Linux-Advocacy Digest #272, Volume #28 Sun, 6 Aug 00 23:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh ("neuralnoise")
Re: ATTN: REX BALLARD: Microsoft's contracts not volountary (Loren Petrich)
Re: ATTN: REX BALLARD: Microsoft's contracts not volountary (Loren Petrich)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh (Loren Petrich)
Re: LOREN PETRICH...CLOSET-DICTATOR (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Does Steve Ballmer post here? (Ray Chason)
Re: can Linux use be so low? I do not believe it. web traffic. (Ray Chason)
Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux growth stagnating (Christopher Browne)
Re: LOREN PETRICH...CLOSET-DICTATOR ("Michael S. Lorrey")
Re: LOREN PETRICH...CLOSET-DICTATOR ("Michael S. Lorrey")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "neuralnoise" <[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: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 01:04:51 GMT
"Loren Petrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8ml174> >> No, I
support what I consider the lesser of two evils
> >So you support evil? Why? Are you evil?
> Because if I don't vote, the greater of the two evils might get elected.
But if you vote for evil, evil will get elected. If you don't vote for evil,
evil will still probably get elected, but at least it won't be your fault.
If you don't vote for that which is not evil, that which is not evil will
never get elected, and it will be your fault.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,soc.singles,alt.society.anarchy,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: ATTN: REX BALLARD: Microsoft's contracts not volountary
Date: 7 Aug 2000 01:04:09 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Raul Iglesias wrote:
>> Well up to certain limit it is the final humanity goal I think ... unless
>> big and strong companies make 90% persons work a lot to be able
>> them to live very well.
>Then fucking get some skills that make you more valuable to your
>employer.
I have a feeling that Mr. Kulkis does not really want that to
happen, because large numbers of people manifesting Unix sysadmin skills
would produce a lot of competition for him, and his much-idolized law of
supply and demand would force down his income.
Furthermore, it's rather difficult to acquire new skills if most
of one's waking hours are spent working.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,soc.singles,alt.society.anarchy,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: ATTN: REX BALLARD: Microsoft's contracts not volountary
Date: 7 Aug 2000 01:04:09 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Raul Iglesias wrote:
>> Well up to certain limit it is the final humanity goal I think ... unless
>> big and strong companies make 90% persons work a lot to be able
>> them to live very well.
>Then fucking get some skills that make you more valuable to your
>employer.
I have a feeling that Mr. Kulkis does not really want that to
happen, because large numbers of people manifesting Unix sysadmin skills
would produce a lot of competition for him, and his much-idolized law of
supply and demand would force down his income.
Furthermore, it's rather difficult to acquire new skills if most
of one's waking hours are spent working.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
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: 7 Aug 2000 01:09:31 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
MK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> However, if all the alternatives are equally bad, then
>>love-it-or-leave-it won't help.
>But apparently you see nothing wrong with taxes being constructed
>on basis of "love it or leave it".
How MK views employment.
[Moving to another country...][
>> I've half-thought of doing so if some right-wing fascists take over.
>Why, if they built lots of "socialist roads" like Hitler actually did? Fascism
>is too much of socialism for you to leave.
That's preposterous and beside the point. A fascist leader will
tell Mr. MK how much he loves free enterprise, and MK will swallow it whole.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
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: 7 Aug 2000 01:47:20 GMT
On Sun, 06 Aug 2000 20:11:42 -0400, Michael S. Lorrey wrote:
>Loren Petrich wrote:
>> Baloney. How will your beloved armed forces be funded if
>> everybody evades taxes like that?
>
>Since our beloved armed forces only use less than 14% of federal
>revinues, we can take it out of the portion that keeps superannuated
>socialistic old farts on the dole and playing shuffleboard.
WTF is a "revinue" ? And what about the portion that supplies food
stamps to the troops ?
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does Steve Ballmer post here?
Date: 7 Aug 2000 01:38:12 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Shannon Hendrix) wrote:
>On Fri, 04 Aug 2000 10:10:40 -0500, Nathaniel Jay Lee
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>|The guy sersiously seems to believe that MS was never being
>|anti-competitive. Of course, in Gates' world, I'm sure lying isn't any
>|more morally contemptable than his business's practices of malicious
>|attacks, absorbtion, buy-outs, and push-outs.
>|
>|One amazing guy!
>
>If you've ever read some of the early communist theory, like Marx, one
>of the tools of takeover is to lie constantly. Don't even try to hide
>it. Eventually the people will believe you, even when they know it is
>not true. Mass psychology or brainwashing theory I guess.
>
>I wish I could remember exactly who originally wrote the idea down.
>In any case, looks like Bill Gates was an avid reader.
At the risk of Godwinning myself, perhaps I should note that Hitler wrote
much the same thing in _Mein Kampf_. (Gates of course is no Hitler -- he's
an evil minded sonofabitch but he hasn't built any Auschwitzes.)
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
People should respect the law, and the law should respect people.
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: can Linux use be so low? I do not believe it. web traffic.
Date: 7 Aug 2000 01:42:46 GMT
"Davorin Mestric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> no humor can change the fact that linux is used so little. face the
>facts.
So I'm supposed to use Windoze simply because X number of other people use
Windoze?
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
People should respect the law, and the law should respect people.
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux growth stagnating
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 02:24:04 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, you wrote:
>Christopher Browne wrote:
>> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when fred would say:
>> >On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 02:18:14 GMT, R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
>> >>I/T Architect, MIS Director
>> >>http://www.open4success.com
>> >>Linux - 40 million satisfied users worldwide
>> >>and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 7/2/00)
>> >
>> >Rex has recalibrated his Linux counter again.
>> >
>> >It's kind of interesting how his counter is a bit well, optimistic.
>> >
>> >In 8/99 it was 44 million growing at 3% a week
>> >in 10/99 it was 50 million growing at 3% a week
>> >In 12/99 it was 60 million growing at 3% a week
>> >In 04/00 it was 60 million growing at 1% a week
>> >In 06/00 it was 90 million growing at 5% a month
>> >
>> >And now as of his August 3, 2000 post it is a mere 42 million growing
>> >at 5% a month.
>> >
>> >I just wish deja.com had those old posts back online. ;(
>> >
>> >Never could figure out where that 90 million number came from, glad to
>> >see Rex is willing to correct his mistakes.
>> >
>> >Now if only he'd realize that the reality is probably half what he's
>> >claiming, i.e. around 20 million. :)
>>
>> Mind you, if reality is around 20 million, that's still none too shabby.
>>
>> >Or if he'd finally admit to making up the Microsoft/Unix story.
>>
>> But that might lead to bigger and worse things.
>>
>> He might have to admit to not having invented the Internet, just like
>> Al Gore. And that association with Democratic presidential figures might
>> be unacceptable. (Yes, there could be other reasons; this is just one
>> of the more entertaining ones...)
>>
>> >Or well, maybe if he'd just stop posting. :)
>>
>> If he'd only post the things he had actually researched, and had
>> verifiable facts for...
>>
>> Um, well, I guess that probably amounts to what you said. :-).
>> --
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/linux.html>
>> "Free software: the Source will be with you, always."
>> -- Will Mengarini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Its a wonder you wintrolls get anything done. All you do is quote bad
>spec after bad spec, makeup and or post erronious data (some supplied by
>bills thugs with rigged testing I might add). It would seem to me
>that you just dont get it. Linux is a system that people who know
>computers like to use because it is vastly more configurable and usable
>than windows (any flavor). Just go back to your brain dead windows setup
>with the backdoors and poor security and leave the smart people here the
>hell alone.
You are mistaking that "thinking Rex Ballard is a flake" indicates
"being a wintroll." Which is certainly _not_ the case. Read what I
wrote a tad more carefully. I think _you_ didn't get it.
I was correcting Rex Ballard's made-up claims about what was true of
Linux a couple years ago, but no longer do so. The quantity of blather
that he emits just isn't worth proof-reading.
You might also take a look at either of the URLs below.
<http://www.ntlug.org/>
I'm one of the officers of a Linux User Group with around 2000 members.
If you want to believe me a "wintroll," I can't stop you. Nor can I
stop there from being a minority that believes that the X-Files are real.
Eliminating world hunger appears beyond my reach. Convincing Rex Ballard
to do research before posting also seems quite unattainable.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
"Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is
time to reform." -- Mark Twain
------------------------------
From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <[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: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 22:39:13 -0400
Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Michael S. Lorrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Since our beloved armed forces only use less than 14% of federal
> >revinues, we can take it out of the portion that keeps superannuated
> >socialistic old farts on the dole and playing shuffleboard.
>
> Including your elderly relatives, most likely.
Who have all been retired much longer than the 3.5 years during which
they actually used up the total amount of money that they actually did
put into the Social Security system, and are now living off of other
people's money put into the system. Euthenasia = a buddhist health
spa...
--
TANSTAAFL
Mike Lorrey
"In the end more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. When
the
Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give
to
them, when the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility,
then
Athens ceased to be free." --- Edward Gibbon (1737-1794)
"A person who wants a society that is both safe and free, wants what
never
has been, and what never will be." --- Thomas Jefferson
"It's a Republic, if you can keep it..." --- Benjamin Franklin
------------------------------
From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <[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: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 22:41:07 -0400
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Sun, 06 Aug 2000 20:11:42 -0400, Michael S. Lorrey wrote:
> >Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> >> Baloney. How will your beloved armed forces be funded if
> >> everybody evades taxes like that?
> >
> >Since our beloved armed forces only use less than 14% of federal
> >revinues, we can take it out of the portion that keeps superannuated
> >socialistic old farts on the dole and playing shuffleboard.
>
> WTF is a "revinue" ? And what about the portion that supplies food
> stamps to the troops ?
Actually, I'd institut a bonus system: a $100 bonus for every socialist
that got stomped when the men went into town to practice System D.
--
TANSTAAFL
Mike Lorrey
"In the end more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. When
the
Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give
to
them, when the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility,
then
Athens ceased to be free." --- Edward Gibbon (1737-1794)
"A person who wants a society that is both safe and free, wants what
never
has been, and what never will be." --- Thomas Jefferson
"It's a Republic, if you can keep it..." --- Benjamin Franklin
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 22:44:41 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said John W. Stevens in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> Said John W. Stevens in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>> The object is to inform the public. When they understand the difference
>> between a kernel and an OS *package*, then I'll see what they call
>> which, and adopt that terminology. But every time we mean "technical
>> OS", we aren't necessarily referring to kernel, and every time we mean
>> "market OS", we're not necessarily referring simply to a package, so
>> there would be no greater accuracy, consistency, or practicality in
>> adopting conventions for "OS" now than there has been for the last
>> twenty years. IMHO.
>
>Adopting any convention that reduces the confusion and ambiguity is a
>"good thing".
Adopting conventions which *obscure* the confusion and ambiguity of the
contention itself is not a good thing.
>> >Errr . . . no. Neither GNOME or KDE is particularly integrated with the
>> >Linux OS.
>>
>> When you say integrated, do you mean like "WS_FTP is integrated with
>> Explorer" or do you mean like "IE is integrated in Windows"?
>
>Neither. Neither GNOME or KDE is integrated with Linux, any more than
>Office is integrated with Windows.
But Office is far more integrated with Windows than either GNOME or KDE
is integrated with Linux. Apparently you have an esoteric (and no doubt
exclusive) view of what the term "integrated" means.
>> IE isn't
>> particularly integrated with Windows OS, was my point. Its more
>> carefully welded in place then GNOME is to Linux, but this again merely
>> highlights the nomenclature problem. "Integrated" is a quantity, not a
>> quality.
>
>This statement is incorrect.
This statement is an opinion which does not provide any justification or
reasoning for presuming it is a useful or well-informed opinion.
>> All software is integrated with the OS,
>
>That statement is incorrect. Once again, synthesis without sufficient
>detail and proper weighing, has produced a system that is false-to-fact.
Once again, "proper weighting" can only be derived by synthesis. You
seem to be indicating that knowledge is transcendent over fact; that if
a system which is based on incorrect weighting, and thereby results in
incoherent synthesis, is capable of being internally and externally
consistent. This is not the case; if a system is produced which is
false in fact, then I should think that it would be empirically obvious.
Meanwhile, synthesis which is no less inaccurate in its preconceived
weighting of facts which results in conclusions which are not
empirically demonstrable to be in conflict with reality cannot be said
to be "wrong" accept in purely absolutist or dogmatic consideration.
>It doesn't work, Max. Time to change your processes.
It seems to be working even as we speak. Since your synthesis seems
inferior to mine in explaining the reality of the situation, I would
presume that you are mis-weighting some facts. The possible extension
of theory to consider that you are instead failing to properly
synthesize facts does not seem appropriate, given your ability to
maintain at least some semblance of structure and validity in your
responses. That only shows that you pass the Turing Test, though; it
does not provide me with any ability to discriminate which facts you may
be neglecting in your analysis.
[...]
>What goes without saying is: if properly designed and written,
>applications are not integrated into or with an OS.
If only this did indeed go without saying. Many people, millions, in
fact, if you include all those who are ignorant other than Microsoft's
manipulative marketing, insist that quite the opposite is the case.
[...]
>> You were the one who suggested a law saying all interfaces must be open
>> public standards, weren't you?
>
>Yep. The FCC has the power to regulate network traffic, as network
>traffic is obviously communications, and with the advent of the internet
>(cross state boundaries my packets go . . .), well within the domain of
>Federal authoriy.
I have trouble going along with that, if only because I haven't seen the
FCC as living up to its actual responsibilities to regulate
communications to begin with. Further, the FCC has the duty to regulate
network *connections*; they should and do have no authority or
responsibility for even considering, let alone regulating, what actually
communications or information are distributed by or through those
connections. The FCC has the power to regulate network traffic
*services*, not network traffic.
>> I'll go you one better: all software
>> must be open source. Simpler,
>
>No.
Yes; it is an absolutist doctrine which is therefore simpler than any
convoluted regulation.
>> easier,
>
>No.
Yes; it is enforced by caveat, much more easily implemented than any
convoluted regulation.
>> more reliable,
>
>Yes.
I can't understand how or why you could disagree with the first two and
then agree on this, which I consider an emergent property.
>> and much more
>> possible.
>
>No.
>
>Software, unless properly written, and packaged with sufficient
>documentation, is neither simpler nor easier to work from than a good,
>open, public standard. More reliable, of course, as the implementation
>may not match the standard. Definitely not possible, as commercial
>producers no more want to give away their work than musicians do.
You seem to have confabulated "standard" with "software". You'll have
to clear up that confusion before you can really discuss the issues I've
raised. A "good, open, public standard" has nothing to do with whether
software is open or good. Why do you seem to think that software and
standards are an "either/or" alternative basis for development?
>> Especially considering the law already says software code is
>> copyright, so no "licensing" bullshit as now exists is really necessary
>> except for developers.
>
>Licensing exists not to protect in the fashion of a copyright, but to
>establish control over actual ownership and use.
Licensing exists to protect what should be protected by copyright law
with trade secret law in addition. It is inherently deceptive and
dishonest, IMHO.
[...]
>> Luckily, in a real market, it isn't really a question of "winning" or
>> "losing". Just competing, and benefitting the consumer. You can make
>> money, or lose money, either competing with the standard, or competing
>> with the standard, if you see what I mean.
>
>By leveraging a monopoly, you can indeed compete with the standard. By
>*OWNING* the standard is also critical, because just because there is a
>standard, does not mean that it is open and public.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to quibble with your choice of vocabulary,
then. In the only method I've been able to derive, which I call the
Best Practices Conceptual Model, the term 'standard' does indeed mean
both 'open' and 'public', when used within the world of networking or
interoperability. The alternative and common (but imprecise and
contradictory) use of the word 'standard' to mean "popular", as in the
phrase "de facto standard" as used throughout the early and mid 90s, is
confusing and impractical. One cannot own a standard; only a
proprietary specification. I realize this type of clarification opens
me up to an endless stream of criticism and insults, but the fact
remains that nomenclature does shift in meaning, and the conventional
meaning of the term 'standard' in any point in time prior to the most
recent few months cannot be considered authoritative in conversation.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
