Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>>>NEW YORK (AP) -- The Oracle Corp. has confirmed it hired a detective
>agency
>> >>>>to investigate allies of rival Microsoft Corp., and said the work
>showed
>> >>>>that Microsoft paid the trade and policy groups to ``influence''
>public
>> >>>>opinion during its federal antitrust trial.
>> >
>> >> Welcome to Washington DC.
>> >
>> >What's funny about this is that earlier in this thread, the MS bashers
>> >called me all sorts of names for claiming that politics and influence
>> >had anything to do with this trial, and claimed that federal judges
>> >were above this sort of petty politics. Now they are claiming that
>> >this 'proves' that MS influenced the trial and apparently corrupted
>> >the judge. Once again, this is typical of the MS bashers -- their
>>
>> Actually, Oracle is only doing what the yellow journalists
>> and muckrackers should already be doing in this instance.
>> They must all be asleep at their posts...
>
>Perhaps you should focus on the fact that while Oracle has made accusations,
>they have provided no proof. Of anything.
Actually, one of the shill-tanks in question openly admitted to
having M$ on their board.
Do you think Oracle should put up a webpage or perhaps have a
primetime network special?
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Tennent)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: M$ Exposed (was Re: Oracle's Dirty Tricks Department)
Date: 29 Jun 2000 18:08:02 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 16:47:57 GMT, Marcus Turner wrote:
>
>>
>> Actually, Oracle is only doing what the yellow journalists
>> and muckrackers should already be doing in this instance.
>> They must all be asleep at their posts...
>
>Perhaps you should focus on the fact that while Oracle has made accusations,
>they have provided no proof. Of anything.
>
>
The New York Times and the Wall St. Journal saw enough to make them
publish the claims as facts. What kind of "proof" did you want?
Let MS sue the New York Times if they think the allegations
are slanderous.
------------------------------
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
Date: 29 Jun 2000 18:10:24 GMT
On 29 Jun 2000 17:26:52 GMT, Henry Blaskowski wrote:
>influx, it would occur over time. But yes, assuming that large
>numbers of people came here, it could have the effect of depressing
>wages *in certain sectors* of the economy.
... Including all the sectors in which the new arrivals are
qualified to work in.
> There is no reason to
>believe that it would occur in *all* sectors,
No, only "almost all". You're fooling yourself if you think that the
migrants would just complacently take the low end jobs and let the
natives hold on to the skilled jobs. As it stands, the Indian and Chinese
immigrants are typically taking H1B jobs ( which means that the job requires
a University degree )
> and in fact would,
>in the long run, lead to increases in most sectors and an overall
>increase.
> This is because newcomers will eventually purchase
>things with their income, increasing demand, which drives up wages
>in the industries where demand increase.
This is flawed reasoning. The problem here is that the *spending per capita*
will not actually increase, but it will decrease as a result of high
unemployment. Instead of "stimulating" the economy, you will shoot it.
>> astronomically high by world standards, and going higher every year, so
>> it is hard to see how this mass migration from the third world will
>> benefit me or any of my neighbors in the short run (i.e. my lifetime).
>
>So you feel that it is moral to oppress others for your personal
>gain?
The government are not "oppressing" anyone by limiting immigration. They
are acting on a resounding mandate from their constituents, the vast
majority of whom want limits on immigration. So the government are not
imposing their will on others, they are merely representing the best interests
of their people.
As for the Americans only choosing to let so many people in -- well they are
not obliged to let anyone in any more than I am obliged to let homeless people
squat in my back yard.
> Political oppression of others
>to meet your personal goals is not good for the economy. On the
There are oppressors, but they are not in the US. The oppressors are in
the countries that people keep running away from.
>other hand, achieving your goals through voluntary consent *IS*
>good for the economy overall.
> Locking the door to foreigners is
>political oppression and hurts the economy.
(a) You haven't demonstrated that it hurts the economy. Most economists
would disagree with you.
(b) More "voluntary consent", huh ? Well if you want to talk about "voluntary
consent, perhaps you should also talk about immigrants getting "voluntary
consent" from the country they wish to enter prior to entering.
On one hand, you act as though corporations and individuals have the
right to grant or deny priveliges, but it seems that the government
is some kind of "bogey man" that has no such right. However, in this
instance, let me remind you that the government is actually acting on
a resounding mandate from their constituents.
>No at all. It's an honest question. Do you think that the rest of
>the world is so much smarter than you that you fear their input
>into the economy?
I'd be scared of ending up on the same salary as a Chinese professor. The
greater concern is not of being replaced by those more skilled at
ones profession; it is the possibility of wage drops.
> Because I don't think it is bad for me. I think
>I will do well no matter how many people are allowed in.
I don't think it adds up. I don't think the world can support your living
standards * 6 billion. What do you think would happen to gas prices if
everyone in China all of a sudden had a car ? Did it occur to you that
if every country on the planet uses more oil than they can produce, it
becomes a problem ?
What do you think
the environmental impact of 6 billion getting an air conditioner, a
computer, and a refrigerator would be ?
I'm not trying to argue that the world can't support better living standards
for everyone. My point is that simply bringing more people to America doesn't
really solve the problem.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy?
Date: 29 Jun 2000 18:24:25 GMT
On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 11:44:42 GMT, John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ditto mine. Funny that when you have a G3. ;-) MS have always
> follwed Apple's successes. In fact MS always follow anyone's success.
> That's why they are successful themselves - they wait and see what
> others do then copy or buy it. I figure they are hoping GPL loses in
> court sometime so they can start MS/Linux. (That was a gratuitous
> troll).
Even if the GPL was struck down in court, I doubt it would be in such a
way that people could do whatever they want with 'former GPL' code.
Instead, everyone would likely just lose the right to use the code at
all.
Yes, I do know it was a jokey troll, but the whole "The GPL is/isn't
valid" thing will have rather large effects should it get to court. If
it is upheld by the court, people will have much sharper teeth to bite
violaters. I doubt it will be completely struck down, since it is a
distribution license rather than a usage license. People may use GPLed
software however they like, but code under the GPL must be distributed
under the terms of the GPL.
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your bit?
This message was typed before a live studio audience.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 14:43:11 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Corel Does Nothing To Help The Linux Cause
Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>
>
> As far as users vs applications and which needs to come first: If you
> actually think making things run crappily on Linux using Wine is the way
> to get users, I think IMO you are mistaken. People will see that it
> runs slower and less stable under the emulation layer on Linux and
> assume that Linux sux (as the WinLovers are always saying). They won't
> care that there is emulation, the impression will be that Linux sux
> because program XYZ runs so much slower on Linux than it does on
> Windows. Once again proving that Linux is just a cheap clone of
> Windows. This is not the way to make Linux progress. If they can
> manage to get Wine running apps just as fast as they do natively (like
> FreeBSD can do with Linux apps), or faster, then I might not feel this
> way. But the way it is, Linux looks more every day like a cheap Windows
> knockoff, not something I want to see happening. And I really don't
> think I'm the only one.
>
> Nathaniel Jay Lee
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Nathaniel Jay Lee
I have found that running apps under Wine is not slower and even sometimes
faster than running under Windows. Wine is not an emulator and it does not
have the overhead of an emulator. But you do have to be careful about the copy
of Wine you get. Many Wine binaries that you can download are compiled with
debug enabled. If you get a copy compiled with full optimization and no debug
or if you compile it yourself it can be very fast.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: How fast is your text?
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 18:48:14 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Rich C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Wed, 28 Jun 2000 16:36:24 -0400 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>gLiTcH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> and if i'm not mistaken you are still in windows mode with that fulll
>screen
>> dos window
>> Just because it is full screen doesn't mean you are totally in text mode
>now.
>>
>> He means with no Windows in the background slowing it down, which you
>might be
>> able to hit F8 at bootup to get the menu and select Command Prompt only
>but I
>> don't know if NT has that option or not.
>
>But he ran the Linux test in an xterm, which meant (I assume) that X was
>also running in the background.
It was running; dunno about 'background'. I start up X using
'startx -- -bpp 16', usually.
I also ran it in a console (CTL-ALT-F2), but hadn't bothered to kill X
during that run. Not that it would have made much, if any, difference,
apart from memory usage, AFAIK.
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: sylvain hutchison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: startx
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 15:02:16 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to run X on my linux machine.
> All I get is a resolution of 320x204
>
> My monitor ID is CTX 1551
> I ran the following command : X > /tmp/x.out 2>&1
>
> "I got Mode 640x480 needs hsynx freq of 53.01Khz deleted"
>
> I need to run X in 640x480.
>
> Any advise?
>
Yes do what I did, can you get in X-windows at all?? If you can once
you're in, the command is ctrl alt + or - to diminish the resolution
size, however, if you redoot your machine, you'll have to do over and
over again. So you have to go into the configuration (I think it's
called FX86Config or something like that, and you should find that in
your usr/lib/X11 if applicable) and delete the all the resolution sizes
that are too small, because when you do restart your computer it will
start with the smallest resolution size.
If you can't even get in, try startx -- -bpp 16. taht should get you in
but won't solve the problem.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
