Linux-Advocacy Digest #471, Volume #27 Wed, 5 Jul 00 10:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Phillip Lord)
Re: C# is a copy of java (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Open Source Programmers Demonstrate Incompetence (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Where did all my windows go? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: I hope you trolls are happy... (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Distribution reviews (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Microsoft .Net (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Where did all my windows go? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: CommyLinux vs Microsoft (Tim Kelley)
Re: CommyLinux vs Microsoft (was: Re: Windows98) (Tim Kelley)
Re: OS's ... (Neil Cerutti)
Re: Where did all my windows go? (Pete Goodwin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 05 Jul 2000 12:46:15 +0100
>>>>> "Hyman" == Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hyman> If the large disempowered group shares enough common
Hyman> interests, why doesn't someone take advantage of that by
Hyman> running for office on a platform which will appeal to those
Hyman> people? Those people still have a vote each, don't they?
It takes a large amount of money to run for office as I have
said before. And voting can change things but there are strict limits
on what it can change. We both live in capitalist democracies. The two
ethos's (how do you pluralise ethos!) are often contradictory.
Hyamn> And why is the gap between the richest and poorest a good
Hyamn> measure of anything?
Its a measure of the distribution of the power of an
individual to affect their own circumstances.
>> To me to argue that people are free to make many money so
>> therefore we live in a free society comes very much under the
>> "let them eat cake" style of arguing.
Hyman> And your arguments seem to say that poor people are poor
Hyman> because there are other people interested in keeping them
Hyman> that way. That is no more rational than "let them eat cake".
Well indeed this is of course the case. Again for instance
in the late 70's and the early 80's unemployment in the UK went up
from 1 million to 3 million. We have reasonable evidence now that this
was a deliberate policy on behalf of the government to force wages
downwards, which of course it did. We are told nowadays that full
employment, or even full housing is not possible. I do not understand
this. If we could have full employment during WWII, for the purpose of
killing Germans, I can see no reason why we can have full employment
now for building houses for the homeless.
Hyman> People are paid for their work by other people who need that
Hyman> work
But the majority of the wealth is held by a few people. Hence
their needs are considered much more important than others. Which is
why I who write programs which may help in the diagnosis of disease
get paid about one fifth of the salary of someone who writes programs
which calculate pension plans for stockbrokers. Disease is sadly not
limited to the rich. Indeed it is over represented in the poorer
sections of the population.
Hyman> and that payment is proportional to the number of people who
Hyman> are available to do that work and to the value that the work
Hyman> has for the person doing the paying.
I am aware of the economic theory. The practice is very
very different. The "market" is not some free moving force of nature,
but by and large a bunch of chinless wonders in red braces. The
current "dot-com" crap is a good example. The "value" of these
companies exists currently only in the minds of the investors.
Hyman> When that is not the case, the free market steps in the guise
Hyman> of someone who does the job for less money.
Not at all. I'm sure you saw some of the howls from the US
when it was suggested that more green cards for foreign programmers
would be a good idea. Turns out that if a company wants to relocate
from the US to the UK (or vice versa) that is okay. But if I want to
relocate? Or worse if a Indian wants to relocate? Where is the free
market then?
Hyman> You seem to be advocating a society where force would be used
Hyman> to insure that nurses got paid more than brokers, etc. Is
Hyman> that going to be any less rigidly and hierarchically
Hyman> controlled, or just more to your liking?
As it happens I just pointed out that the are many problems
with our society. I did not say how I think things could be
improved. Our society has changed before, and it will change again. I
do not think that blind faith in the "free market" will change it for
the better however.
>> These are real issues and things that we need to address if we
>> want our society to be stable, and "kinder and gentler". Its a
>> pity that you have to reduce attempts to discuss these ideas to
>> the caricature position of "giving everyone the right to start a
>> magazine at the cost of someone else".
Hyman> You are attempting to invalidate my arguments by labelling
Hyman> them as caricatures. I believe we are now in the "spin" stage
Hyman> of the discussion.
That was not my intention, and I have no desire to spin
anything. You were implying an argument from me that I never made, and
that was a caricature of my position. At least that is how I see
it.
Phil
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: C# is a copy of java
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 07:56:32 -0400
"Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
>
> In article <8jt8ta$ie3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You mean you don't like:
> > char *foo="abcd"; foo[2];
> > and
> > "abcd"[2];
> > and
> > 2["abcd"];
> > to all mean the same thing?
>
> Too right. That sort of programming (along with beauties like
> *("abcd"+2) and its ilk) is abused so much more than it is used
> properly. Hence, you're better off without it. I've lost count of
> the number of times someone has done cute address arithmetic because
> it was slightly faster and saved a few bytes on some particular
> architecture (never mind the fact that it blows up in your face on
> others...) Grrr...
>
> If a language is so uncontrolled that using a debugger is an everyday
> occurrence, something is deeply wrong. IMHO at least. Trading a bit
Nah. C was designed the way it is for very specific reasons.
The DESIGNERS of the language are no more responsible for misuse
of legal syntax structure than GM is responsible for drunken drivers.
> of speed for greatly increased safety from bizarre code is a good
> thing in my view. There are good reasons why not many people write in
> assembler any more...
>
> Donal.
> --
> Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
> realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
> -- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
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.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Open Source Programmers Demonstrate Incompetence
Date: 5 Jul 2000 11:32:41 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think you mean font of wisdom (I apologide it was just a typo).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Is that Times or Helvetica? Or Zapf Dingbats? :^)
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 12:12:26 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Well, ignoring most of the drivel in your post Charlie, how is it that
> everything I've tried on Windows 2000 still works. If WIN32 was
> completely rewritten from scratch, why does everything still work?
I figured your mainly using a PC for a nightlight.
But seriously, I didn't say Windows 2000 couldn't post to Newsgroups.
You seem to post to this one every 5 minutes.
Tell me, how many reboots a day would that be Pete?
>
>
> Why does a device driver I've created work on Windows 98 SE, Windows Me
> and Windows 2000? This is a WDM driver BTW. If they had rewritten
> Windows 2000, I would expect Device Drivers to be the first thing to
> break.
>
> Have you got any statement from Microsoft where they say Windows 2000 is
> a complete rewrite of Windows NT? Unlikely since when you boot Windows
> 2000 it states quite clearly "Based on Windows NT technology".
Why yes. And it's just a coincidence that everybody else who replied
to this item seeminly agrees.
>
>
> > Okay. So you have mentioned 95, and NT then.
> > Can't remember talking about 98 SE then? Or perhaps
> > you don't want to reference it because I didn't.
> >
> > That's extremely convinent.
>
> Yes I have talked about Windows 98 SE, but you didn't mention that in
> your post.
>
> > I'm hitting on the fact that your totally full of bullshit.
>
> You're hitting on something alright.
>
> > Do you really feel all the people on COLA are brainless assholes?
>
> No I don't believe that. Please stop putting words into my mouth.
>
> > That's why most of the things NT used to do for us don't work
> > under 2000. Simple things like com port support.
>
> Again not true. "most things" do still work on Windows 2000.
>
> > Part of the reason many calls wouldn't work anymore Pete was
> > due to their changing the programming interfaces.
>
> See above.
>
> > Others on newer technology didn't work as their OS wasn't debugged
> > thoroughly.
>
> That's a different story. WDM works just fine; WDM is new technology.
Interesting that after only 2 bulletins you agree with me.
Otherwise, "That's a different story" wouldn't even be in here.
>
>
> > Again, do you feel we are all brainless assholes here on COLA?
>
> Again, I don't believe that. Is that something you believe?
>
> > > >More people have heard of Microsoft and Windows then they have of
> > > >Hitler these days.
> > >
> > > Comparing Microsoft to Hitler is really stretching it a bit Charlie.
> >
> > I found it very entertaining that you would make the physical
> connection
> > with Hitler and Microsoft Pete. I merely said more people have heard
> > of Microsoft than Hitler. Didn't say a damn thing about Microsoft
> > being Hitler....
> >
> > You did.
>
> True because you inferred it in your post. You mentioned "hitler" in the
> same breath as "Microsoft".
>
> > But this seems to be your chief complaint about Linux isn't it?
> >
> > Not being able to read manuals and the such.
>
> Which one: lack of support or my alleged inability to read manuals and
> such?
How about Windows doesn't even have a God Damn manual Pete?
>
>
> --
> ---
> Pete
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Pete,
I think I've adequately demonastrated my point to the common man
that you are a brainless Wintroll.
And I'm not going to guarantee a response in the future because
frankly, your so stupid, it's putting me to sleep.
Bill, You need another guy here.
Don't pick somebody from the former cast of the Young Ones
to work for you anymore.
Try, Absolutely Fabulous next time. Might give us something
to strive for.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I hope you trolls are happy...
Date: 5 Jul 2000 12:50:30 GMT
Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: On 30 Jun 2000 18:44:10 GMT, Brian Langenberger
: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>I went out and bought a nice Logitech PS2/USB one, plugged it in,
:>adjusted a couple of config files and had no trouble since.
: No... There is where you are wrong. You're not susposed to edit any
: config files. As far as I'm concerned, Linux does not support wheel
: mice unless they just work.
: Windows has been doing this for many years now.
Ahh, this must be a definition of "work" of which I was not
previously aware. If we take this definition to its logical
extreme, we get:
User: "Why doesn't Office work in Windows?"
Tech: "Did you put in the CD?"
User: "No, and I shouldn't have to. It should just work!"
Fortunately, most people have a very different definition
under which wheeled mice fall very nicely under Linux.
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Distribution reviews
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 08:11:16 -0500
Cameron Kerr wrote:
> PS. The site is designed to be low-bandwidth, without compromising on
> looks
This is a killer idea whose time is not at an end. I know that
broadband is available in a lot of areas, but I'm sick of seeing sites
that take almost a full minute to bring up a page. Not everyone has
broadband available to them. Many areas don't have it available for
less than $225/month (current cost here of 56K frame relay, cheapest
access in our area if you don't live in the DSL availability area). I
think a lot of web developers forget that not the entire world has the
same speed internet connection as they do. It's too bad too. There are
so few sites that are actually viewable at 56K dialup speeds. It makes
"surfing" the web more like "crawling" the web.
Of course, that's just my opinion.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft .Net
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 13:21:52 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I happened to read all about the Microsoft .Net stuff. I am still
> unclear what are they tring to drive at
> Can somebody explain what it means clearly. They a relying heavily on
> XML backend to facilitate sharing among
> different people. Is that what its all about.?
Basically, there are two aspects to this "innovation".
First, if you look at most of the Linux applications, there is a
front-end "client" component, which is either a web browser client,
a CORBA client, or an X11 client, which is then interfaced to a
back-end server process. In Linux and UNIX, processes are so cheap
that this approach is very cost effective. Therefore Microsoft.Net
is in many way yet another rip-off of Linux and UNIX being marketed
as a Microsoft "Innovation".
Of course, Microsoft wouldn't be happy just cloning an existing
application. Microsoft intends to embrace the server concept and
extend it with the standard Microsoft proprietary, nondisclosure
protected, ultra-secret software probably written in some abomination
like C#. Somewhere, buried in the bowels of this would be some XML
loaded with embedded in-line ActiveX controls. Of course, the
ActiveX controls would be authenticated by a Kerberos system that
has been "extended" with Verisign and Authenticode so that Microsoft
has the ability to override your internal Kerberos server.
The net result, Microsoft tries to extend it's monopoly into the
server market by forcing all ISPs and corporate users to purchase
Windows 2000 Servers and Workstations, this forces users to upgrade
to Millenium Edition, and eventually Microsoft does an end run around
the judge by putting all it's bundleware in the servers (which are
a very competitive market - at this time - - - and then putting a
trivial but proprietary client into the workstations and PCs ranging
from good old Pentium machines to WebTV, WinCE, and whatever other
hardware package Microsoft can sneak under the judges nose.
Microsoft can then use it's "upgrades" to shred any functionality that
might be even remotely compatible with Linux or UNIX in either
workstation or server, take over the market, and achieve total
control of the world's information infrastructure.
That seems to be their plan. Actually the end goal hasn't changed
in nearly 20 years, but the tactics have to change.
Meanwhile, Microsoft is trying every legal trick in the book to
prevent OEMs from installing both Linux and Windows in the same
machine. Linux still generally needs a dual-boot system to support
Windows-centric corporations. Of course, if Windows-centric
corporations suddenly realize that they could add approximately
10% of payroll to their EPS and pay the other 10% in raises and
bonuses to retain top people, they might be less willing to let
Microsoft dictate their infrastructure and architecture.
The fact is that every advantage Microsoft.Net offers is available
to both Windows and Linux users right now. Sure, to get KDE clients
into the Windows platform you need to either buy the Windows KDE
libraries or the Cygnus Linux compatibility for Windows kit, and
you context switching would be much slower on Windows, but it's much
simpler than waiting 2-4 years for "Next Generation" (NG) like we
waited nearly 4 years for "New Technology" (NT).
Unfortunatly, there are thousands of top corporate executives who
will put everything on hold waiting for Microsoft to come and pick
their pockets clean before delivering an inferior, insecure, unstable,
unreliable, disfunctional product.
At the same time, there will be a whole new breed of executives
that exploit Linux and UNIX technology and simply outmaneuver their
Windows-centric competition.
While Microsoft put the world on hold for it's release of Windows NT,
an AOL like dial-up single-vendor exchange based network, and
the ability to quickly view macrovirus infested Office documents,
... the UNIX community grew the Internet from 2 million users in
1992 to nearly 96 million users by the time Microsoft finally came
out with it's Windows 95/IE 4.0 bundleware combination. There were
nearly 200 million users before Microsoft came out with it's
NT 4.0 server, and nearly 300 million users before it came out
with Windows 2000.
The UNIX-centric executives and enterpreneurs are now running
multibillion dollar web sites, generating nearly $1 trillion
world wide in revenue, and many of these sites are doing so at
remarkably low cost. As a profit center, Linux and UNIX sites
make a bundle, while the few large-scale Windows NT based sites
tend to bleed their companies of more in royalties and administration
fees than they seem to gain for the corporation.
Microsoft still hasn't delivered a "better UNIX than UNIX", but they
created the competition that did create Linux, which IS a better UNIX
than UNIX (when comparing the standard commercial UNIX distribution
to the standard commercial Linux distribution). Even today
Windows 2000 is "close but no cigar". So after nearly 10 years of
waiting for Microsoft to deliver, Microsoft is now announcing
a "Next Generation", appearantly abandoning the NT goal of producing
something that's recognized as clearly superior to UNIX, and simply
going back to their usual strategy of illegal anticompetitive
contracts and legal loophole diving in hopes of trying to trick
corporations into signing away another 10 years of competitive
advantages.
Meanwhile, the Gen-X, Gen-D, and tail-Boomers (those 46 and under)
are suddenly coming into power and they are very Linux-aware. These
are the folks who put Linux on their laptops, rdist up to their
web sites at the local cyber-cafe, and list their cell-phone number
as their work number. They understand the power of high-tech and
high-touch combined. They know how to work within virtual
organizations of thousands of people, and they know how to get
things done quickly.
These are the "Next Generation" executives, who aren't waiting
for Microsoft's vaporware to become a stable product 10 years
from now. They know how to deliver NOW.
More and more of the under-40 executives, administrators, and
programmers are running Linux, know about Linux, like Linux, and
use Linux on their home, laptop, and work PCs. Many aren't willing
to accept anything less.
I've recently found that many top people have reached the point
where they won't work for Windows-only companies any more. They
know they can do better with Linux and UNIX.
--
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]
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 14:36:59 +0100
On Mon, 03 Jul 2000 01:22:50 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > --
>> > 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.
>>
>> Nothing against the content of your posts mate but hows about cutting the
>> sig. One or two lines of content and >20 lines of signature is just plain
>> bad netiquette. Four lines is acceptible and good enough for most people.
>1. Since it's at the end... you don't have to look at it.
<sigh> What Roy has asked is not unreasonable. Usenet convention is
that sigs should not be more than four lines, for various good
reasons. First, because you're wasting space on newsfeeds by appending
a large quantity of the same information to every one of your posts;
second, because it costs *someone* money to transmit all that
information (and, for anyone in the UK, it costs *them* money to
download it - we haven't got to completely free Internet access yet).
Thirdly, it isn't polite: if everyone on Usenet were to play fast and
loose with convention, the whole thing would become very unusable
pretty damn quick.
Finally, this sort of behaviour does nothing to show you, or what you
post, in a good light: people reading this group will form an initial
opinion of you and the quality of your posts on the basis of such
things as overlong .sigs, and how you respond to requests to do
something about them. Given that you are posting to advocacy groups,
where personal credibility and points of view are rather more
significant than in some quiet backwater of Usenet, that should matter
to you - unless you're really not interested in sensible debate, and
are just trolling for attention.
It is to Roy's credit that he was tactful and polite in pointing out
your over-long sig - there are many people who would not have been as
courteous. Your aggressive response is in sharp contrast to his
suggestion, and serves only to discredit you further.
>2. This cuts down on the number of flames from the above-mentioned
>idiots,
> significantly reducing the need to respond to their idiocy.
So you consider it acceptable to violate netiquette because by doing
so, you hope to receive less flames? First of all, I cannot see how
that hope can justify your actions - indeed, to take this to its
logical extreme, you could justify firebombing their homes on the same
basis. Second, do you *seriously* believe that repeatedly posting the
same litany of provocation and paranoia will make *any* difference?
If you are after flame-free posting, I suggest that you go and inhabit
rec.arts.knitting. And shorten the .sig.
--
Warning: end of message imminent. Stop reading now.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 13:31:45 GMT
In article <8jup3p$1qrn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
> Of course not. But if you had even a little bit of will to actually
> try to make the operating system in question work, you would have
> found the answer to my question.
Why, what does it prove? Is chattr anything to do with anything I've
found? You're picking an example unconnected with what I'm doing!
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Kelley)
Subject: Re: CommyLinux vs Microsoft
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 13:40:48 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 2 Jul 2000 01:09:57 GMT, abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote on 1 Jul 2000 19:25:27 -0500 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>On Fri, 30 Jun 2000 20:01:22 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Actually, at the same time 'tim palmer' is indirectly shining a
>pleasant light on linux, Ive noticed that some of the linvocates
>on this newsgroup shining an equally unpleasant light by virtue
>of not understanding what true-trolling is.
>
>This is a beautiful example.
Well, I agree that trolling is an art, but I don't think Tim Palmer is
all that good: no variation. The red baiting thread based on my being
in the IWW was a nice touch, though.
If you want to see incredible trolls, you need to cruise slashdot at
-1, there is some extremely funny shit going on there sometimes.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.iww.org
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Kelley)
Subject: Re: CommyLinux vs Microsoft (was: Re: Windows98)
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 13:45:56 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 4 Jul 2000 21:11:31 GMT, Ray Chason
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Those who use "Communist" as a pejorative really mean "Stalinist."
>Stalinism is a system in which a single entity controls all industry, and
>you get to work and you get to eat only if it's OK by that single entity.
Not really, to be more precise they mean authoritarian. All Marxists
are generally authoritarian in the extreme - not just Stalinists;
state socialsm always is. And communists by no means have an
ideological monopoly on authoritarianism: capitalists are equally
authoritarian.
>
>A monopoly.
>
>Now, between Linus and Bill, who's the Stalinist?
Bill G. is a perfectly well behaved capitalist.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.iww.org
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Neil Cerutti)
Subject: Re: OS's ...
Date: 5 Jul 2000 13:54:41 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Daniel Tryba posted:
>Pim van Riezen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: WP had to play a bit of
>: catch-up, but were at a disadvantage because they had to support the same
>: program on two architectures, which resulted in WP for Windows being slow
>: as molasses at that point.
>
>Only 2 architectures?
>
>-Mac
>-Intel:
> -DOS
> -Windows
> -OS/2
> -SCO
>
>Maybe more....
I used WP 3.1 on my Amiga 500.
--
Neil Cerutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Linux on board. It is now safe to turn on your computer.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 13:40:57 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I figured your mainly using a PC for a nightlight.
> But seriously, I didn't say Windows 2000 couldn't post to Newsgroups.
> You seem to post to this one every 5 minutes.
Avoid the question all you like Charlie, just like you have in other
posts. C'mon, answer the question - please explain how Windows 2000 is
_not_ based on NT technology!
> Tell me, how many reboots a day would that be Pete?
None Charlie.
> Why yes. And it's just a coincidence that everybody else who replied
> to this item seeminly agrees.
Answer the question Charlie.
> Interesting that after only 2 bulletins you agree with me.
> Otherwise, "That's a different story" wouldn't even be in here.
Still haven't answered the question Charlie. C'mon, how exactly has
Microsoft rewritten Windows 2000 so that it is not based on NT?
> How about Windows doesn't even have a God Damn manual Pete?
Still avoiding the question.
> I think I've adequately demonastrated my point to the common man
> that you are a brainless Wintroll.
Finally you resort to insults, typical of a rent-a-rant Linux advocate.
> And I'm not going to guarantee a response in the future because
> frankly, your so stupid, it's putting me to sleep.
Then I guess I'll never get an answer to the question I posed to you.
Probable answer is you don't have one. You've done this before Charlie,
you make grandiose statements, then you don't back it up with any facts.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
