Linux-Advocacy Digest #773, Volume #27 Wed, 19 Jul 00 08:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... ("David Brown")
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? ("David Brown")
Linux = Yet Another Unix (.)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451743 (Tholen) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. ("David Brown")
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it ("Boris")
version control in Linux (Eager Learner)
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451743 (Tholen) (tinman)
Re: version control in Linux ("1$Worth")
Re: Advocacy and Programmers... ("Davorin Mestric")
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (Phillip Lord)
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (Phillip Lord)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it ("Stuart Fox")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Phillip Lord)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Phillip Lord)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Phillip Lord)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling
Too Harsh
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 10:15:11 +0200
Christopher Smith wrote in message <8l2m12$ci4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
>>
>> Huh?? You really are a terrible reader. My quote of the article
>> clearly indicates what BASIC was intended to be useful for: training
>> beginners how to program.
>
>And this stops it being useful.........how ?
>
It does not stop BASIC from being useful - it works OK as a general purpose
language for small programs, and is very good for teaching (although there
are better languages for beginners). But there are a great many tasks for
which it is not really suitable. As an analogy, consider learning to ride a
bike. As a child, you probably had a small bike with 1 or maybe 3 gears.
Its fine for learning, but you grow out of it. Sure, as an adult you could
probably still use it, though it would be uncomfortable and slow, and
unsuitable for long distances. But for casual use, you would buy a bigger
bike with more flexibility (gears, luggage rack over the back wheel, lights,
etc.). For specialists uses, you would use a mountain bike, a racer, a bmx,
or whatever.
The main reason Basic is so popular on Windoze is that a certain meglomaniac
thinks he is one of the world's greatest programmers, yet has not progressed
beyond Basic - if it is good enough for him, it is good enough to ram down
the throats of everyone else.
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 10:25:48 +0200
Drestin Black wrote in message ...
>>
>> VB is certainly easier to write GUI's in than C++, at least Visual C++.
>> But somethings the reverse is true - you wouldn't write a device driver
>> in VB, or an OS.
>
I find C++ much easier for writing GUI apps in Windows than VB. But then, I
use a real C++ GUI environment - C++ Builder. Even easier is Delphi - you
get most (not quite all, but most) of the features and power of C++, a
language that is easier and more consistent than BASIC ever was, with a RAD
enviroment that leaves VB standing in the dust.
The "Visual" in "Visual C++" was only added so that all those VB users who
could do a little VB programming would think "C++ is better than BASIC.
Visual C++ must be as easy to use as Visual BASIC. Lets buy Visual C++ !".
VC++ has always been far more popular to buy than it has in use.
------------------------------
Subject: Linux = Yet Another Unix
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 08:25:32 GMT
Linux = Yet Another Unix. I think that every one of these Linux cult
members should be sentenced to one year of having to perform tech support
for end-users of that OS. Then they could explain to the average user why
Linux STILL does not seamlessly support common hardware, such a S3-based
graphics. Explain to the end-user how to compile/install a framebuffer
SVGA kernel. Expain what a modeline is...Need a parallel port ZIP drive?
Say the magic words and type the completely cryptic commands and no
problem!! Right?? Red Hat vs. Mandrake vs. SuSE vs. whatever....standing
in MicroCenter and seeing the puzzled looks as normal people try to decide
WHICH Linux is better. Just bought Code Warrior? Doesn't work with your
X-Server because you have an S3 Trio 3D video card and have to use frame
buffering? Oh well....explain THAT one. Just purchased Accelerated X and
it also does not function, even though there is not a HINT on the box of
unsupported hardware? Oh well....
Linux will NEVER succeed in the common marketplace until it can LOSE THE
HARDWARE COMPATIBILITY LIST!! PEOPLE DON'T CARE ABOUT HCLs!!! THEY JUST
WANT IT TO WORK!! MICROSOFT WORKS!! GET IT YET????
Unix has been around for 30 years and has not "revolutionized" the computer
world. It never will because the Unix world is run by cultists rather than
business people.
What a JOKE!!
--
Identity is of no importance
or relevance. Get over it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 09:55:48 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Said Lee Hollaar in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>>Under the 1909 Copyright Act, effective until the end of 1977, you had
>>to publish the work with notice and register the work for Federal copyright.
>>If it's just in your imagination, it's not published.
>>
>>Under the 1976 Act, you had to fix the work in a tangible medium of
>>expression for Federal copyright to subsist (17 USC 102(a)). Again,
>>in one's imagination is not fixation in a tangible medium of expression.
>
> Ah, but the real question is not whether 'in your imagination' is
> 'fixed', as that is merely an idea, and ideas can't be copyrighted. The
> real question is what *is* "fixed". Does writing a program that
> requires a library which has not yet been coded but must, by definition,
> already be "worked out", not 'fix' the intellectual property of the
> library, if only in the tangible medium of the program?
Not quite. If I invent a couple of citations from a still-to-be-written
novel, I haven't acquired the copyright to that novel.
What you can do is assert your copyright over the API, even if the
library isn't written. The implication, AFAIK, would be that
someone else cannot copy the API, but is still free to implement
or use the API. IIRC, Intel's 8080 instruction set mnemonics were
copyrighted (the concept predated 1977), so Zilog had to invent
new mnemonics for the Z80, but that didn't stop them from implementing
an enhanced copy of the 8080. It also didn't stop Lee Osborne
from publishing a book on how to program the 8080.
--
Stefaan
--
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.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451743 (Tholen)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 09:20:08 GMT
Jacques Guy writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote [about the TholenBot and others]:
>> Of course, rand() in and by itself tends to be deterministic. You really
>> want to put an srand(time(NULL)) before it, or your program tends to be
>> very boring.
> So rand() it is. They *are* very boring, aren't they?
Who are "they", and boring to whom?
You found the Philip Glass joke to be boring?
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 11:34:01 +0200
T. Max Devlin wrote in message ...
>Said David Brown in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>>
>>
>>I don't think that the crimes for which MS have been convicted are the
limit
>>of their illegal behaviour (they don't even come close), never mind their
>>immoral or unethical practices.
>
>That wasn't clear from your previous message. I'm glad to hear you say
>so.
It wasn't clear because I didn't say it in my previous message. I don't
repeat every opinion in every post.
>
>>
>>People who have a completly free choice of software (i.e., they are buying
>>it themselves, without requirement for backward compatibility, having
tried
>>several packages but without used any one long enough to get a significant
>>bias) will sometimes choose MS software. Not always, and not nearly as
>>often as MS marketing would have us think, but the fact is that some
people
>>*prefer* to use MS software.[...]
>
>My premise is that without the requirement for backward compatibility or
>familiarity with Windows as "the universal desktop", there wouldn't be
>any Microsoft software. DOS would have died a quick death, it appears
>in retrospect, had not MS secured a pre-load monopoly and defended it
>vigorously.
In the early days of PCs, the likely choices of OS as alternatives to MS-DOS
were CP/M (which would have been an even less suitable base than MS-DOS), or
DR-DOS. DR-DOS has always been better (faster, more stable and more
flexible) than equivilent MS-DOS versions, but it has the same design and
limitations. If DR-DOS had taken over from MS-DOS, then MS would have lost
a sizeable income but would have continued making money from other software.
If alternative OSes became dominant (I believe there were UNIXes for PCs in
the '286 days), MS would have made software for them. How can you possibly
assume that MS would have failed if it were not for its monopolies? It
would need different stratagies, such as producing quality software, but
there is no reason to suppose that, given a level playing field, MS would be
any different from other software companies (i.e., some succeed, some fail).
>
>>For example, for producing structured
>>documents MS Word is the best general word processor for PCs.
>>I don't use
>>it (LaTeX is vastly better for technical documentation, and on the few
>>occasions that I need a word processor or spreadsheet, I use StarOffice),
>>but if I had to choose between, say, Word Pro, MS Word, Star Office and
Word
>>Perfect then in my experiance MS Word is best for structured documents.
>
>For short documents and memos, it may be easiest. WordPerfect is far
>superior for structured documents, even in a purely objective sense.
>
It is a very long time since I have used either word processor. But you are
picking at details - my point is that people sometimes *choose* MS software,
even when they have a free choice. People with both Netscape and IE on
their machines might *choose* IE because it is faster.
>>The point is, MS software is not *all* bad. There are times when it is
>>quite good (especially some of their games, but they are bought in rather
>>than written by MS), and they have definetly inspired other software
writers
>>to greater heights.
>
>And another glancing blow again fails to reveal the truth of the matter.
>I think this comment is baseless.
I presume you are refering to "inspired other software writers to greater
heights"? Do you think that the recent year's advances in Linux software
(in particular, KDE and Gnome, friendly installation routines, automatic
hardware configuration) came completly out of the imaginations of the
programmers? Some of it is unique to Linux, other parts are clearly the
results of people thinking "Windoze does this better than we do - how can we
make our system even better?".
>>I think that to a fair extent we agree - without their illegal practices,
MS
>>would still be a successful software company, but it would not be the
nearly
>>the size or monopoly that it is now.
>
>I was being light-handed so as not to deter discussion. I think its
>clear that without legally dubious practices, at least, which would
>include the profiteering on BASIC code, in my mind, there is little
>reason to believe MS would have ever been a software company to begin
>with. They have never competed at all on the technical merits or honest
>value of their software; they have merely appeared very successful due
>to the duplicitous and dishonest nature of their licensing practices.
>
>Such a statement is in danger of turning this discussion into a battle
>of wills, however. Perhaps if we took a more explicit issue, we'd fare
>better, but the repetitive occurrence of "Microsoft innovation" threads
>might indicate that this would be less than satisfactory as well. Any
>ideas? I'd be happy to illustrate my suppositions concerning MS's
>historical behavior or software development, if you're willing to
>consider them.
>
I think a discussion of what MS would be like without their illegal
practices is so hypothetical that it is not worth the time or effort. We
could consider what would happen if they started behaving from now on, but
we already agree on that. As to what would have happened if they never had
broken the law - who knows? Your opinion is just as valid as mine or as my
neighbour's kid's. What would have happened to Intel if IBM had picked a
Motorola processor for its PC (as the technical people at IBM wanted)? You
can provide as many examples of MS's behaviour as you want, but they are all
irrelevant. If we suppose that MS went straight in 1979, then any examples
from 1980 are invalid. If we suppose that MS went straight from its first
days, then everything you know about MS, and much of the rest of computing
since that date, is void.
------------------------------
From: "Boris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 03:21:09 -0700
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Boris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > NT4 Server with latest Service Packs is very stable. I worked at
> > .COM site; now dead (but reasons are purely economical rather than
> > technical) where most servers were NT4 (with exception of Oracle on
> > Sun and a couple of DEC systems). There were > 100 NT4 servers in
> > NOC. There used to be NT crashes ~2 years ago or so, but eventually
> > they virtually eliminated them. And they didn't reboot NT
> > either. They did restart speech-processing apps every night because
> > of memory/resource leaks, but it had nothing to do with NT. NT4 was
> > buggy when first released ~ 4 years ago. But it's fine now.
>
> Maybe you could've saved some money by using free software instead of
> "> 100 NT4 servers". ;)
I don't think so. The site provided free 800 number and free long-distance calls for
customers inside US. In addition to usual web services it provided voice UI over the
phone
with speech/touch-tone input. Everything was free to any customer. My understanding is
that phone company bills were the main contributing factor to the total cost of
operations
(taking into account 1,000,000 users they had). Operating NOC was expensive too. But I
believe that what they paid for NT4 was negligible. They paid more money for things
like
Dialogic boards and Nuance software.
If you take cost of NT4 Server (<$1,000) and multiply it by 100 you get $100,000. NT
service packs, IIS, etc. are free. It's very small amount if you consider order of
$1,000,000 they paid to phone company every month.
As for Unix, that company does develop on Unix platform. They build automated voice
response apps with speech recognition to be used by people in cars. When you buy a car
from Ford, GM, etc. you have an option to use such service: with hands-free cellular
phone
installed in car you can call into NOC and software will interact with you using speech
recognition technology.
But that company doesn't use Linux at all; they only develop for Sun and possibly HP
Unix.
I find it interesting: company with substantial Unix development doesn't use Linux
whatsoever. They must think it's not good enough.
Boris
------------------------------
From: Eager Learner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: version control in Linux
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 10:17:02 GMT
hi,
How can I do version control in Linux?
--
Thanx a million!
Eager Learner
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451743 (Tholen)
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 06:32:27 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jacques Guy
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote [about the TholenBot and others]:
>
> > Of course, rand() in and by itself tends to be deterministic. You really
> > want to put an srand(time(NULL)) before it, or your program tends to be
> > very boring.
>
> So rand() it is. They *are* very boring, aren't they?
Typical invective. ("
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
From: "1$Worth" <"1$Worth"@costreduction.plseremove.screaming.net>
Subject: Re: version control in Linux
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 11:38:12 +0100
Eager Learner wrote:
>
> hi,
> How can I do version control in Linux?
You can use cvs:
http://www.cyclic.com/CVS/index_html
HTH
------------------------------
From: "Davorin Mestric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Advocacy and Programmers...
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 12:34:23 +0200
"KLH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But your implication of jealosy is both absurd and wrong.
damn, i was trying to be funny.
------------------------------
From: Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: 19 Jul 2000 12:11:13 +0100
>>>>> "Phil" == phil hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Phil> In 500 years time, they'll be so advanced as to be
Phil> unrecognisable.
Or alternatively we may have finally realised that computers
just create more work for ourselves, and we may have trashed the lot
of them. Heres hoping!
Phil> 4. (a big change), for each optional package that can be added
Phil> to the system, the package would go in directory
Phil> /opt/package-version where <version> is of the form
Phil> 1.2.3. There would be a symbolic link, /opt/package, pointing
Phil> to the one in use.
This is pretty much how it do it now manually. Its a good idea!
Phil> There would also be a system whereby a package, newly
Phil> installed, can "sniff out" other packages that it is supposed
Phil> to work with and automatically connect to them. For example,
Phil> if you have apache-3.1.0 installed and you then installed
Phil> php-5.2.0, then PHP, because it normally works with Apache,
Phil> realise that Apache is there and [handwaving] sort out how to
Phil> connect up to it, possibly asking the user first.
This is more an enhancement of the installation system rather
than the OS per se. But yes it would be useful.
Phil> 5. I'd use Python (or something like it) as the standard
Phil> scripting language, C or C++ as the standard low-level
Phil> language, and proabably something Java-like in
Phil> between.
I think that its unlikely that a standard scripting language
will ever happen. Look at how many people still use sh.
Phil> There'd also be a built-in OO database, and all these
Phil> languages would have the built-in ability to store their
Phil> native data structures in the DB, in a way that the other
Phil> languages could read them.
My own feeling is that commands should all have a switch which
allows the export as XML, and that each command would keep its DTD
somewhere standard. Unix excels at pipelining, and small commands, but
these sometimes break when the output format changes, and the parsing
breaks down. Structure the output into XML would make parsing a lot
easier, and more robust, but would still have most of the advantages
of flat output.
Phil
------------------------------
From: Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: 19 Jul 2000 12:13:11 +0100
>>>>> "Linus" == Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Linus> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Linus> phil hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> MS Word has been getting *worse* since about 1995. The guy who
>> came up with that stupid paper clip wants to be shot. What *were*
>> they thinking of?
Linus> What?
Linus> I love that thing!
Linus> Not that I've actually ever _used_ it, but every time I see
Linus> it dancing around in somebodys corner going "boink boink" and
Linus> looking stupid and cute at the same time I _want_ it.
Linus> Never mind the _rest_ of Word. Which I could (and can) do
Linus> quite well without, thank you very much. But that dancing
Linus> paperclip needs to be ported to Linux. Pronto!
If you do that I shall wipe linux from my hard drive
install FreeBSD...
Phil
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 12:19:18 +0100
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I was not suggesting that service packs were a bad thing, I was likening
> them to releases. The "eat your children" attitude of previous releases
> shows that NT zealots don't really take their claims seriously. "NT for
> sp 3 is great, what do you mean its buggy?" etc.... And next month, you
> will read something "NT SP4 buggy? what do you mean? SP 3 was buggy, but
> sp 4 is great!" So on through releases and service packs. It is just
> silly.
Well, most NT Admins I know agree that
SP2 was terrible, SP3 was OK, SP4 was better, SP5 was better still & SP6 is
best once the initials bugs were ironed out...
>
> Released kernels in Linux are mostly good. There are some turkeys, but
> even those aren't bad. The difference is two things, (1) we are
> realistic about our reliability claims, and (2) our views of the past
> kernels do not change the instance a new one comes out.
I don't know that many NT Admins do that either. The same sentence could
apply to NT.
------------------------------
From: Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 19 Jul 2000 12:22:44 +0100
>>>>> "Max" == T Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Max> Said Phillip Lord in comp.os.linux.advocacy; [...]
>> How would you ensure that everyone has access to capital though?
>> In our current society capital appears to be used to enforce the
>> class divide between those who produce and those who live of what
>> others produce. I would like to see and end to this class divide
>> and I think that it is possible, but my own ideas do not involve
>> capital. How does your idea work?
Max> The way I see it, there are three things which maintain the
Max> division you speak of:
Max> 1) Access to capital 2) Access to market 3) Access to knowledge
Max> Addressing only #1 by itself is not feasible. But the
Max> cornerstone, I think, would be a social and civil recognition
Max> that the vast value of our economy is, in fact, a public trust.
Max> A certain portion of the capital available must ethically be
Max> restricted so as to be accessible in a purely democratic
Max> fashion. A .001% tax on capital assets, for instance, would
Max> probably increase the amount of small business loans available
Max> at attractive terms to individuals by several orders of
Max> magnitude. A general increase in grant-making would tend to
Max> directly support all three of these goals, as well.
This is an interesting idea. What you are saying is that there
should be public funds available for small start up businesses, if I
am reading you right? But many of these schemes already exist, at
least in my country.
Max> Whatever might be workable, it is going to have to involve the
Max> government (giving other's a chance to compete doesn't seem to
Max> be high on the list of current business's priorities), but it
Max> has to come from society, not caveat of law.
The problem is that government and business are intimately
interlinked. Government spending is always a massive part of the
economy, and this impacts massively on industry, and of course most
politicians sold their opinions off to industry many years ago
(although most politicians are more sensible about the way in which
they do this, then the UK MP who I am happy to report lied a lot and
took back handers in brown paper envelopes).
I am not saying that I don't like the idea, but feel that
its a rather small sticking plaster, over the huge gash of the class
divide.
Phil
------------------------------
From: Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 19 Jul 2000 12:29:58 +0100
>>>>> "Max" == T Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Max> It isn't a question of "shifting" capital, as capital as a
Max> concept, not a substance. Democratic access to capital means
Max> that "power blocks" are far more vulnerable; even ants can kill
Max> an elephant in sufficient number, without even trying.
Max> The only way to extend democracy to all fields of our life
Max> (though I have to admit that I'm not quite sure what you mean
Max> by this) is to empower every individual to be independent if
Max> desired, and decedent on others only by voluntary choice. If
Max> every employee has the power to say "screw you, this job isn't
Max> worth it" because they know they have reliable access to
Max> outside capital with which they might be independently
Max> productive, only then will the employee be an equal at the
Max> bargaining table.
It is certainly true that having "a sellers" employment
market is empowering for people. The problem is that the large capital
power blocks will try and turn this around. In the UK for instance
Thatcher introduced "wage controls" by deliberately and premeditatedly
forcing 2 million extra people into unemployment.
My own feeling is that the employee, employer relationship
is fundamentally flawed, and is something that we should be rid
off. In a democratic society I can see no justification for
maintaining a feudal hierarchy in the work place. "Companies" should
all be publicly accountable and controlled not by directors but by
those parts of society which are most directly affected by their
activities, namely the workforce, and the users of the industries
produce. This is what I mean by extending democracy to all parts of
life.
Phil
------------------------------
From: Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 19 Jul 2000 12:32:38 +0100
>>>>> "Max" == T Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> [...]Within both the US and the UK the rate of TB is rising (TB
>>> is simply caused by the conditions of poverty).
>> I think resistance to drugs has something to do with it as well.
Max> According to the World Health Organization, the rise is due to
Max> both "issues of health service delivery" as well as "changing
Max> social and economic situations" (read: poverty) in addition to
Max> antibiotic resistance.
And would those "issues of health service delivery" have
anything to do with problems like the anti TB drugs being expensive?
In fact too expensive for the poor to afford?
I think this reduces to issues of poverty again.
Phil
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
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: 19 Jul 2000 07:33:47 -0400
On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 18:10:13 GMT, MK
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Socialism in any form ALWAYS results in political and bureaucratic barriers.
>It's only a matter of where in particular they are put. Laissez faire
>does not have this problem -- supply follows the demand.
>
Capitalism has problems of its own. Poverty is one of them.
--
Microsoft Windows. Beyond crappy. Beyond belief.
------------------------------
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: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 19 Jul 2000 07:39:57 -0400
On 25 Jun 2000 00:25:17 GMT, Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>MK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>There are two way of getting there: political and market way. I'm not aware
>>of MS getting there via politics, I remember MS getting there via business
>>deals. Which are ugly and harsh money talks sometimes, but hey, this isn't
>>kindergarten. ...
>
> Mr. MK shows his true colors here: his love of bullies.
>
> Good dealmaking != good products
...in other words, Microsoft Windows did not get its market share by
being the best OS, it got there by way of business deals.
--
Guns don't kill people, cops do!
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
