Linux-Advocacy Digest #198, Volume #28 Thu, 3 Aug 00 06:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451760 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: LOREN PETRICH...CLOSET-DICTATOR (Steve Chaney)
Re: There is no such thing as a free lunch! ("Tony Neville")
Re: Bennett digest, volume 4 (Tholen) ("Slava Pestov")
maximum (?) linux (David Punsalan)
Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix (sideband)
Re: one of Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality (Steve Chaney)
Re: one of Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality (Steve Chaney)
Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix (sideband)
Re: Bennett digest, volume 4 (Tholen) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: LOREN PETRICH...CLOSET-DICTATOR ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451760
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 07:35:23 GMT
Marty writes:
>> Here's today's Tinman digest. Note how he still doesn't understand
>> the difference between replying to someone and taking their advice.
> Hypocrite:
> DT> Witness his continued responses to me, which means that I obviously
> DT> am worth his time.
Illogical, Marty, given that the above quotation deals with the worth
of someone's time, not with the advice given by unreasonable people.
> Has Mark Kelly taken your advice?
Irrelevant, Marty, given that his statement involved what was worth his
time, and not my advice.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Chaney)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,soc.singles,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: LOREN PETRICH...CLOSET-DICTATOR
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 08:00:42 GMT
On 3 Aug 2000 00:52:43 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 18:55:04 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>>Loren Petrich wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>
>>What's the difference between Microsoft's Extortion and Racketeering,
>>and Government Extortion and Racketeering?
>
>The government throw you in jail for tax fraud if you don't pay your
>federal tax, but Microsoft can't do anything if you opt out of the
>Microsoft tax ? Subtle difference.
Wanna bet?
They can bring the government down on you.
That is assuming the time ever comes where Microsoft is able to push
out all the other OS's. This almost happened if it wasn't for the DOJ.
1. All x86 PC's sold before that time, came only with Windows. (This
is a widely known fact.)
2. Microsoft has a percentage of Apple stock now. (20% I believe?) The
intent is rather obvious there: buy out and absorb Apple.
3. Microsoft and other companies were planning to have a "pay per
year" usage system for their software. Which means you buy it and then
pay a fee to continue to have the right to use it, year after year.
4. Lack of another OS choice - credible choices or not - would have
made a non Windows purchase grossly impractical for the entire
American population, save a few techies who run internet servers.
Which means everyone gets railroaded down the "fee per year" - or,
"Microsoft tax" track.
5. If Microsoft had had their way, it would have been a case of if you
don't pay the Microsoft tax, you don't have Windows, no Windows, no
experience using the one single OS that everyone else is using, and
thus no compatibility. (They would use the UCITA to outlaw reverse
engineering and then close-source ALL protocols and file formats. All
of this Microsoft is already trying to do at this moment - see the
recent Kerberos flap. Also see: embrase, extend, extinguish.) You're
also shut out of a LOT of jobs that would, by then, require extensive
Windows literacy. (Namely, any job having to do with computers.)
On a side note, if you try and have a copy of Windows without paying
the fee, look out. Microsoft spent over $20 million to research the
ability for someone in a van to scan what is on your monitor screen
from outside on the street. The ubiqutous eye of Microsoft will then
bust you for any copyright violations. Perhaps as a result of
Microsoft's investment, this technology, called TEMPEST radiation
monitoring, will be available to the average user - to say nothing of
law enforcement - in 5 years, for just a few thousand dollars. (Don't
believe me? Okay - read this:
http://www.sciam.com/1998/1298issue/1298techbus4.html and
http://www.newscientist.com/ns/19991106/newsstory6.html)
Now, granted, Microsoft will not send Microsoft employed TROOPS to
come get you, but they can lobby and big money payola the government
into banning everything from the fair use clause (no backing up of
your software to prevent catastrophic data loss) to reverse
engineering (under the UCITA, if you debug their software and report a
major bug, you go to jail, do not pass Go, and Microsoft collects
$200K from your hide).
This is to say the attacks from big business come at you indirectly -
through their manipulations of politicians with big money, and through
high powered lawyers in the courts.
Remember it wasn't the Carnegie Steel Plant that killed those seven
workers at Homestead, PA in 1892 - it was the sycophants at Pinkerton
Security, which they hired, who did this. And if it wasn't gonna be
Pinkerton, it was surely going to be the state militia. Which in fact
was brought in shortly thereafter, to back up the Pinkerton people.
Wanna know more about what corporations could do? Well it was no
coincidence that the strikers were tried for treason against the State
after this affair. They pissed off the Corporate State. But thank God
the juries gave them a resounding fuckyou and handed down nothing but
acquittals.
And those who say it can't happen again .... well it can - with enough
people asleep at the watch. And we have exactly that situation right
now. See: voter apathy.
-- Steve
------------------------------
From: "Tony Neville" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: There is no such thing as a free lunch!
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 20:13:57 +1200
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Steve Wilbur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Even if the people using the software get it for free, get tech support
> > for free, and even get people to use it on their behalf for free -
> > there is still a cost - borne by SOMEONE. it's not free.
> >
> > There is no such thing as a free lunch
>
> Yes, but we don't have people becoming mega-multi-billionaires at our
> expense either.
Very true. The Royal Family has *got* to go. Maybe they could be
sold off to pay for a defense fund for Microsoft. I did my little bit by
purchasing Windows 98 and Visual C++ 6.0. How about yourself?
Cheers,
Tony.
------------------------------
From: "Slava Pestov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bennett digest, volume 4 (Tholen)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 18:17:00 +1000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Joe Malloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> Else it's just a whole lot of hot air coming from the old geyser.
>
> Illogical. How predictable. Still flying around irrelevant airspace in
> your hot water balloon, Malloy?
Irrelevant, Eric. Meanwhile, I see you still haven't replied to my
post with subject 'Re: Bennett digest, volume 3 (Tholen)'. Why is that,
Eric? Have you finally realised that you have lost the argument, but
are to embarrassed to admit it?
------------------------------
From: David Punsalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: maximum (?) linux
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 03:32:26 -0500
Hi,
This post is not about Linux - but about a Linux magazine. I apologize in
advance if this is not the right newsgroup to post to. I would, however,
like to get other people's opinions.
I recently made a mistake of buying an issue of "Maximum Linux" magazine.
I thought it was absolutely horrible.
I was in an airport and had to kill time, so I bought it. I was so upset
that I wasted my money on it. Does anyone else agree that this magazine
is terrible? Did I just get a bad issue (aug/sept 2000)?
It comes in a plastic bag so that you can't check it out prior to
purchasing it - now I know why. Inside - they break the news to you that
the free Mandrake 7.1 CD that it comes with is not quite the full version.
The crippled distribution might be okay still - but this "surprise" just
adds salt to the wound.
In just ~10 minutes of looking at it, I saw 2 glaring typos. As I tried,
to make the best of it - I realized, in horror, that very little useful
information could be found (e.g. One of the columnists, a self
professed "newbie" gives "tips" which are entirely superficial with no
details. )
Hopefully, this post will save some people who are curious about it. I
bought an issue of "Linux Magazine" and I liked it a lot b/c in a single
issue - I found scores of useful information with detailed listings.
"Maximum Linux" magazine, I think, may be good for people want to know
more about Linux merchandise. But I found it woefully lacking in useful,
informative articles.
- David
------------------------------
From: sideband <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.alpha
Subject: Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 05:09:50 -0400
1. Windows was nothing new when 1.0 came out.... UNIX had been doing "Windows" with
X for years before Micro$loth decided to steal something else... (DOS was simply a
ported CP/M)
2. Apple beat Micro$loth to the GUI market as well, in 1984, with the release of the
Lisa, and in 1985 with the Macintosh. OOps...
3. Bill Gates has made money by having his programmers imitate others' ideas,
calling them his own, buying out his competition (RE: the Stac Electronics incident,
among others), and convincing the public that those ideas were his own...
4. Linux may indeed be another UNIX, but what's wrong with that? It actually takes
knowledge and intelligence to run UNIX and its variants, unlike Windows, where the
user is coddled into a sense of security with its ease of installation and purported
compatibility.
5. Hardware compatibility... this point is a real joke... There is no need to
recompile a kernel to get a video card to work up to standard capabilities. In fact,
all video cards that I know of for i386-type platforms run X quite well with the
standard SVGA drivers. Yes, some work better, and have more capabilities with their
tailor made drivers (Mach64(ATI Rage/RageII/RageII+/RageIIc) and Voodoo are good
examples). No, I've never compiled framebuffer support into my kernel, or SVGA
support, or anthing else of that sort. It's unnecessary. My Mach64 cards, Trident
9440, 9480, 3DImage975, and Mach128 cards have all worked right out of the box, with
a little tweaking and some shared knowledge. Again, it takes a brain that can think
to get them to do what you want, but let's face it, anything worth having is worth
working for.
6. Winmodems... Please.. Glorified sound cards is all they are. Some actually DO
work with Linux, if you get off your lazy butt and do a websearch to find the
information. Fact of the matter is it's a cheap way to do something that $5.00 more
in parts would accomplish, and they're not really worth the time...
So if you want to be coddled, and want to brainlessly play games, and surf the net,
use Windows... If you want to really learn what's going on inside your computer, use
a UNIX based OS.
Oh, and yes, this message was written in Netscape on a Windows 98 machine... I like
to play games too, and yes, it's easier to do so in Windows, but most everything
else I do, I do in Linux or NetBSD.
Hope this clears up the issues. I'll probably get flamed for it, but what the hey,
it's just my two cents.
-SSB
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Chaney)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.liberalism,soc.singles
Subject: Re: one of Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 09:11:37 GMT
On 1 Aug 2000 17:41:05 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Steve Chaney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On 1 Aug 2000 06:12:51 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>
>>How good does a power mac work with Linux? That processor should be
>>screaming without the limitations of (pick your Apple OS of the day).
>>It sure turns out x86 screams without the limitations of Windows,
>>that's for sure!
>
> It performs excellently under the BeOS, though I haven't tried a
>PowerPC flavor of Linux yet.
My memory of PPC Linux is fuzzy but the last memory I have of it was
some spectacular sighting of a Mac running Linux locally in a shell
window, while running Photoshop and Marathon in another window. People
say that is impossible, especially back when I saw it in 1996.
I wonder what I was looking at. The machine wasn't on a network and
wasn't telnetting to a shell somewhere else, so those unix shell
windows were local. Unfortunately it was someone else's machine and I
dared not touch it and see for myself what was up.
Oh well - chalk it up as an Elvis sighting.
> Apple is still too slow with MacOS X :-(
Yeah but it looks good :)
-- Steve
PS: A friend of the GPL is a friend of mine.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Chaney)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.liberalism,soc.singles
Subject: Re: one of Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 09:21:16 GMT
On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 03:30:31 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Steve Chaney wrote:
>
>> Let me introduce you to TheJungle.
>> In TheJungle calling for help is for wimps.
>
>Wrong. Being a lazy ass bastard and whining because you don't have
>an infinite supply of snacky cakes for sufficient grounds for
>a boot in the face.
If I decided to eat a snacky cake would you care to try and come and
provide the boot to the face?
Bwahhahahahahahah.
good one matey
-- Steve
kulky yer gonna get rolled up into a bowling ball and used as
ammunition in a war against some tenpins.
------------------------------
From: sideband <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.alpha
Subject: Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 05:32:45 -0400
I don't think I could have said it better myself.... I tried, tho... before
I read yours... Good job, Rex
-SSB
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
> > Linux = Yet Another Unix.
>
> Partially true. Linux was designed to be UNIX compatible. It
> was designed to run applications written for UNIX. And it even
> enjoys contributions from some of the original authors of
> the BSD kernel.
>
> At the same time, Linux was so cheap, and ran on such a wide variety
> of hardware and software that tens of thousands of developers began
> contributing ORIGINAL software written for Linux.
>
> The irony is that now, UNIX vendors are trying to make sure that
> their systems will run "Linux programs". It really isn't that hard.
>
> > 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.
>
> Actually, I've spent 10 years supporting UNIX users, and 5 years
> supporting Linux users.
>
> > Then they could explain to the average user why
> > Linux STILL does not seamlessly support common hardware,
> > such a S3-based graphics.
>
> Windows 2000 only runs on hardware certified to run Windows 2000.
> You could **TRY** to run Windows 2000 on a 486/50, but it probably
> wouldn't work very well, and it probably wouldn't run most of
> the applications originally on the machine (Windows 3.1 Apps).
>
> More important, Windows 2000 tends to only run well with certain
> software as well. Many companies have had to wait for upgrades
> to Netscape Navigator, Lotus Notes, and other 3rd party applications
> which are required by these companies to show compliance with
> court judgements, SEC and regulatory issues, and other requirements
> Microsoft avoids like the plague.
>
> > Explain to the end-user how to compile/install a framebuffer
> > SVGA kernel.
>
> Why explain to the end-user how to configure a raw inconfigured
> Linux configuration to a randomly selected hardware configuration
> (or worse, a configuration deliberately configured to make it as
> difficult as possible to install Linux).
>
> > Expain what a modeline is...
> > Need a parallel port ZIP drive?
>
> Scriptable. IOMEGA could provided it, as could the OEM.
> With 20 possible PPA devices/configurations, you can't always
> assume that the PPA will always be a ZIP. Much like Windows.
>
> > Say the magic words and type the completely
> > cryptic commands and no problem!!
>
> Punch the little buttons on Linuxconf or DrakConf and
> the magic little script gets generated for you, runs,
> and remembers what you did in something you can edit
> with a different tool (just in case you get tired of
> waiting for windows to pop-up and close).
>
> > 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.
>
> A bit like trying to decide which car is better Chrysler or Plymouth,
> Ford or Lincoln, Chevy or Pontiac. It seems that people LIKE to
> have choices.
>
> > Just bought Code Warrior?
>
> This is an "idiot user" application? Somebody using Code Warrior
> (a full-featured C/C++ IDE for Linux) probably knows enough about
> Information technology to get beyond most problems.
>
> > Doesn't work with your
> > X-Server because you have an S3 Trio 3D video card
> > and have to use frame buffering?
>
> Why are you using frame buffering on an S3 Trio?
> Use the S3 Driver. This is a direct command driver that
> doesn't need video frame buffering. Frame buffering is only
> needed for either really dumb SVGA cards or really fast AGP
> cards. In each case, the frame buffer is simply pointed to
> the appropriate "desktop" and fed directly to the display circuitry.
>
> The S3 driver is a vector graphic chip, and the Trio 3D also contains
> algorythms for XYZ scaling from 3D points to 2D vectors (among other
> things).
>
> > Oh well....explain THAT one.
>
> You just did. You assumed that you should be using the SVGA frame
> buffer driver instead of the S3Trio driver. It works, but you'll be
> happier with the driver designed for the chip.
>
> > 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....
>
> Accelerated X and Metro X provide better support and use faster
> rendering engines including exploitation of rasterops built into
> the chips and/or the Pentium II and Pentium III and K6 chips. The
> Xfree versions tend to provide the basic translations from Xlib to
> hardware in the most cost/effective manner.
>
> If you really need real-time 3D rendering, you should probably spring
> for an Indy or an Ultra. If you just want some fast graphics for KDE,
> Xfree provides some pretty good drivers.
>
> > Linux will NEVER succeed in the common
> > marketplace until it can LOSE THE
> > HARDWARE COMPATIBILITY LIST!!
>
> Actually, Windows 3.1, 95, 98, NT 3.51, NT 4.0, and 2000 all have
> hardware compatibility lists. Windows 3.1 doesn't support most of
> the AGP and 32 bit drivers either. Windows 98 doesn't support VLB,
> and Win2K wont support smaller drives, older video, and ISA IDE cards.
>
> It may be possible to install Windows 2000 on a 486 VLB machine, but
> it is specifically below the minimum requirements for that system.
>
> > PEOPLE DON'T CARE ABOUT HCLs!!!
>
> That's true. Most people, about 90% of them, would really rather
> have a configured systetm right out of the box, with the configuration
> work done by the OEM. Microsoft contracts of 1997, 1998, and 1999
> didn't allow OEMs to provide configuration services. Most of the
> 2000 contracts have been loosened up because Microsoft isn't going
> to drive 100 million new sales in Windows 2000 machines, and the
> Windows 98 market is pretty much saturated already.
>
> > THEY JUST WANT IT TO WORK!! MICROSOFT WORKS!! GET IT YET????
>
> Of course it works. Before anyone touches a Microsoft machine,
> before the machine is allowed to put the little Windows icon anywhere
> on the box (including the keyboard) the entire system has to go through
> a comprehensive set of certification tests. The sticker or plaque
> lists the compatibilities.
>
> I have a machin sitting next to me. The plaquard says:
>
> Designed for
> <windows logo>
> Microsoft (R)
> --------------
> Windows NT(R)
> Windows(R)98
>
> And the VA Linux box has a similar sticker that says:
> Designed for
> <linux logo>
> Linux (R)
>
> It's perfectly reasonable to expect OEMs to start selling machines
> that sport both plaquards. In some cases, the motherboard comes
> with a complimentary (included in the price) copy of Linux.
>
> > Unix has been around for 30 years and
> > has not "revolutionized" the computer world.
>
> I guess you were living in a cave from 1994 to 1998. This thing
> called the Internet, and the World Wide Web came out. It used
> UNIX servers (now about 20 million of them), UNIX routers, UNIX
> switches, UNIX firewalls, and UNIX file systems and databases to
> serve about 300 million people using software originally developed
> by UNIX programmers on UNIX machines. Cornel ported the UNIX version
> to Windows, and Berkely team members merged the source trees to create
> Mosaic, but the Internet is entirely a UNIX phenomenon.
>
> In fact, UNIX HAS revolutionized the world. And not just the
> computer world. Today, most advertizing gives a URL instead of
> a phone number. Most business involves decisions based on information
> provided by UNIX systems.
>
> > It never will because the Unix world
> > is run by cultists rather than
> > business people.
>
> Let's see. We have about 200 regular Linux advacates who post
> pretty regularly. Most have provided their URLs and a bit
> of digging indicates that we have a number of people from IBM,
> Dell, Gateway, Compaq, numerous government agencies, a number
> of insurance companies, banks, publishing companies, and other
> Fortune 500 organizations. Most of them list experience ranging
> from 5 to 20 years of experience, and many of them have been
> UNIX administrators even before finding out about Linux.
>
> Discussing the posts, most Linux advocates seem to be quite
> familiar with very large enterprise size projects that demand
> UNIX power, either in the form of Linux, Linux Clusters,
> UNIX, or UNIX clusters.
>
> Most of them seem to have a fair amount of "bloody up to the arms"
> experience in large scale system design.
>
> > What a JOKE!!
>
> No, the joke is below:
>
> > --
> > Identity is of no importance
> > or relevance. Get over it.
> >
>
> --
> Rex Ballard - I/T Architect, MIS Director
> Linux avocat, Internet Pioneer
> http://www.open4success.com
> Linux - 40 million satisfied users worldwide
> and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 7/2/00)
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bennett digest, volume 4 (Tholen)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 09:37:47 GMT
Slava Pestov writes:
> Irrelevant, Eric. Meanwhile, I see you still haven't replied to my
> post with subject 'Re: Bennett digest, volume 3 (Tholen)'. Why is that,
> Eric?
Maybe because your subject line is irrelevant to the content?
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,soc.singles,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: LOREN PETRICH...CLOSET-DICTATOR
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 05:54:51 -0400
Steve Chaney wrote:
>
> On 3 Aug 2000 00:52:43 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 18:55:04 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> >>Loren Petrich wrote:
> >>>
> >>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >
> >>What's the difference between Microsoft's Extortion and Racketeering,
> >>and Government Extortion and Racketeering?
> >
> >The government throw you in jail for tax fraud if you don't pay your
> >federal tax, but Microsoft can't do anything if you opt out of the
> >Microsoft tax ? Subtle difference.
>
> Wanna bet?
> They can bring the government down on you.
>
> That is assuming the time ever comes where Microsoft is able to push
> out all the other OS's. This almost happened if it wasn't for the DOJ.
>
> 1. All x86 PC's sold before that time, came only with Windows. (This
> is a widely known fact.)
>
> 2. Microsoft has a percentage of Apple stock now. (20% I believe?) The
> intent is rather obvious there: buy out and absorb Apple.
>
> 3. Microsoft and other companies were planning to have a "pay per
> year" usage system for their software. Which means you buy it and then
> pay a fee to continue to have the right to use it, year after year.
>
> 4. Lack of another OS choice - credible choices or not - would have
> made a non Windows purchase grossly impractical for the entire
> American population, save a few techies who run internet servers.
>
> Which means everyone gets railroaded down the "fee per year" - or,
> "Microsoft tax" track.
>
> 5. If Microsoft had had their way, it would have been a case of if you
> don't pay the Microsoft tax, you don't have Windows, no Windows, no
> experience using the one single OS that everyone else is using, and
> thus no compatibility. (They would use the UCITA to outlaw reverse
> engineering and then close-source ALL protocols and file formats. All
> of this Microsoft is already trying to do at this moment - see the
> recent Kerberos flap. Also see: embrase, extend, extinguish.) You're
> also shut out of a LOT of jobs that would, by then, require extensive
> Windows literacy. (Namely, any job having to do with computers.)
>
> On a side note, if you try and have a copy of Windows without paying
> the fee, look out. Microsoft spent over $20 million to research the
> ability for someone in a van to scan what is on your monitor screen
> from outside on the street. The ubiqutous eye of Microsoft will then
> bust you for any copyright violations. Perhaps as a result of
> Microsoft's investment, this technology, called TEMPEST radiation
> monitoring, will be available to the average user - to say nothing of
> law enforcement - in 5 years, for just a few thousand dollars. (Don't
> believe me? Okay - read this:
> http://www.sciam.com/1998/1298issue/1298techbus4.html and
> http://www.newscientist.com/ns/19991106/newsstory6.html)
>
> Now, granted, Microsoft will not send Microsoft employed TROOPS to
> come get you, but they can lobby and big money payola the government
> into banning everything from the fair use clause (no backing up of
> your software to prevent catastrophic data loss) to reverse
> engineering (under the UCITA, if you debug their software and report a
> major bug, you go to jail, do not pass Go, and Microsoft collects
> $200K from your hide).
>
> This is to say the attacks from big business come at you indirectly -
> through their manipulations of politicians with big money, and through
> high powered lawyers in the courts.
>
> Remember it wasn't the Carnegie Steel Plant that killed those seven
> workers at Homestead, PA in 1892 - it was the sycophants at Pinkerton
> Security, which they hired, who did this. And if it wasn't gonna be
> Pinkerton, it was surely going to be the state militia. Which in fact
> was brought in shortly thereafter, to back up the Pinkerton people.
> Wanna know more about what corporations could do? Well it was no
> coincidence that the strikers were tried for treason against the State
> after this affair. They pissed off the Corporate State. But thank God
> the juries gave them a resounding fuckyou and handed down nothing but
> acquittals.
>
> And those who say it can't happen again .... well it can - with enough
> people asleep at the watch. And we have exactly that situation right
> now. See: voter apathy.
>
> -- Steve
How is it that you pass back and forth between vapid ignorance and
brilliant insight between sending one post and writing the next?
--
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"
J: Loren's Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
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.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
