Linux-Advocacy Digest #898, Volume #27 Sun, 23 Jul 00 21:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh
EDS ("ostracus")
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (Arthur Frain)
Re: version control in Linux (Sean Akers)
Re: Windows98 ("Colin R. Day")
Re: EDS (Christopher Browne)
Re: I had a reality check today :( ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451750 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Some Miserable weekend with Windows :( (Bob Hauck)
Re: Why use Linux? ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man! (Ray Chason)
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451750 (Davie Tholen) (tinman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
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: 23 Jul 2000 18:24:22 -0400
Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spewed this unto the Network:
>Tim Palmer wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 22:57:23 GMT, Henry Blaskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >In talk.politics.libertarian Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >The point is that the producer of a product should own it. Period.
>> >The alternative is to have the products politically owned, and
>> >the result of that form of ownership is well documented.
>
>That isn't capitalism ... capitalism is where the boss owns what
>you produce.
According to capitalists, the boss is the "real" producer of the
thing that your work brings into existence. After all, the boss
is vital because he plays golf all day, and all you do is work,
which makes you expendable, right?
>> You can't tock to them. Their all commys.
>Right Tim, whatever.
--
Microsoft Windows. The problem for your problem.
------------------------------
From: "ostracus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: EDS
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 17:33:55 -0500
Everyone has heard the expression that controlling programmers is like "herding
cats". Well EDS has shown a commercial were they're doing just that (herding
cats)..
------------------------------
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: 20 Jul 2000 05:33:27 -0400
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 22:47:15 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On 19 Jul 2000 15:51:14 -0400, Greg Yantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" escribió:
>> >
>> >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >
>> >[snip]
>> >
>> >> > > On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 18:10:13 GMT, MK
>> >> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> > > Capitalism has problems of its own. Poverty is one of them.
>> >
>> >> > You wanna see poverty, and HUGE disparities between the rich and the
>> >> > poor? Then go to a communist country and look around.
>> >
>> >> A communist country such as which one? Please notice that I am in no
>> >> way defending communism, I am just curious where such a thing was.
>> >
>> >Sure. Think "USSR" and "nomenklatura", the elite that owned it.
>> >Or at least had the use of all it's more luxurious features, as
>> >theoretically everyone "owned" it. Heh.
>>
>> Theoratically, governments represent the people they control. This
>> is where the idea that "everyone" owns the property of a Communist
>> country comes from. In practice, however, it's a much different
>> story, because governments, be they dictatorships like the ones
>> found in Communist states, or "representative republics" like the
>> ones found in the industrialized North, don't really represent the
>> people they control.
>
>However, the citizens of a popularly elected republic have a heck
>of a lot more control than anywhere else.
And they still couldn't stop the DMCA and UCITA from becoming
law.
>
>Look at the 1994 House of Representative elections in the U.S.
>Democrats held the majority for over 50 years. In 1994, the
>populace said, "We're sick and tire of all the b.s. going on
>in our government," and there was 20% turnover in one election,
>most every incumbent who was voted out was a Democrat
...and then the Republicans that replaced them created the CDA,
the law that requires your SSN to appear on your driver's
license, a law that increased ATF funding, and countless other
laws that empower the government and disempower citizens, and
US citizens couldn't do anything to stop it from happening, and
it took a great effort to get rid of the CDA (compared to what
it took to put it there in the first place), only to have it
replaced by another one just like it.
--
Microsoft Windows: Now complete with a built-in BOFH!
------------------------------
From: Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 16:57:31 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Jim Richardson wrote:
> > > Given that perl python and java are note compiled to machine executable
> code
> > > until they hit the interpreter (or JVM) how in heavens name would you
> write
> > > an OS Kernel in one?
> > Mind you I think this is a *terrible* idea, but you
> > simply need to build the byte-code interpreter into
> > the kernel. This is the original IBM PC design - if
> > you didn't boot an OS off of floppy or HD, it defaulted
> > to a ROM'd BASIC interpreter. Same as the Sinclair ZX-80,
> > or Intel 8052-BASIC, which is (was?) an 8 bit
> > microcontroller (8051 family) with BASIC built in.
> Opps, it looks like you crossed over from considering an OS kernel written
> in BASIC, into the realm of BASIC interpreters written in assembler and
> burned as machine code into ROM.
Depends on your definition of "OS". Strictly
speaking, these are all monitors, I suppose.
The distinction is fairly fine, however, as
they provide resource management, task
management and other OS features are available
- there is no ZX80 OS or 8052 OS as such (I
suppose one could say the IBM PC didn't have an
OS available, but that would be mean-spirited).
The ZX80 would control an external cassette tape
(IIRC) and the 8052 managed at least a serial
port, if not a parallel port as well, and both
are capable of loading and running programs.
At any rate, there isn't much difference in
principal between these and a BASIC or Python
or p-code based OS, and it still doesn't seem
like a very good idea for most purposes.
Arthur
------------------------------
From: Sean Akers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: version control in Linux
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 01:10:57 +0100
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 23:05:33 +0200, Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Bob Hauck wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 10:17:02 GMT, Eager Learner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > How can I do version control in Linux?
>>
>> Use CVS or RCS.
>
>What ever happened to SCCS?
Who cares ?
SCCS = pants
CVS = not pants
Sean.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 20:14:14 -0400
Tim Palmer wrote:
> >
> >Yes, but removing the old version (minus config files) is not too much of a
> >hassle normally, unless of course it's got no uninstall program or
> >installed a lot of files so takes a good while to remove them.
>
> ...which is normly the case on UNIX.
>
You haven't used RPM, have you, Tim?
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: EDS
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 00:25:05 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when ostracus would say:
>Everyone has heard the expression that controlling programmers is like "herding
>cats". Well EDS has shown a commercial were they're doing just that (herding
>cats)..
... And they pretended that this was somehow a sensible idea ...
REALITY is that "herding" and "cats" are not compatible concepts.
EDS may be able to pay some video producers to put together something
that, for 45 seconds, makes it _appear_ that cats are being herded,
but that is quite distinct from actually being able to go into
business doing that sort of thing.
It seems pretty consistent with their "business model," quite
frankly...
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
"When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could
hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be
twenty-one, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in
seven years." -- Mark Twain
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 20:28:49 -0400
Spud wrote:
>
> Now let's see... can Linux mailers get attachments? Yup. Could I
> write, oh, a Perl script or some such which targetted popular mailers
> under Linux to do much the same thing Melissa did? Likely. Ah, so,
> the fact that Linux has scripting and has mailers that can handle
> attachments means it is just as vulnerable to these things as Windows
> with OE - or indeed, Windows with any other mailer that can handle
> attachments.
>
Nope. You are neglecting one difference. Netscape does not
associate Perl scripts with the Perl interpreter (nor any other
scripts with their interpreters), so clicking on a Perl script in
Netscape will not execute it.
>
> Clue time: Windows wasn't the problem. Nor was OE. Nor was Outlook.
> The problem was - and is - unsafe computing practices... and sorry,
> Linux users can fall prey to that as readily as Windows users.
>
The problem was the association of Visual Basic scripts with
the Visual Basic interpreter (or are they just executed?).
>
> As far as I can tell, the only reason Windows is generally targetted
> for such things, rather than Linux, is sheer volume; with > 100
> million Windows boxes out there, your chances of getting such a virus
> to spread are a lot greater - because chances are you will eventually
> hit someone who's not well-enough versed in safe practices to avoid
> it. Which is to say... Windows remains a hell of a lot more popular
> that Linux, but if Linux ever changes that, then _it_ will be the
> target of such attacks, using much the same mechanisms, with much the
> same effects, for much the same reasons. Will you then be telling us
> how pathetic Linux is, because it propagates such viruses?
I suspect that people making browsers for Linux (and some of their
customers) will be more clueful about such things.
> Or will
> you finally clue in to reality - that the viruses do not represent a
> failure in either Windows or OE, but in the unsafe use of the tools?
Why were Visual Basic scripts not associated with a text editor?
Colin Day
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451750
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 00:40:18 GMT
Here's today's Tinman digest:
1> Of course.
You just admitted to pontificating, Tinman.
1> To emulate you doesn't require reasoning, it precludes it.
Incorrect, Tinman.
1> Don't you know, Davie?
Who is that, Tinman?
1> Don't you know, Davie?
Who is that, Tinman?
1> The one just above.
Classic circular reasoning.
1> There, you did it again. ("
How ironic, considering your persistence, Tinman.
1> That which is self-evident provides it own evidence.
Which presupposes the existence of evidence, TInman.
1> Don't you understand the term, Davie?
Who is that, Tinman?
1> That is self-evident.
On what basis do you make that claim, Tinman?
1> Experience shows otherwise.
Whose alleged experience, Tinman?
1> On the contrary.
Even more pontification.
1> On the contrary.
Even more pontification.
1> On the contrary.
Even more pontification.
1> ('
What is that supposed to mean, Tinman?
1> It's a search engine, Davie.
Who is that, Tinman?
1> On the contrary.
Even more pontification.
1> ('
What is that supposed to mean, Tinman?
1> Tholenation is a what, not a who, Davie.
Who is that, Tinman?
1> You.
That isn't my name, Tinman.
1> Obviously you agree, or you wouldn't answer.
Illogical, Tinman. I was asking, not answering.
1> ('
What is that supposed to mean, Tinman?
1> Incorrect.
Even more pontification.
1> Don't you know, Davie?
Who is that, Tinman?
1> Incorrect
Even more pontification.
1> Incorrect.
Even more pontification.
1> Hit the turntable, Davie,
Who is that, Tinman?
1> you're stuck.
Even more pontification.
1> Who is "who," Davie?
Who is that, Tinman?
1> Hit the turntable, Davie,
Who is that, Tinman?
1> you're stuck.
Even more pontification.
1> Illogical.
On what basis do you make that claim, Tinman?
1> Of course,
You just admitting to circular reasoning, Tinman.
1> you're stuck.
Even more pontification, and rather ironic.
1> Hit the turntable, Davie.
Who is that, Tinman?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Some Miserable weekend with Windows :(
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 00:43:41 GMT
On Sun, 23 Jul 2000 15:13:42 -0700, Paul Bary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>ICS is very stable but NONE of the software NAT implementations hold
>a candle to the Linksys router. I particulary like the port forwarding
Linux supports this just fine, as does FreeBSD. No extra software
needed.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 20:45:10 -0400
Spud wrote:
> [snips]
>
> "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Spud wrote:
>
> > But should a bad app be able to take down the system? I have had
> > Netscape crash in Linux, but Linux keeps right on going.
>
> In an ideal world, nothing short of CPU failure should bring down the
> system. Microsoft does offer platforms which prevent applications bringing
> down the OS; if that's a criteria for your decision to use an OS, why are
> you using one of the OSen which _doesn't_ offer that?
Well, I use Linux at home, and Win98 (not my idea) at work. I'm
certainly not going to buy NT for my box at work.
>
>
> "Gee, I need a car that offers me some protection against my being totally
> mangled during crashes. This one has air bags, crumple zones and several
> other related features. That other one doesn't. I'll take the second one.
> Hey, why doesn't this car have the safety features I wanted?"
>
That's why I use Linux.
> > >
> > > Comparing Win9x to Linux is absurd; they weren't designed to the same
> > > criteria, for the same market, or with the same goals.
> >
> > Was Win9x designed for anything besides lining Microsoft's pockets?
>
> Absolutely. As an easy-to-use, friendly home-user platform. Compare NT4
> and 98; which one plays most games? It ain't NT; it was intended for use in
> environments where stability, not playtime, was the key feature. 98 went
> the other way. Picking 98 and then complaining it lacks the stability one
> needs is silly; if you needed the stability, why didn't you pick NT?
>
I didn't pick Win98. And while Linux is closer to NT/W2K than it is to
Win9x, that is changing somewhat. In fact Linux may well become a
substitute for Win9x, if Microsoft doesn't merge the code in time.
>
> The usual answer is one of two: 1) It doesn't play the games or 2) It costs
> more. Both of these show that stability was _not_ the feature sought after;
> in one case it was entertainment value, in the other, it was purchase cost.
> Fine, those are reasonable bases for making decisions... but if you use them
> and decide not to get the more stable platform, don't whine about it not
> being stable; you had the choice, you chose not to go that way.
What makes you believe that I ever made such a choice?
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Date: 24 Jul 2000 00:08:00 GMT
Newsgroups trimmed.
"Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Okay, explain to me precisely where .NET is touted to be a full
>implementation that is currently in use. Please tell me exactly where
>Microsoft denies that .NET is anything but merely a whitepaper. Please
>show me precisely where Microsoft claims that this is nothing but
>vaporware.
Please show me precisely where Microsoft claims .NET is anything in
particular but a lot of vague ramblings and marketing BS.
ASPs? Oh sure, and what if Microsoft wants my market, or I'm offering
something to the public that Microsoft doesn't want offered? What if some
router goes down and now my whole shop is unable to do any work?
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
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 2451750 (Davie Tholen)
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 20:53:36 -0400
In article <SfMe5.2584$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Here's today's Tinman digest:
>
> 1> Of course.
>
> You just admitted to pontificating, Tinman.
Not at all.
> 1> To emulate you doesn't require reasoning, it precludes it.
>
> Incorrect, Tinman.
On the contrary, Davie.
> 1> Don't you know, Davie?
>
> Who is that, Tinman?
Don't you know, Davie?
> 1> Don't you know, Davie?
Don't you know, Davie?
> 1> The one just above.
>
> Classic circular reasoning.
Of course, oh might turntable.
> 1> There, you did it again. ("
>
> How ironic, considering your persistence, Tinman.
I learned from the master.
> 1> That which is self-evident provides it own evidence.
>
> Which presupposes the existence of evidence, TInman.
Indeed. And your mispelling's getting worse.
> 1> Don't you understand the term, Davie?
>
> Who is that, Tinman?
"term" is a what, not a who, Davie.
> 1> That is self-evident.
>
> On what basis do you make that claim, Tinman?
That which is self-evident provides it own evidence.
> 1> Experience shows otherwise.
>
> Whose alleged experience, Tinman?
Mine, of course.
> 1> On the contrary.
>
> Even more pontification.
>
> 1> On the contrary.
>
> Even more pontification.
>
> 1> On the contrary.
>
> Even more pontification.
Hit the turntable, Davie, you're stuck again.
> 1> ('
>
> What is that supposed to mean, Tinman?
Don't you know?
> 1> It's a search engine, Davie.
>
> Who is that, Tinman?
A search engine is a what, not a who, Davie.
> 1> On the contrary.
>
> Even more pontification.
Illogical, Davie.
> 1> ('
>
> What is that supposed to mean, Tinman?
Don't you know?
> 1> Tholenation is a what, not a who, Davie.
>
> Who is that, Tinman?
Who is who, Davie?
> 1> You.
>
> That isn't my name, Tinman.
On the contrary.
> 1> Obviously you agree, or you wouldn't answer.
>
> Illogical, Tinman. I was asking, not answering.
Asking what, Davie?
> 1> ('
>
> What is that supposed to mean, Tinman?
Don't you know, Davie?
> 1> Incorrect.
>
> Even more pontification.
Incorrect.
> 1> Don't you know, Davie?
>
> Who is that, Tinman?
You, obviously, else you would not respond.
> 1> Incorrect
>
> Even more pontification.
>
> 1> Incorrect.
>
> Even more pontification.
The turntable, Davie, keep hitting it.
> 1> Hit the turntable, Davie,
>
> Who is that, Tinman?
A turntable is a what, not a who, Davie.
> 1> you're stuck.
>
> Even more pontification.
Incorrect.
> 1> Who is "who," Davie?
>
> Who is that, Tinman?
Reading comprehension problems, Davie? If I knew, I wouldn't ask.
> 1> Hit the turntable, Davie,
>
> Who is that, Tinman?
See above.
> 1> you're stuck.
>
> Even more pontification.
Illogical.
> 1> Illogical.
>
> On what basis do you make that claim, Tinman?
Knowledge of logic, Davie.
> 1> Of course,
>
> You just admitting to circular reasoning, Tinman.
Of course, Davie, I'm tholenating, circular reasoning is required.
> 1> you're stuck.
>
> Even more pontification, and rather ironic.
It is ironic that you're stuck, Davie.
> 1> Hit the turntable, Davie.
>
> Who is that, Tinman?
For the last time in this post, a turntable is a what, not a who, Davie.
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
