Linux-Advocacy Digest #636, Volume #28 Fri, 25 Aug 00 21:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: When it's time to not be nice... (was Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic
Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux growth stagnating) (The
Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Ted Brown)
Re: So ya' wanna' run Linux?...I have a bridge for sale in Bklyn.....
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
GUI vs Command Line: The useless war (Sylvain Demers)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (josco)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: When it's time to not be nice... (was Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and
Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux growth stagnating)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 22:46:46 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, sandrews
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 24 Aug 2000 11:03:44 -0500
<39a53a7f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Roberto Alsina
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>> I have more sides than the average icosahedron. So do you, probably.
>>
>
>What`s a icosahedron ???
The 3-dimensional regular solids:
#vertices #edges #faces #edges/face name
4 6 4 3 regular tetrahedron
8 12 6 4 cube (regular hexahedron?)
6 12 8 3 regular octahedron
20 30 12 5 regular dodecahedron
12 30 20 3 regular icosahedron
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 15:31:47 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Linux, on the other hand, has a relatively stable kernel, and most of
> the changes are at the application level. More importantly, the
> changes at the application level are insulated from each other.
> Windows makes changes at DLL level that create unnecessary and
> perilous interactions between applications.
Linux's kernel is more stable in operations. Linux's kernel code is just as
much in flux as windows, in fact more so. For proof look at the several
hundred Linux kernels that have been available compared to the handfull of
Windows over the same period of time. YET Linux is more stable in
operations and had has proven it while Windows claims are just vapor.
> And let's not start on how MS gives apps access to the OS APIs.
> A symptom of a toy operating system.
Right, why beat a dead horse. ;-|)
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 15:49:55 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Joseph T. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8o6lm6$f4j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> : <MSWORDDATA>
> : sdlkfjsda;lfkjsda f;lsdkf 2340985r32j23lkr2j r23o978xdf0sdjalfkwj 32
> : </MSWORDDATA>
>
> : (where that contains some encoded table)
>
>
> That will parse just fine.
>
> It won't be very useful to anyone but M$. But XML never promised to
> make all data useful.
If the data cannot be interpreted, then what is the use of parsing it? If a
propertary data file were converted to text as a Radix-64 or uuencoded data
stream and is framed by valid tags it is still no more useful that what we
have today. If in fact it would be less useful, processing it would be
slower and it would consume more storage and other resources than otherwise
needed.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 16:03:09 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> > Consider
> > that the data in the fields are not just encoded but also ecrypted as my
> > example was offered to illustrate.
>
> I still have cryptographie on the roadmap of my XML::Edifact module.
>
>
#---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---#
> Alf O. Watt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> proposed a simple solution using
> namespaces and processing instructions to the perlxml mailing list in
> December 1998. The beauty of this aproach is that the secure document
> is still well-formed and valid, and of the same document type. It
could
> even be translated back to UN/EDIFACT to obtain a message with
encrypted
> segments.
>
#---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---#
>
> I think that cryptographie on document level is extremly important,
> as the documents may contain confidental data.
>
> > Did you notice the address of the URL in the DOCTYPE line?
> >> : <!DOCTYPE RST "http://localhost/fubar.dtd>
>
> what about <!DOCTYPE RST "http://www.webcam.de/fubar.dtd> this would not
> only mean the same (www.webcam.de is 127.0.0.1 ;-) but offers the
possibility
> to change in future versions.
Of what value is a universal file format is the data can not be intreperted
bay any than the programs that created them? The encryption that I was
referring to was not to protect the user's data or other assets, it was
encryption to keep the actual file format propertary and both be able to
claim they are using XML and to circumvent its potiential benefits at the
same time.
Remember UniForm? It was one of the prior attempts to create a universal
file format. How many files do you have that are still in that format? I
have not seen any for more than a decade. That was only one of that many
take became very popular for a short time until reality reared it head.
Perhaps I am jaded by experience, but everything that is being stated as a
benefit of XML has been said in the part in realation to all the prior
formats as well. For me this is nothing new, but what astounds me is they
way so many seem to fail to remember the past and think they are developing
such a great thing that has never been done before.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 23:43:34 GMT
On 25 Aug 2000 10:22:25 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>On 5 Jun 2000 14:06:17 -0500, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
>> W2K is perfectly stabile. It even bloes NT4 out of teh watter.
>
>That's funny, I have heard the exact same thing about NT4 in the
>past. (ie, "NT4 is perfectly stabile[sic], it even bloes[sic] NT35
>out of teh[sic] watter[sic].")
My problem with NT (as a desktop platform) has had less to do
with 'stability' and more to do with resource contention. It's
far too easy to get NT4 locked on some shared resource and NT5
has this peculiar habit of 'pausing' noticably on simple
clipboard transactions.
>
>I suppose Windows 2003 will be even *more* stable than Windows 2000,
>eh? :)
Those that really torture NT do tell me that the BSOD's get
significantly less frequent under version 5. They're still
a bit too frequent however.
[deletia]
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Ted Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 23:53:47 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> One way is the method Ted Kennedy uses: the blind trust. Another way to
> reduce
> your taxes is charitable contributions. If someone wants to argue that Bill
> Gates should have given 22 billion dollars to the Government rather than a
> charitable trust that actually gets results they should take the argument
> elswhere. These same news sources repeat the Democrat's mantra that getting
> rid of inheritance taxes is "a tax break for the rich". I'm sure that the
> family farms that are unable to break even because the people running them
> inherited a huge tax bill that they will spend their lives trying to pay off will
> disagree. The fact is both sides are full of it. You want real progress and change
> vote Libertarian. One other thing, if you want to see what American government
> run health care looks like, visit a VA hospital.
>
> david raoul derbes wrote:
I feel compelled to jump in (due to the title of this thread) and point out:
During his acceptance speech Al Gore specifially mentioned that inheritance
taxes needed to be adjusted so that someone could pass on "the family farm
or a small business" w/o such a huge tax burden.
So this is not "the Democrat's mantra" as least as it applies to Al Gore.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: So ya' wanna' run Linux?...I have a bridge for sale in Bklyn.....
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 23:55:00 GMT
On 25 Aug 2000 07:34:44 GMT, Marada C. Shradrakaii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Linux *barely* has support for non 3dfx 3d apps/libraries. We have been doing
No. Linux has support for the Unix standard in 3D libraries and has
had that support for years as well.
What Linux has lacked is driver support for hardware 3D accelerators.
>>
>>3d on the PC for 4 years now.
>>
>
>Remember... there was a time when only some 3d boards were properly supported
>by Windows software too. I recall when PC Gamer magazine offered a demo of
>Final Fantasy VII on their enclosed CD, and it would only run with some Voodoo
>cards. There was probably about half-a-dozen apps, if that many, that
>supported the "3D" features of the S3 Virge chipset.
>
>The nice thing is that a proven, tried uniform API (OpenGL) is in place, and
>all that's needed is to write the hardware-support ends.
The fellow you are responding to is confusing two issues together and
trying to make Linux look worse in two ways rather than just one.
It's ironic that he mentions 3dfx because that is what WinDOS 3D support
meant for the longest time: support for a singular vendors proprietary
API.
This is in stark contrast to OpenGL, which despite it's age, pretty much
set the original standard for accelerated 3D video.
Now, due to the open nature of standards on Unix: professional grade 3D
applications are flowing over from Irix with relatively little effort.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Ballard says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 23:58:42 GMT
On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 14:07:20 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>>
>> On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 12:05:51 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>> >>
>> >> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >> >"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>> >> [...]
>> >> >Neither are they required to pay TT (not Qt) a licensing fee now in
>> >> >order to benefit from Linux. Max, you have no idea of what you are
>> >> >talking about (again).
>> >>
>> >> And you, Roberto, are still trying to avoid correcting the matter. Are
>> >> you so incapable of grasping abstractions that you cannot substitute
>> >> "QT" for "the commercial entity responsible for QT"?
>> >
>> >Are you so incapable of dealing wuith reality that you can't see a
>> >company and a product are not the same thing, and keep on using
>> >the wrong one?
>>
>> I'm sorry but you've failed this sitting of the Turing Test.
>>
>> Please try again. But remember, you can only reschedule the
>> test after 30 days and you can only take the test 3 times
>> in any 12 month period.
>
>Such a stupid attempt at flame can only come from you, I guess.
You're the one trying to parse english as if it were pascal.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 00:09:23 GMT
On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 13:45:45 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Craig Kelley wrote:
>>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (david raoul derbes) writes:
>>
>> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> A fair number of pretty wealthy Americans pay *no tax whatsoever* in this
>> > >> country. There are all manner of tax shelters and dodges that wealthy
>> > >> people can avail themselves of, ...
>> > >
>> > >You make it sound so easy.
>> > >
>> > >If you truly understand this to be true, you can describe,
>> > >in simple English, the simple accounting to make this happen.
>> >
>> > I believe that a little research will reveal those lucky Americans who
>> > have a net wealth of several tens of millions who paid no tax, none,
>> > last year. How they did it I don't know; I am neither an accountant
>> > nor an attorney. People who are in a position to know (Cokie Roberts
>> > on ABC's "Sunday Morning" and Nina Totenberg on NPR) have said over
>> > the years that there are such people (not a hell of a lot, under
>> > a thousand), and I believe them.
>> >
>> > Try Nader's web site, or Google.
>>
>> Regardless, 5% of Americans paid 50% of the taxes last year and 60% of
>> Americans paid 10% of the taxes.
>>
>> The very rich who pay no taxes are a rarity (although they should be
>> dealt with).
>>
>> How about an honest, progressive income tax and *nothing else* (no
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Contradiction in terms.
Nope.
All that would be required is a flat rate and a
really big standard deduction.
Besides, there's nothing inherent in tax brackets that's
dishonest... unfair mebbe, but not dishonest.
Dishonest is the student loan interest deduction & a few other
bits of smoke and mirrors that are either too restrictive to
be meaninful to anyone but the very rich or very stupid.
[deletia]
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [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: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 00:13:55 GMT
On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 14:00:04 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>JS/PL wrote:
>>
>> "Andre Ervin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > > >
>> > > > > You mean Bush wants to give people their money back instead of
>> > > > > spending it for them!? How absurd!
>> > > >
>> > > > Bush wants to make the rich richer instead of helping the poor stay
>> > > > healthy and educated.
>> > >
>> > > That's SOOOO OLD. Nothing is that simple. It's more of a 50 year old
>> > > democratic slogan than anything. Not even worthy of argument except to
>> say
>> > > 95% of the poor are in that situation by choice, it's the five out of
>> 100
>> > > poor that need a hand.
>> >
>> > Proof? For that matter, how many truly poor people do you know?
>>
>> I've met a lot of truly poor people in my life, and myself have been pleny
>> broke and hungry. I never blamed anyone - especially "the rich" for my
>> problems though, I blamed myself.
>> If you are a poor adult, it is most generaly it is your own fault. I was
>> broke and jobless in 1980 and figuring out who to blame when President Regan
>> held up page after page of the help wanted ads on national television in
>> response to a question on why so many people were out of work. And he was
>> right.
>
>Ever notice how the democrats will claim that those are
>"dead end burger-flipping jobs" and at the SAME TIME claim that
>"nobody is qualified" for those same jobs.
>
>They can't have it both ways.
Sure you can.
Either extreme or a mixture of the two could be unviable to the
bulk of the unemployed. Those want ads are only meaninful if
you can get hired for the position and actually pay your bills
afterwards.
[deletia]
Quantity vs. Quality.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Sylvain Demers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: GUI vs Command Line: The useless war
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 20:28:05 -0400
I've been reading a lot about the pros and cons of GUI vs comand line
configuration. True that GUI is sometimes creating dumb users. But
developpers and hackers will have to undestand that some people simply
don't have the time to hack config files because they have to do their
job, which as often nothing to do whatsoever with running a computer.
There is some very clever solutions that appeared that should be
extended to any GUI so that, while allowing people with litlle
maintenance time to learn about their system, will allow them to learn
it nevertheless. Two examples : in gnome, when you get to the permission
window, any click of the mouse tells you the permission number at the
top of the window. This is smart, cause if you have to edit permission
at the command line one day, gnome will have helped you learn that 2777
was in fact r-w-x for everybody plus sgid. The same applies to nmapfe.
The front-end version displays all options and arguments with every
click of the mouse. Any GUI should be written this way. For instance, if
linuxconf in Redhat and the likes was telling you that "the IP address
entered here will be written to file /etc/resolv.conf", this would
prevent people from becoming dumb users. SO that if you don't have a lot
of time to spent configuring files, you can at least know what you're
doing to your system. This solution is simple and would get us the best
of both world for productivity purposes.
The problem is that the people developping GUI have fallen in the M$
trap of thinking that people don't want to know. This type of
implementation wouldn't hurt anyone. People that don't care would remain
toughtless users while people who want to know what there are doing
would benefit a lot from it.
I hope Linux GUI developpers will somehow undestand that they won't
compete M$ by copying it, but by doing better, and better means smatter,
not prettier.
------------------------------
From: josco <[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: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 17:27:57 -0700
On Fri, 25 Aug 2000, JS/PL wrote:
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Purposeful cluelessness is the only support you (or JS/PL) have, and
> > that's pretty relevant whether you have a legal requirement to judge, or
> > a Usenet desire to do so.
>
> Your ISP seemed to have agreed with me, now didn't they. Death threats,
> whether or not you actually now the persons name are highly illegal, (and
> lame). Now drop it or I'll forward the second threat you posted and you'll
> be searching for a new ISP by Monday.
If you thought the threat was at all serious you'd morally (if not
legally) obligated to forward it ASAP.
phony also phoney (fn).
Not genuine or real; counterfeit: a phony credit card.
False; spurious: a phony name.
Not honest or truthful; deceptive: a phony excuse.
Insincere or hypocritical.
Giving a false impression of truth or authenticity; specious.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 20:41:25 -0400
ZnU wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > david raoul derbes wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <1efxfht.4xtbz1uyehb2N@[192.168.0.144]>,
> > > Andrew J. Brehm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >Donavon Pfeiffer Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >I don't know how inheritance tax is implemented in the US, but to me it
> > > >seems unlikely that a family farm would be bothered with it. Where I
> > > >live inheritance tax starts way above the level where it could trouble
> > > >farmers.
> > >
> > > You are very much mistaken.
> > >
> > > At the age of 68, my mother had to find 480,000 US to pay the government
> > > for her sister and brother in law's farm. To be fair to the government,
> > > she had ten years to pay it off. She managed, but it wasn't easy.
> > >
> > > She died about two months ago, and now my sister and I get to repeat
> > > the process.
> > >
> > > And yet, I think that we need the inheritance tax. Those who think the
> > > inheritance tax is some sort of wicked thing should perhaps read
> > > Thomas Jefferson and James Madison on the subject.
> >
> > No. We need to eliminate the inheritance tax (PRECISELY for the
> > reasons described above), and replace it with a sales tax.
>
> No, we need to have exceptions to the inheritance tax to allow family
^^^^^^^^^^
So, what you're saying is that you advocate loopholes.
The need for "loopholes" is a very significant indicator that a tax
policy is fundamentally flawed.
> farms or family businesses up to a certain value to be passed along.
>
> If you're so against handouts, why do you support the multimillion
> dollar handouts rich parents pass along to their children?
>
> --
> This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
> occurred during shipment.
>
> ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
--
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 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
******************************
