Linux-Advocacy Digest #785, Volume #27 Wed, 19 Jul 00 17:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (Craig Kelley)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. ("Yannick")
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. ("Yannick")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Jack Troughton)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451745 (Tholen) (tinman)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Russ Allbery)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Some Windows weirdnesses... ("James")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 19 Jul 2000 14:09:23 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Drazen Kacar) writes:
> Craig Kelley wrote:
>
> > Actually, Linux has been certified UNIX-98 compliant
>
> Hm... Unix 98 has makecontext() as a mandatory interface. Now, with 2.2.17
> kernel and
>
> #include <stdlib.h>
> #include <ucontext.h>
>
> main()
> {
> ucontext_t ucp;
>
> makecontext(&ucp, NULL, 0);
> return 0;
> }
>
> gcc c.c gives:
>
> /tmp/ccGaGV50.o: In function `main':
> /tmp/ccGaGV50.o(.text+0x18): warning: makecontext is not implemented and will
> always fail
This is acutally done in a userland library (make sure you have pth),
like asynch i/o is.
> This doesn't look very compliant. Could you give a reference to your source
> of information?
It isn't certified as far as I can tell, I was misremembering an
article about the libc/linux developers meeting with TOG's Unix 98
people.
The biggest stumbling block right now seems to be including Motif (If
you believe Jakob Kaivo); which shouldn't be a problem for much
longer because of the license change(?).
Linux 2.4 also has a few UNIX 98 changes included (most notably, the
pty system).
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:13:40 -0600
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> Choice of two unfinished desktops or six minimalist ones.
Versus: you get a single, incomplete desktop that you are stuck with
under Windows?
> Some choice.
Yes. Infinitely more than with Windows.
> And there are so many more games for Windows than there are for
> Linux, aren't there?
Yes, there are. On the other hand, Quake runs a *HECK* of a lot better
under Linux, than it does under Windows.
> I have Netscape on Windows too. Looks a lot better than the same version
> on Linux.
Actually, the reverse is true. Netscape looks a lot better on Linux,
than it does on Windows.
> If I wanted to, I could use Netscape for EMail on Windows.
Yes, you could.
> > If I want to print a document I
> > use
> > Linux. Word processing, a kde app under Linux!
>
> I can use WordPad! I can use Microsoft Word (eeeeeyuk! Phew!).
You could also use LaTeX!
> > Programming, the GNU
> C++
> > free
> > compiler and kde dev system not an overpriced $500 set of bloated
> > visssuallll
> > applications.
>
> I use Delphi on Windows.
For free?
> I also use Visual C++ but I prefer Delphi. I
> don't think anything even comes close to Delphi on Linux
Not just close . . . way, way past.
I will leave the exercise to you.
> (though it will
> this year, as Delphi is being ported to Linux!).
Gag!!!
> So your like your desktop with its different style per application do
> you?
Hmmm? What? Oh, that. Heck, that's something that only bothers
newbies. This is like complaining about the miniscule differences in
the wheel, pedals and panel between a Saturn Sedan, and a Ford truck.
Real drivers know that a speedometer is a speedometer, regardless of the
finicky little differences.
> Do you have trouble remembering what does what, and what goes
> where?
Nope.
> > I myself prefer the freedom of choice in how I use the system and in
> > how it looks.
> > I am more productive with linux than I ever could be with a lesser
> > operating
> > system like Windows XX.
>
> Really? I seem to be pretty productive in Windows.
Trust me, that's just an illusion produced by a lack of contrast . . .
;->
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Yannick" <[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 20:20:44 GMT
===== Original Message =====
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups:
comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2000 3:32 AM
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
> >My DAW is a prime example of this method. It runs Win98SE and has
> >never crashed. Not once, not ever.
>
> OK. What, precisely, is "SE". And how many applications have you
> installed since you got it?
You have a problem with acronyms.
Windows 98SE is the generally used acronym for Windows 98 Second Edition. If you missed
the train, you will learn that for about a year, Microsoft is selling an updated
release
of Windows 98.
Personally, I only have Windows 98, so I'll tell you the differences from what I
remember
: it's Windows 98 with its service pack, IE5 instead of IE4, and some extra features
:such
as Internet Connection Sharing, (and updated drivers, I think).
Yannick.
------------------------------
From: "Yannick" <[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 20:20:45 GMT
(Sorry for the delayed answer, my ISP's newsserver has had some problems recently and I
had to find a replacement to get your posts...)
David Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
8kuj5o$gpd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Yannick wrote in message <5k3c5.392$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >
> >If you want my personal opinion on the breakup... Windows 9x/Me/Whistler
> price
> >will increase if you want the system company to stay profitable. Office
> price will
> >decrease because there will be not need for Office to act as a cash cow for
> windows & its
> >surrounding technologies..
>
> You mean people will get what they pay for, and pay for what they get? Is
> that such a bad thing?
It's not a bad thing for the customers on the short run. But cash cows are sometimes
needed to develop new products... (I think it's the BCG who introduced those concepts
of
cash cows, stars, etc... (or at least made them populare, oh, well, I don't want T Max
Delvin on me for this point.. whoever invented the concept...).
When I said in the short run, I meant, would we have Windows 2000 if there hadn't be
the
Office cash cow during all those years ?
As for the OS, until all personal users apps (home software, video games, etc...) get
ported to linux, users _at home_ don't have much choice whether or not to buy
windows...
The fact that the OEM versions are cheap used to be a way of illegal competition. Now
it
is still a hard blow at anyone who wants to sell a new commercial OS, but the main
competitor of Windows today is linux, and is, in most cases, free. Therefore, keeping
the
OEM version at a low price is a way to reduce something that has become, for some
time, an
almost inevitable cost.
> In the office suite market, the price might come down so that MS Office
> actually starts to look like value for money. Without the OS / apps tying,
> people will again be free to choose in the apps market, and if they do
> choose Office they pay a more realistic price for it.
They've always been free to choose but for the price. If Office is cheaper,
then more people will choose office. I don't complain personally, but I think
this is not a way to lessen MS's relatively dominant position on this market segment.
> >As for the rest, we will lose the symbiosis between
> >app developer and system developer that provides the exceptional richness
> of the Windows
> >UI.
>
> Competition will inspire much greater "innovation" in both Windows and
> Office than their current tying.
If the splitting, results in more competition. Those two companies are not
going to compete among themselves, or at worst not much.
> The two halves of ms will still talk to
> each other - they will just do it more openly, so that everyone can benifit
> from advances to the Windows UI.
That's a point.
> >So probably : statu quo for monopolies (Windows will stay alive while
> Office is still
> >on Windows only, and I personnaly think the difficulty of porting Office to
> linux is
> >dwarving the benefits, so...), and worse products.... Is that protecting
> the end-user ?
> >
>
> It is all about choice. No one (except real fanatics) objects to Windows
> being the most popular OS, or MS Office being the most popular office suite.
> What people object to is being forced to use them whether they like them or
> not. One of the effects of the split is that MS is going to have to fully
> document and explain the Win32 API (if the court had ruled that the API was
> to be reveiled without splitting the company, ms would have been able to
> keep the documentation out-of-date - new versions of the API would only be
> publically documented after they had already used it for new versions of
> Office and other apps). This will allow the Wine developers to fill in the
> gaps in Wine, so that users can run MS Office on Linux or any other UNIX (or
> soon BeOS) system.
Sorry, but I don't know : does Wine implement some sort of COM ? 'cause I guess
that's absolutely necessary to get Office to run on Linux.
> What do you mean "worse products"?
In fact, I mean "less better than could be", I you understand my point...
> Do you think the increasing
> "integration" between the OS and apps actually improves the products? A lot
> of users, when they have a free choice, choose other applications like Word
> Perfect, Lotus Smartsuite, or whatever. A lot also choose Office freely,
> but the point is that there is nothing so important or useful about the
> integration that makes it essential when choosing applications.
I think the integration, as far as office is concerned (the integration of IE is quite
another matter), is not so much important for the users as for the developers.
They can share "good practices". For instance, office has served as a test for UI
innovations that eventually got integrated into Windows, and the contrary is probably
true...
> The main "benifit" of the OS and apps mixing is in automation and scripting.
> A few companies make use of these features to automate their workflow - but
> no more so than other companies do with Lotus Smartsuite or other
> applications. Quite litrally, the most common (in terms of the number of
> computers running the scripts rather than the number of people writing them)
> use of these features is for spreading viruses or other security breaches.
> Emailed word viruses are the most commonly known problem, but it is
> relatively easy to write an html page (either for a web site or for an html
> email) which uses the dancing paperclip as an ActiveX control to gain full
> access to the victim's PC. MS have even managed to make a clipart format
> that can spread a virus (it has never been done, AFAIK, but it is possible).
> Is this integration "protecting the end-user" ??
>
"protecting the end-user"...
My point here was not about security. It was about helping end-users have a
better experience of computers, in aspects such as : "how much does it cost",
"how easy to use", "how efficient to accomplish tasks", etc...
People say that the anti-monopoly laws are for protecting the consumer. As for
the MS trial I fear it's only companies that are being protected. And, not only do
I think the breakup solution will not help competitors much, I think it will harm the
end users, and I've explained some reasons for this above.
Yannick.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 06:29:37 +1000
"R. Tang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8l4dsk$3fi2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8l4a6f$qgh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:39752aad$1$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >> >> Why bother repeating the effort of the court case? Go read
> >> >> Judge Jackson's findings of fact. This task has already been
> >> >> done.
> >> >Very few facts can be found there.
> >> Are you for real? Its "factual" enough that now M$ is hanging on
thread
> >> praying and paying that US Supreme Court will not make them into
> >ieces. ---
> >> Its over and you need to get a life.
> >
> >Pfft. It's a long document containing largely a *single* judge's
> >_opinions_, and very few facts.
>
> Wake up. This is the real world, baby, not Usenet.
>
> That kind of argument cuts little ice in the legal world; with the
> kind of defense Microsoft put up, there's little chance of higher courts
> altering the Findings of Fact.
Which in no way is ever going to change what I think about them. Blind
conformance to the law is a path I'm just not going to consider.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 06:36:57 +1000
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Christopher Smith
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Wed, 19 Jul 2000 11:27:28 +1000
> <8l2vpv$kui$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >"John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> ZnU wrote:
> >> >
> >> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > [snip]
> >> >
> >> > > I was under the impression that this is what I had, by way of
> >> > > these advocacy groups, yes. Imagine my surprise when I get
> >> > > ridiculed, not for being so clueless as to ask questions, but
> >> > > for knowing enough to ask them in ways that contradict the
> >> > > easy answers.
> >> >
> >> > You are getting ridiculed for asking questions, receiving answers,
> >> > dismissing the answers on no solid grounds, and then asking the
> >> > questions again.
> >> >
> >> > It also doesn't help that you continually insist everyone who
disagrees
> >> > with you is some kind of narrow-minded specialist who refuses to
> >> > question assumptions. PMT's superiority for general purpose
multitasking
> >> > desktop operating systems is not an assumption, it is a logical
> >> > conclusion that anyone who understands the issues will come to, and
it
> >> > is one that holds up very well in the real world.
> >>
> >> . . . because, after all, CMT is a proper sub set of PMT.
> >
> >Eh ? How can a user space app in a PMT system grab the CPU to the
exclusion
> >of all other processes ?
>
> Depends on the PMT scheduler.
>
> My guess is that the system would only require exclusive use of the CPU
> for such things as servicing an interrupt, and then only for very
> short periods of time.
>
> One could of course have a timer interrupt -- in fact, IINM, most PMT
> systems have just such an interrupt, to enforce quantum switches, and
> to implement virtual timers which may be of use to programming types.
>
> But there are a lot of issues here -- not the least of which being
> interrupt latency, the time it takes to switch from user mode running
> a process to kernel mode servicing the interrupt. (NT is notoriously
> bad in that respect, for some reason.) Of course, if someone does
> a mouse click and the GUI is paged out, all bets are off; might as well
> ask whether one can read a page in a given book which happens to be
> packed away in a shipping crate in the basement -- as opposed to stored
> in an open cardboard box in the closet, on a shelf in the library,
> or sitting on an endtable, propped open to that very page.
>
> I suspect that's a bigger problem than the PMT/CMT thing. (Note that
> VMS had the concept of "page locking", which means that a page in
> the working set could never be swapped out. Properly used, this
> could in theory increase responsiveness; improperly used, of course,
> it could gum up things horribly.)
After all that, you didn't explain how a user-space app could grab the CPU
and not give it back :).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jack Troughton)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 20:09:18 GMT
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 18:47:42, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 17:00:07 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:45:23 GMT, Paul E. Larson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>In article <8l4e9j$n96$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>>In article <8l4a58$96j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>> "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>-- snip --
>>>>
>>>>> Given the only reason people are "forced" (and I use the term very
>>>>> loosely) to buy MS software is because everyone else also uses it.
>>>>
>>>>Until very recently, your statement was simply untrue. Unless you built
>>>>your own machine from parts, or went to the most obscure
>>>>hole-in-the-wall mom-n-pop computer shop in the county, there was no way
>>>>to not buy Windows bundled with your computer. This is fine for
>>>>hard-core geeks, but wrt Joe and Jane Average Consumer, this meant that
>>>>there was no choice.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Hmmmm.... you are new to this whole computing thing aren't you!
>>
>> You've got to go back awhile before you start to see
>> multiple brands of computers/OS supported by more
>> than just the 'hole in the wall' types of stores again.
>
>Like Compaq, which explicitly supports half a dozen OSs on their
>servers? And if I looked, I'm sure I'd find plenty of others, too.
What do they support on their desktops, DC? After all, the case was
about the desktop market, not the server market. The server market is
irrelevant to the lawsuit.
Would you like some milk to poach that red herring in?
--
==========================================================
* Jack Troughton jake at jakesplace.dhs.org *
* http://jakesplace.dhs.org ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org *
* Montréal PQ Canada news://jakesplace.dhs.org *
==========================================================
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:43:35 -0600
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> Because Linux is supposed to be better than Windows, yet I find areas
> that definately need improvement. It's got nothing to do with what I
> want, but with what I find on Linux.
>
> I mean, if it is claimed to support hardware, and I find myself doing
> extra work to make it happen, what does that tell me?
That it works on both systems.
> If it works
> without any problems on Windows, that tells me Linux is still behind
> Windows.
Hmm . . . Linux installs and runs on a spare PPC Mac we have sitting
around here. Heck, it even installs and works on one of the spare
PA-RISC based workstations we have sitting around.
Stick the Windows98 CD into either box . . . Nada. Not even a "little
bit of work" will make Windows work with this hardware.
Conclusion: Windows lags behind Linux.
Bash works out of the box on all of my Linux machines. After much
tweaking and sweating, I finally get an ugly and limited version of Bash
running on a Windows 98 box.
Conclusion: Windows lags behind Linux.
Linux, running a Kerberos KDC, can authenticate every box in the lab,
except for the Windows boxen.
Conclusion: Windows lags behind Linux.
<hint>
Pete chooses the conditions of the test to guarantee that Windows will
win, states opinions as fact, and fails to admit that what he claims as
"Linux" failures are self-induced failures.
He's also painfully unaware of these facts.
</hint>
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
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 2451745 (Tholen)
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:48:25 -0400
In article <5A6d5.40549$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[usual fu snipped to save space]
>
> 1> On the contrary, they grow ever larger and more beautiful with
> 1> your every post.
>
> Illogical.
Yet true, nonetheless.
> 1> You provide wonderous manure indeed. ('
>
> Illogical, Tinman.
Yet true.
> 2> Personally, I enjoy Dave's conversations, in a sort of minimalist
> 2> bad-imitation-of-phillip-glass-wannabe sort of way.
>
> I had no idea that you wanted to be Philip Glass.
I don't.
> I do find it
> ironic that you accused me of "spelling" your name wrong, yet here
> you are "spelling" Philip Glass' name wrong.
Thanks for the correction. Now I know how to spell Philip's name. Too bad
you can't learn.
> 3> I don't expect real conversation from Dave,
>
> Why provide someone engaging in "entertainment" with a real
> conversation?
Why not provide someone engaging in "entertainment" with a real conversation?
> 4> Jumping into conversations again, eh Dave? ("
>
> Obviously not, Tinman. Rather, it was Jacques who jumped in.
And we started a conversation into which you jumped. ('
> 4> [snip]
>
> 5> No, he's blind--he does not C. ('
>
> How ironic, coming from the person who doesn't understand that a call
> to a random number generator also won't place responses appropriately.
> Indeed, it's supposed to guarantee that they won't.
Irrelevent, but begs a question: Why do you fail to place responses
appropriately?
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
From: Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 19 Jul 2000 13:48:08 -0700
In gnu.misc.discuss, T Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Said Russ Allbery in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> Could you please produce a legal citation for this assertion? US
>> copyright law doesn't say anything even remotely like this, so in the
>> absence of any further support, it looks like you're just making this
>> up out of whole cloth.
> I am deriving it through knowledge and reason.
Thought so. You're making it up out of whole cloth.
> NB: I have no plans whatsoever to provide a legal citation. Please
> provide logic, arguments from basic principles, or discussion pertaining
> to whether my statement is true or not. If you have legal citations to
> the contrary, I would greatly appreciate your posting them.
Thanks, that answers my question. You have no idea what the law actually
says and don't have any interest in reading it for yourself, but instead
are expecting people to discuss these issues in some sort of mythical
"ideal world" of logic and reason and then expect the conclusions to apply
to real countries with real laws.
Sorry, but I'm not interested in playing.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:51:33 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Arthur Frain wrote:
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>>
>> > The difference is the the Left wants government to own all business, and
>> > the Right wants business to own the government.
>>
>> Neither the Left nor the Right care at all about
>> business. The Right wants to regulate your personal
>> behavior in your bedroom and on the 'net, and force
>> religion on schoolkids,
>
>No, that's NOT a "right wing" issue, that's a RELIGIONIST issue.
>
>YOU have fallen prey to the propagandistic term "religious right"
>in truth, there is no such thing, as most of the religious
>fundamentalists
>want nothing to do with socialism.
>
>Right Wing / Left Wing is about GOVERNMENT+ECONOMIC systems.
>It has nothing to do with sexual morality or religion.
[...]
>All of which are in support of the Left-wing variety of Socialism.
Well, here I go again. Gonna walk in an' 'splain stuff to allaya.
Left-Right are rhetorical mechanisms, not systems or movements or
coherent policy strategies. As evidenced by the fact that the Left is
not 'socialist', but *liberal*. The difference is routinely ignored and
denied by the Right. Which is *conservative*. That means careful.
Liberal means "free, open, generous". Conservativism is not bad.
Liberalism is not bad. Conservativism and liberalism are both bad, as
anything else is, when taken to unreasonable extreme. Then they become
merely "left" and "right"; two alternatives, with no coherent
differentiation on principle, only in principle. Half the arguments
couched in Republican bullshit these days are almost precisely the same
arguments proffered by the Democrats sixty or seventy years ago.
And it is every bit as much about sexual mores as it is about economic
policy and the role of government. To ignore the fact that it is
overwhelmingly the right wing which aligns itself with "social
conservativism" as well as political/fiscal conservativism is beyond
reasoning. Does this mean everybody who believes in decreasing capital
gains taxes supports creationism is right and homosexuality is wrong?
Fuck no. Not any more than it means that all citizens registered with
the Democratic party support gun control. These are rhetoric devices.
Trying to lay claim and use them constructively is a doomed proposition.
The are deconstructionist labels by nature, and are illustrative, not
definitive.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Some Windows weirdnesses...
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 22:52:29 +0200
Well, from the top of my head : "Visio Pro" (compiling diagrams &
business/system processes). Is there a Linux equivalent? Also give us a
decent browser (with plenty plug-ins & decent fonts & wysiwyg printing) in
Linux.
James
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> James wrote:
>
> >
> > Why are you bothering to discuss a mickey-mouse OS like win95 in this
NG.
> > If you need stability use Win2k, or Linux (if you don't need serious
desktop
> > apps).
>
> What desktop application could you need that is not on Linux?
>
> There are a few office packages, a few graphics packages, a couple cadd
> packages, and boat loads of other utilites!
>
> I can't see what is lacking in a normal desktop.
>
> --
> Mohawk Software
> Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
> Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
> Nepotism proves the foolishness of at least two people.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
