Linux-Advocacy Digest #788, Volume #28 Fri, 1 Sep 00 02:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why doesnt SuSE and RedHat wait until later this autum? (R.E.Ballard ( Rex
Ballard ))
Re: How low can they go...? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform (D. Spider)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Can you believe this??? (was Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$
Voluntary Split ...)) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Can you believe this??? (was Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$
Voluntary Split ...)) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: American schools ARE being sabotaged from within. ("jbarntt")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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, 01 Sep 2000 01:18:03 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 17:17:48 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>
>>The rest of that response was:
>>--------------
>>We are not lawyers, we are developers, and we do not want to sue people.
>>On the other hand I cannot guarantee that we will never sue the Harmony
>>project. Who knows what will happen in the future. If e.g. some Redmond
>>based company starts pumping funding into Harmony to "embrace and extend"
>>Qt we might consider suing.
>>--------------
>>
>>All in all, what Carl Thompson asked was to the effect, is it true you would
>>sue anyone who made another toolkit that could be used as a dropin
>>replacement for QT? Eirik Eng's answer was not responsive to the question
>>asked.
>
>It was sufficiently responive IMO.
I agree. And he certainly didn't even seem to threaten those who would
clone QT, but merely those who would try to inhibit competition.
[...]
>Your attack on the TT people is so incoherent and ill founded as to be
>worthy of Max Devlin himself.
How ironic, eh?
>>> Now put yourself in Eirik's position. You are asked if you will ever
>>> sue someone, over usage of your IP. What can he answer????
>>
>>It depends on the intermal philosphy and politics of Troll Tech but how
>>about something along these lines? These are all more honet, direct that
>>what was offered.
>>
>>So long as any clone of Qt were open source and free did nothing to make
>>software using it incompatible with Qt that would be fine with us.
>
>Bad answer. They could embrace-and-extend and still retain backward
>compatibilty with QT. Based on that, they could call it "compatible".
>
>>Any library or toolkit that would be designed to have a API compatible with
>>Qt would requre a license from Troll Tech, each such proposal would be
>>reviewed on a case by case basis. Any such license could be revoked at
>>anytime if Troll Tech does not like the way the project is developing.
>
>It isn't clear that you can "license" an API specification, so it's not clear
>that your requirement is even legally binding. The reason they kept their
>mouths relatively shut was for fear of saying something stupid.
Like what he just said. Apparently, he doesn't get the idea of what is
meant by the concept "free market competition", any more than most of
the Microsoft defenders do.
>I don't see how your answer is substantially better than theirs.
>In a lot of ways, it's worse, because it's not clear that your
>proposal has any kind of legal merit.
The second one, at least, is nightmarish. The first one might as well
be "GPL QT", which is begging the question, I'm afraid, though its a
suggestion I'd support, if I could figure out how TT can still make
money. I can't, off the top of my head, but the same goes for me. I
think maybe the guys at TT could, though, if they tried a little harder,
but I'm just guessing, really.
So what's so special about QT, anyway? Doesn't it haven *any*
competitive merits, other than being 'done' and easily available? I
mean, its gotta do *something* well, right?
BTW, now that I think of it, how are those guys who wanted to make
profit off Motif doing, these days?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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, 01 Sep 2000 01:19:33 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 21:04:43 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>>>It's not a threat, it's a statement of the obvious.
>>
>>
>>The fact that it is obvious even when unstated makes the statement of it
>>a threat.
>
>You're way out of line on this, Max. They didn't loudly say "we can't
>gaurantee we won't sue you, wink, wink". They were asked for such a
>gaurantee and didn't give it. There was no threat, explicit, or implicit,
>and they only stated the obvious because they were asked.
>
>I don't know what's so felonious about that.
Nothing at all, that's just not the way Roberto explained it,
originally.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why doesnt SuSE and RedHat wait until later this autum?
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 05:05:23 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8omtoc$u6h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <L8%q5.2197$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Kernel 2.4, KDE 2.0, GNOME 2.0 (or Helix or whatever...), will all be
> > > released at least 2-3 months from now.
> >
> > Yeah, but I'd rather wait until kernel 2.4.4, KDE 2.2, and Gnome 2.2
> > (among other things) are packaged together before I fork over for
> > another commercial distro -- not to mention that I'm never buying
> > another distro that's not at least in the x.1 stage anyway (having had
> > my ass burnt by Mandrake 7.0).
I'm using Mandrake 7.0 and am quite happy with it. I'm holding out for a
newer release too :-}
> > That won't be for at least another 6-12 months...
>
> It seems that the speed of open source development lately is causing [me at
> least] the same sort of headaches as the Microsoft upgrade cycle: there are
> just too many versions coming along too fast to justify _paying money_ for
> each one as it comes out.
Actually, much of the "slogginess" has to do with hte commercialization of
Linux, rather than the Open Source process itself. Essentially, there is a
big push to get 2.4 running on every thing at about the same time.
The current "betas" are pretty darn stable, but that's typically for a
distribution on certified hardware, and with no commercial support.
It looks like Linux 2.4/KDE 2.0/GNOME 1.4 implementations are going to be
coming out right AFTER Windows ME. It looks like we'll be seeing a major
media blitz featuring corporately funded ads for both ME and Linux.
I'm very excited about the next few months of Linux, and the tools that will
be available.
It appears that ME will also be a memory/cpu/drive pig, and while there may
be some people perfectly willing to throw out their P-III/700 and slower
machines with ONLY 128 meg of RAM and ONLY 10 gig hard drives for an ME
machine that will provide video-editing (this is supposed to be original?),
really spiffy games, and even more "Operating System Extensions".
Meanwhile back at the ranch, Linux is still running quite nicely on 30-60 meg
machines with 200 Mhz Pentiums, and 6 gig hard drives (for "Everything" in the
SuSE 6.4 offering).
Ironically, the OEMs can only make a profit on the smaller machines if they
stop handing out $200/machine to Microsoft.
Meanwhile, the really big machines can run Windows 2000, Linux, and/or
Windows 9x, and all at the same time.
Windows 2000 was an underwhelming undertaking. It didn't even boost
Microsoft revenues enough to keep them flat, it hasn't even recovered it's
development costs, and it hasn't even captured a substantial portion of the
NT 4.0 base.
ME seems to be another understatement. Microsoft isn't saying much,
and they are previewing quite generously, but there doesn't seem to
be an overwhelming reason why someone MUST upgrade to Windows ME.
Meanwhile, the OEMs, who are hot to sell some new hardware, can offer
Linux, preinstalled and preconfigured and fully operational, as something
Radically New and Different. Sure, there are 40-50 million people who have
had varying degrees of exposure to Linux, but I must admit that even I hadn't
seen a fully functional version of Linux until very recently.
There were many features I just didn't care about (sound, USB, ipchains,
samba, squid...)
And I found Netscape frustrating for things like posting to dejanews.
Recenttly, I got all the goodies working, got KFM working on Dejanews,
and started using the kde mail program. It's really quite impressive.
Now, if I could just get winmodem working on my Thinkpad 600, I'd be
one VERY happy camper. :-).
> Consequently, with Microsoft, I picked and chose
> my releases, and usually bought every OTHER release. With Linux, I just
> download the new stuff, and by the time I've fiddled with it until it works
> and gets integrated with my system (something I could have PAID to have up
> front I guess) I'm ready to get the next new bit. It keeps me pretty busy,
> but it would keep me poorer if i PAID for every new version/toy that came
> along.
I just got my cable modem and used Mandrake's update program to load
the latest stuff. That's one of the reasons KFM now works. I also got
Netscape 4.75, and I've been playing with some new toys that came to
my attention because of the updates. The nice thing was that all I had
to do was click the mouse a few times.
> The good part is that, instead of the new versions of Wimp-dows(OSSM) being
> somewhat more stable, bigger, slower, and breaking all the programs I had
> previously bought, the new versions of GNU-stuff are slicker, faster, lots
> more stable and never break older programs (as long as I keep ADDING the new
> library versions instead of replacing them :o) )
That's what usually gets people. Unlike Windows, Linux supports mechanisms
for running multiple versions of the same library, running subsets of legacy
libraries, and still managing the memory space.
Supposedly with ELF, if you strictly adhere to the entry point order, you
should be able to run older applications on newer libraries. Some vendors
think they will save a few nanoseconds if they eliminate the extra call/jump,
but vectors make the whole system much more managable. Typically, the
biggest problem is when they break one library into two smaller ones.
Depricated functions are a pain in java, Windows, and pre-elf, you'd think
people would learn not to depricate.
> --
> Rich C.
> "Because light travels faster than sound, many people appear to be
> intelligent, until you hear them speak."
>
>
--
Rex Ballard - I/T Architect, MIS Director
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 42 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 8/2/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 00:43:06 -0500
"Zenin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> : Yes. And? Does it define a games programming interface? No. OpenGL is
> : supported on Win9x and NT/2000. So program for that and not DirectX -
> : problem solved.
>
> Note this is despite extreme lobbying on the part of MS to game
> developers and hardware makers to use Direct3D and not OpenGL,
> despite OpenGL having many major advantages over Direct3D and
> Direct3D having no technical advantage over OpenGL.
Actually, this is no longer the case. Direct3D now surpasses OpenGL in most
of the recent advances in 3D technology. The problem is that OpenGL is
controlled by comittee and takes years to change the standard. They have an
extension mechansim, but every vendor implements these extensions
differently, forcing a developer that wants to use the new features into
supporting each vendors version of those features.
For instance, Direct3D 8 will include volumetric textures, multisample
rendering (including T-Buffer support) and several others.
On top of this, DirectX 8 actually greatly simplifies Direct3D (It's
complexity was one of the biggest complaints by people like John Carmack).
Fact is, MS is pandering to the game developers and doing what they want.
OpenGL is dragging it's feet, without implementing things even Direct3D 5
was doing.
> MS simply benefits from the fact that whatever the reasons,
> obtaining DVD support for Linux is *illegal*, thus giving
> Windows one more advantage over alternatives.
Obtaining DVD support for Linux is not illegal. All someone has to do is
liscense it. The problem is that Linux DVD player sales are not likely to
pay for the cost of liscensing.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (D. Spider)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 05:30:22 GMT
It appears that on Thu, 31 Aug 2000 18:36:38 -0700, in
comp.os.linux.advocacy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:ckDr5.8409$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:8omfu1$17la$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > One more point would be this:
>> >
>> > No matter how big ANY video driver for linux is, it does not exist
>inside
>> > the kernel. Thats the point.
>>
>> That doesn't stop X from being able to crash the OS though. Any software
>> that accesses hardware, regardless of the mode it's using can crash the
>> computer.
>>
*ROFL*
>
>Unless the OS is written to prevent one user mode process from crashing the
>entire system.
>
>
#####################################################
My email address is posted for purposes of private
correspondence only. Consent is expressly NOT given
to receive advertisements, or bulk mailings of any
kind.
Since Deja.com will not archive my messages without
altering them for purposes of advertisement, deja.com
is barred from archiving my messages.
#####################################################
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 00:51:05 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >No they don't. If anything, Apple controls Sorensen. DivX was (IIRC),
JVC.
> >DVD is Phillips. DivX and DVD are based on MPEG, and DVD encryption is
> >controlled by someone else -- Microsoft licenses their key.
> >
> >Microsoft does not control any of them.
>
> Yea, and Microsoft doesn't control the SPA or the W3C, either.
Actually, Microsoft pulled out of the SPA after it drafted a letter of
support for the DOJ trial. Microsoft is heavily involved with the W3C, but
certainly not to the level of being able to control it. In fact, the W3C
often goes with competing versions (XML for instance).
> Yes, we know. And then they get to re-read the documentation to keep up
> with MS-Churn (tm) if they should ever be so lucky as to establish a
> market (temporarily).
Actually, the Excel file format hasn't changed since Excel 5 (well, it has
been backwards compatible. Excel 5 can read Excel 2000 documents (binary,
not HTML)).
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 00:52:43 -0500
I'll accept that as an admission that you accept what I said as fact.
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
> Pardon me, Erik, but I'm not responding to your post because its rather
> late, and I can only entertain one ankle-biter at a time at the moment.
> Try to misdirect somebody else's discussion for a little while, nKay?
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> -- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
> of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
> Research assistance gladly accepted. --
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 00:53:44 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8on2n1$hdh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:ugDr5.8408$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > They don't behave *ANYTHING* like Icons. Icons can be moved. Icons can
> be
> > dragged onto other icons. Icons can be double clicked to lauch
> > applications. Icons can recieve drop messages and launch applications.
>
> That describes only one implementation of graphical user interface icons.
> That does not invalidate other implementations of icons from being called
> icons. If that were the case then you could not even refer to the icons
of
> older versions of Windows as icons.
We're talking about consistency within ONE implementation. The Windows
Explorer. Not other implementations.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Can you believe this??? (was Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re:
Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...))
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 01:38:52 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>
>According to the following article, debt reduction ranks last out of
>four items when Americans are asked to rank their priorities for the
>surplus.
>
>I suppose this stems from Americans' love of being stuck in cycles of
>credit card debt. Now people want to apply this financial
>irresponsibiltiy at the national level. I would rather not subsidize
>this sort of idiocy with my taxes, thank you very much.
>
>People would rather put the money towards domestic programs, Social
>Security, and tax cuts, in that order, before they paying off existing
>debts.
I feel your pain. But it isn't domestic programs that put us into debt;
Americans would have probably ranked things the same way before there
was any debt. And the debt, it seems, came from defense spending,
bureaucracy, and corporate welfare, more than social spending or
undertaxation.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 00:55:29 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8on2n3$hdh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > That doesn't stop X from being able to crash the OS though. Any
software
> > that accesses hardware, regardless of the mode it's using can crash the
> > computer.
>
> Unless the OS is written to prevent one user mode process from crashing
the
> entire system.
No. I will repeat this again. *ANY* OS that allows direct hardware
manipulation from a given process (user or kernel) can crash the machine.
All I have to do is set the video hardware to an invalid state which faults
the bus and the system is toast, user mode or not.
In fact, this is why Netscape can often crash systems running X.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 00:57:04 -0500
"Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <ckDr5.8409$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8omfu1$17la$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > One more point would be this:
> > >
> > > No matter how big ANY video driver for linux is, it does not exist
> > > inside
> > > the kernel. Thats the point.
> >
> > That doesn't stop X from being able to crash the OS though. Any
software
> > that accesses hardware, regardless of the mode it's using can crash the
> > computer.
>
> Which is irrelevant to your earlier comparison when you stupidly tried
> to compare a video driver on NT to a networking stack on Linux.
It's entirely relevant. The argument was that since there is more code in
kernel space, it makes it more likely to crash the OS. I say that you don't
need to be in kernel space to crash the OS if you can manipulate hardware
directly.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Can you believe this??? (was Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re:
Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...))
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 01:46:04 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <8olr1v$rnh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>> Perhaps if you understood just how important it is for some public debt
>> to be out
>> there you wouldn't be so quick to say pay off all the debt.
>
>
>I understand that. I also understand that some 15% of my federal tax
>dollars are paying interest on this stuff, and I'm getting more or less
>nothing in return for that expenditure every year. It needs to be
>seriously cut back. And we can still have bond obligations even if, on
>the whole, we have no *net* debt.
So you're talking about a balanced budget, not debt reduction. I though
'spamfree' made a relatively good, if slightly vehement, argument. You
are getting so much in return for that expenditure every year, by way of
a stable nation in which to live, that the fact that it is diffuse
certainly seems to make the proportion that we each shoulder as a
personal burden to be huge. And I'm for reducing the over-all level of
*all* of it, seriously. But only seriously; 'no debt' is not a serious
proposal, yet. And if you want to make it one, its probably going to
cost you much more than 15%. What you want is a balanced budget, so the
debt doesn't keep growing out from under us.
>If you cut it back to where we only pay 5% a year, the Republicans could
>give an additional 10% of the annual budget back to us in tax cuts and
>it wouldn't require cutting anything the Democrats currently spend money
>on, nor would it require permanently dipping into the surplus. It seems
>so blindly obvious, yet Bush says he has no specific timetable for debt
>reduction.
Well, wouldn't that make it take dozens of more years to pay it off?
It's kind of like making minimum payments on a credit card, isn't it?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 01:05:33 -0500
"D. Spider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > No matter how big ANY video driver for linux is, it does not exist
> >inside
> >> > the kernel. Thats the point.
> >>
> >> That doesn't stop X from being able to crash the OS though. Any
software
> >> that accesses hardware, regardless of the mode it's using can crash the
> >> computer.
>
> *ROFL*
I suppose you're one of those people that think user mode apps can't crash
the system under any circumstance?
------------------------------
From: "jbarntt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: American schools ARE being sabotaged from within.
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 06:00:52 GMT
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Wed, 30 Aug 2000 16:04:40 -0700
> <8ok5nq$net$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >> OH NO!
> >>
> >> Linux is the direct cause of low school scores across the nation!
> >>
> >> Danger Will Robinson!
> >>
> >> Um...wait...Linux isn't being *used* in schools yet....???
> >
> >You bubble headed booby! Don't you know that its Windows and Macs that
are
> >used in schools? Straighten up! Or I will have to take you power pack
> >away!
>
> *grin* What a show that was. It's amazing it lasted longer
> than Star Trek (6 years, as opposed to 3)... :-)
Are you sure ? I don't think LIS was on for more than 2-3 seasons. Could be
wrong, it's been awhile.
<snip>
jbarntt
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
