Linux-Advocacy Digest #793, Volume #28 Fri, 1 Sep 00 06:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...? ("Stuart Fox")
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform (2:1)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform (2:1)
Re: what's up with Sun? (Rasputin)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christophe Ochal")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christophe Ochal")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christophe Ochal")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christophe Ochal")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christophe Ochal")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christophe Ochal")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christophe Ochal")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christophe Ochal")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christophe Ochal")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christophe Ochal")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christophe Ochal")
[OT] Bob Germer's Claim Of Welfare Waste Is Highly Exaggerated (Mark S. Bilk)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[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 10:09:27 +0100
"Shane Phelps" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Alright, I'll bite...
>
> Do you mean the ones that demand a previous version of Windows?????
> or is this perhaps a case of installing the upgrade on one disk while
> retaining the previous version of Windows on the other?
>
> The only Microsoft upgrade disks I've ever seen since about Windows
> 3.11 and MS-DOS 5 have checked for the existence of an earlier
> version before allowing the installation of the later versiion.
Win95 will ask you to insert the first floppy disk from Win3.11 before
proceeding - thus avoiding having to actually install Win3.11 first
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 09:19:59 GMT
MrTroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Results like these speak for themselves. You just don't get more stable and
> reliable that Unix.
Bah, try and say that with VMS or IBM mainframe people around.
(But yeah, there are Unices which are pretty stable)
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[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, 01 Sep 2000 09:07:02 GMT
> > Icons do not necessarily launch apps. In win311 and many X wimdow
> > managers, icons represent iconozed (:-) _running_ programs.
Activating
> > the icon (usually a double click) restores (NB, _not_ launches) the
> > program. The buttons on the task bar behave much like icons.
>
> 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.
>
> What you're describing is how X does things, not how Windows does
things.
> We're talking about being consistent in a single environment, not
being
> consistent with other environments.
What I'm saying is that it is not consistent. To drag a file on to the
graphical representation of a folder, you hover it over the folder. The
folder icon goes a bit bluer and then you drop. Now your file is in that
folder. Or darg a file on to the icon of a non running app. Drag, drop,
the app runs and opens your file.
Now drop the file on to the desktop icon of running apps. In many cases,
the app will open a new window to open your file with (but possibly a
new app). That is consistend behaviour. Now drop the file on to the
graphical representaation of a running app. Drag, hover, drag, drop.
That is an inconsistency.
I don't care about the picture of a button vs. an icon.
=======================================================
I'm talking about the _graphical_representation_ of a running program.
It makes sense to be able to, say, drop a .doc file on to a running copy
of word and have the file opened. It should be possible to do that if
the app is minimized.
In some cases (say, a block of text) it makes sense to raise the app
first but in mmost cases, it is inconsistent.
And I've found another inconsistency. You can't DnD on to task manager.
At least, not in win95.
>
> > Besides, they are the _only_merpresentation of running programs that
> > have no window up., so it makes sense to be able to drag stuff
straight
> > on to them.
>
> Untrue. There are other representations, for instance in TaskManager.
They're still repersented as buttons, only less useful (see above).
> > I'm not suggesting that every button shopuld launch an app, it's
just
> > that the buttons aer the only ones I've seen that respond to this
kind
> > of event. It would be better if DnD worked properly, so you could
drag
> > stuff on to the button, rather than having that really wierd
behaviour.
> > It is wierd behaviour, since it is the _only_thing in windows (or
> > anywhere else I've seen) that works like that.
>
> Untrue. Lots of other things work that way. Drag an icon over a
folder,
> and hover. You'll see that it opens up.
I tried it with a folder on the desktop, it doesn't open.
> Drag an icon onto your Start
> button and hover, you'll see that the Start menu opens up.
You're saying the taskbar is consistent because it behaves like the task
bar. No shit, Sherlock! (remember, the start button is _part_ of the
taskbar)
>
> > > > the ones in the start bar. How else could the app be raised if
> > nothing
> > > > had any idea that there was an object being dragged floating
above a
> > > > task bar button?
> > >
> > > That's not a drop request, that's a mouseover request.
> >
> > I've never seen , much less used an app that uses mouseover requests
on
> > buttons except the task bar. Besoides, the task bar can respond to
drop
> > requests (by bringing up an error), but it won't do it properly.
>
> Any application that has flat buttons that raise use a mouseover.
Oh, yes, so they do. OK, so I've never seen an app respond to an object
dragged over a button, excepting explorer. If buttons are meant to be
pushed, they should only be pushed, ie no DnD. What I'm complainin about
is the inconsistend DnD---it _sort of_ allows it. I know that from an
API ponit of view, the behaviour is consistent (buttons can't receive
drop requests) but, for the user, it is not consistent behaviour. Either
you can DnD or you can't. The DwDsmD (drag, wait, drag some more, drop)
should be scrapped.
-Ed
--
BBC Computer 32K
Acorn DFS
Basic
>*MAIL ku.ca.xo.gne@rje98u (backwards, if you want to talk to me)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[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, 01 Sep 2000 09:19:15 GMT
> > >> > 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?
No user mode apps can crash the system unless they're running as root
at some stage (else, no h/w access). X can crash a system. I've never
seen it with modern, stable release. Also you don't have to run X,
which is good, for a server since you have less to crash the OS. Do you
have that choice with NT? No, you don't.
Bus faults due to graphhics can crash either system. That is why it is a
_good_ idea to keep graphics off a server. But on UN*X, you can still
use GUI tools to administer it.
And I have never seen netscape crash a whole computer (non-windows).
As for that, how many user mode apps have direct h/w access (in unix?)
So now it is relavent that there is more code in kernel space which
means more to crash the OS.
-Ed
-Ed
--
BBC Computer 32K
Acorn DFS
Basic
>*MAIL ku.ca.xo.gne@rje98u (backwards, if you want to talk to me)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rasputin)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: what's up with Sun?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 09:40:39 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <Ingemar Lundin> wrote:
>Well as Windows has as "kill em all and let god sort them out" company
>behind it, so does *nix systems need one.
>
>In line with open-source community philosofy? hm well..Sun doesnt seem to
>care too much about it, almost acting as if they are a little yeoulos on all
>the attentation Linux has gained for the past couple of years, make no doubt
>about it, their aim is as commercial as MS, ie make the world evolve around
>ther own perfectly good Unix system (Solaris 8)
Sure. They're a business.
One important difference between Sun and M$ is that Sun make hardware.
They have less to lose in a world where software if Free.
--
Rasputin.
Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns.
------------------------------
From: "Christophe Ochal" <[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 09:24:06 +0200
JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<cut>
> > > No, you can install an upgrade version of Windows without installing
the
> > > previous version as well.
> >
> > Ok, tell me how i can install Win95 upgrade on an empty HD without doing
> > some tricks with extract & the cab files?
>
> Go to the source drive of your upgrade CD - run "setup.exe" - follow the
> screen prompts.
Geez, where was my mind yesterday? ^_^
You're right, you can install an upgrade, *if* you have a qualifying
product, although i do remember having a problem once with a win95 (release
one) upgrade cd that didn't wanted to install onto an empty drive...
Can't really remember tho, been a while
Amon_Re
------------------------------
From: "Christophe Ochal" <[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 09:28:06 +0200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<cut>
> Plus, since 'no one can get away with not buying Windows' anyways,
> there's really no compelling reason to put barriers in place of
> those of us that actually know what they're doing.
What, you think everyone should *buy* winblows? With what use? A cupboard
holder?
Amon_Re
------------------------------
From: "Christophe Ochal" <[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 09:47:12 +0200
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<cut>
> >Thats over double the price of Mac OS 9 at $99.
>
> Too bad that Mac OS 9 doesn't run on Intel-compatible PCs; then it might
> be relevant how much it costs. Two hundred dollars sure sounds like an
> awful lot more than Win98, which this 'replaces'. Monopoly pricing,
> anyone?
Darwin (the cli-based MacOSX server) is available for x86 & is free...
<cut>
> >We shall see.
>
> No, I'd say we already have seen. Response to Windows ME is even less
> than W2K. I read something funny on W2K yesterday. In *InfoWorld*, a
> very highly respected trade journal, Nicholas Petreley, a well-known
> industry pundit, said:
>
> "Microsoft is an expert at momentum marketing, so no doubt we'll see
> Microsoft manufacture some numbers to convince people that Windows 2000
> is catching on like wildfire. But Microsoft will have trouble making
> those numbers jibe with how the vendor community is reacting to Windows
> 2000. The following says it all: IDG World Expo canceled this fall's
> Windows 2000 conference for lack of interest. If Windows 2000 is
> anything like wildfire, it's because the OS is going down in flames."
ROFL
> But, of course, your discussion is about WinME, not W2K.
>
> >> [1] I'm sure that this *must* be more that Windows 98 with a
> >> copy of the latest Windows Media Player added.... right?
> >
> >Right. But not enough to justify the price tag.
>
> The only thing which could possibly justify that price tag is monopoly
> power. I wonder if, after the current case is finally resolved, the
> gov't isn't going to start going after Microsoft for all the other ways
> they've monopolize, or if the breakup is going to provide them with a
> clean slate. WinME pricing is certainly a potential violation, and I
> think the issue of WinModems is a sure-thing conviction. What other
> obvious attempts at monopolization have Microsoft implemented, do you
> think might be used as examples?
Their constent raping of standards comes to mind... 'kerberos anyone?)
Amon_Re
------------------------------
From: "Christophe Ochal" <[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 09:38:55 +0200
JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:%Mpr5.403$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > > >> There are few things more annoying than the requirement to
> > > > >> sequentially install various versions of a software product
> > > > >> due to such 'upgrade licences'.
> > > > >
> > > > >Yes. That would be why you do not have to do this with Windows
> upgrade
> > > > >products, I'd imagine. You can install on a "bare" machine with an
> > upgrade
> > > > >product.
> > > >
> > > > Nope.
> > >
> > > Prove your point. "Nope.", just doesn't cut the mustard.
> > >
> > > You can install on a "bare" machine with all current upgrade products.
> > Just insert
> > > qualifying media when prompted.
> >
> > Aha! but what if you own a comcrap, or a packard hell? You probably
won't
> > *HAVE* the qualifying media, because they put all that crap on their
> restore
> > CD's
>
> The OEM licence isn't transferable anyway. So even if you could take your
> compaq restore cd and install the OS on a different computer you'd be
doing
> it in violation of the license agreement. That's why Full OEM versions
cost
> 40 bucks.
So you're saying that you can't install an upgrade onto the *bare* disk of a
comcrap or packard hell?
(You can if you know some tricks tho, not telling tho)
> Full non-oem versions are transferrable to any machine (or person) so long
> as only one copy is installed.
I wasn't talking about installing onto another machine, reread my comment
Amon_Re
------------------------------
From: "Christophe Ochal" <[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 09:55:49 +0200
Robert Moir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
P3xr5.28431$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<cut>
> > Yup. Magic Sac on the ST was faster than the Mac it emulated.
>
> I sometimes still miss my ST... lol
I remember the flamewars between Amiga & Atari users... hehe ;)
Amon_Re
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 09:56:57 +0200
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<cut>
> >Did he attack me? When? I missed it...
> >
> >Amon_Re
>
> Here, turn around and I'll pull that dart/knife out of
> your back :-).
Ah! I tought it was a musqueto bite <Grin>
Amon_Re
------------------------------
From: "Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 10:06:07 +0200
Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
8om9pu$og0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 17:30:13 GMT, Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:> Besides, the success of a planet wide volunteer effort doesn't
> > exactly validate the existence of a free and open market in
> > systems software.
> >
> > Infact, the fact that the only viable challenger to Microsoft is
> > such a "non-market" entity rather confirms my point.
>
> OS/2? Hello? MacOS? OS X?
>
> Define Viable.
OS/2 is dead, and MacOS runs on PPC only, MacOS X has an x86 version, that's
got no GUI
> > >plenty of apps, if you can stomach the bad UI. What are the barriers to
> >
> > That is just a lame excuse & post factum argumentation crafted
> > to suit your pre-determined conclusion.
>
> No, it's not.
I like gnome :)
> > >entry? Please describe them. Currently all you seem to be able to do is
> say
> >
> > Proprietary media encodings: Sorenson, divx, DVD.
>
> Really? Microsoft didn't invent any of those. They are not
> Microsoft-proprietary.
divX WAS develloped by M$
> > Proprietary file formats: msword, msxcel.
>
> Documented in MSDN -- certainly, Star Office, AbiWord et al have no
> difficulty reading them.
Got an url? :)
> > Proprietary programming interfaces: DirectX,Win32.
>
> Mmmmmm... well, given that any OS will have its own proprietary
programming
> interfaces, that's a given.
Yea, but are there freely available explinations of those API's?
> > That 'owned' programming interface also restricts the cabal of
> > 3rd parties that might otherwise migrate to a new compeitor as
> > Oracle or IBM might migrate their databases to Linux.
>
> Really?
Wasn't IBM already doing just that?
> > >"Look over there! Phone network!" and then you fold your arms smugly as
> if
> > >saying that is enough to win you a standing ovation. Where are the
> barriers?
> > >
> > >Writing an OS requires a hell of a lot less resources than building a
> phone
> > >network. Phone systems cost trillions over hundreds of years. OS's?
Maybe
> a
> > >couple of thousand. Maybe less. Maybe more. Depends on the scope.
> >
> > A couple of thousand?
> >
> > Who are you trying to kid, clueless?
>
> Have you ever tried? All it takes is time.
He was talking about a commercial product i think
> Who are you trying to kid? You just claimed that DVD, DivX and Sorenson
> encoding were MICROSOFT creations forming a barrier to entry.
Again, iirc divx is M$ their 'artwork'
> Oh... and which market is it a barrier to entry to? You have to define
that
> too.
Amon_Re
------------------------------
From: "Christophe Ochal" <[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 10:19:48 +0200
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
%HDr5.8412$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Why, DVD software, obviously. Is that hard to define? I don't know
> > what DivX and Sorenson are, but I'm a bit familiar, at least, with the
> > DVD issue. Not that its any different than the USB issue, or the old
> > Kerberos issue, or any of the other mechanisms and specifications
> > Microsoft has tried to control in order to restraint of trade.
>
> Microsoft didn't "try to control" Kerberos. They implemented Kerberos
> exactly as the specification allowed them to.
Bwahahahahah! Good joke, keep'em up
Amon_Re
------------------------------
From: "Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 10:27:23 +0200
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
8on6tk$e6a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<cut>
> > Ever heard of POSIX, sweetheart?
>
> Sure have, darl, pity it's not especially helpful.
>
> I await your detailed explanation of how to write anything more involved
> than commandline Unix apps with POSIX. POSIX doesn't even include X,
IIRC,
> let alone equivalents to things like DirectX and OLE.
No, posix is a standard interface towards the kernel iirc, it doesn't
provide any GUI functions, as far as i know, there's no 'standard' for that
> > >> That 'owned' programming interface also restricts the cabal of
> > >> 3rd parties that might otherwise migrate to a new compeitor as
> > >> Oracle or IBM might migrate their databases to Linux.
> > >
> > >Really?
> >
> > Yes, really.
>
> Fascinating. Please explain how.
>
> > >> A couple of thousand?
> > >>
> > >> Who are you trying to kid, clueless?
> > >
> > >Have you ever tried? All it takes is time.
> > >
> > >Who are you trying to kid? You just claimed that DVD, DivX and Sorenson
> > >encoding were MICROSOFT creations forming a barrier to entry.
> >
> > No, he didn't. Read it again. He said they were proprietary media
> > encodings used to maintain MICROSOFT'S monopoly power. He didn't say
> > anything (that I can see, but I'm new to the thread) about Microsoft
> > *creating* them. I think we all know that Microsoft isn't capable of
> > creating anything, really. At least, not anything more than necessary
> > to maintain their monopoly.
> >
> > >Oh... and which market is it a barrier to entry to? You have to define
> that
> > >too.
> >
> > Why, DVD software, obviously. Is that hard to define?
>
> Creating DVD software is simply a matter of licencing the necessary
> technology. You might have trouble doing it with an Open Source player,
but
> that's irrelevant.
I think it's relevant, not opening their technology to alternative platfroms
is imposing people with some restrictions in the 'fair use' of their
purchased product.
> > I don't know
> > what DivX and Sorenson are, but I'm a bit familiar, at least, with the
> > DVD issue.
>
> They're proprietry codecs. You know, the types companies spend millions
of
> dollars developing and perfecting and like to see a bit of financial
> reimbursement for their efforts.
Then why not allow people to actually *USE* them on alternative platforms?
If there were a DVD player for the Amiga i'd have a DVD-Rom drive by now
>
> > Not that its any different than the USB issue, or the old
>
> What USB issue ?
>
> > Kerberos issue, or any of the other mechanisms and specifications
> > Microsoft has tried to control in order to restraint of trade.
>
> Microsoft implemented their Kerberos exactly how the specification
defines.
So what was all the fuss about then?
Amon_Re
------------------------------
From: "Christophe Ochal" <[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 10:39:47 +0200
Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
8omt44$1k4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<cut>
> > Read http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm, and come back
> > when and if you'd like to discuss this competently.
>
> No thanks... I happen to disagree with the findings of fact.
Sure, after all, the US law doesn't apply to M$, does it, and i mean,
Windows is sooo good & stable & fast that no-one would use another system
right?
/sarcasm off/
There's a reason why they call it 'findings of fact', because they are FACTS
Amon_Re
------------------------------
From: "Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 10:53:19 +0200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
8omhem$d08$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<cut>
> > I *would* have posted from my linux box, but X11 doesn't like my ATI
> > XPERT2000 AGP card :(
>
> I didn't hear anything to the contray from you so I thought may last
> information to you helped you to get XFree86 to work with your XPERT2000
AGP
> card. Since as I mentioned in my other message to you on this subject,
> XFree86's SVGA server does have accelerated support for your video card's
> chipset and has had it since at least version 3.3.6.
Thx for the tip :) i'll try it when i have some time :)
> But if the SVGA driver does not work for you, you could use the frame
buffer
> server. Use the VESA framebuffer in your kernel and then use the
XFree86's
> frame buffer X server. I know this works well for anyone who has a video
> card that has a VESA bios version 2 or 3 or newer in firmware.
I'll try :)
Amon_Re
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: [OT] Bob Germer's Claim Of Welfare Waste Is Highly Exaggerated
Date: 1 Sep 2000 09:51:50 GMT
In the article quoted below, Bob Germer claims that only 29%
of the tax money allocated to welfare goes to the recipients,
while the rest (71%) is "wasted by lazy, incompetent, dis-
honest `civil servants'".
However, the data on these web pages, *
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opre/timetren/graph.htm
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opre/timetren/ad5.htm
whose context is made clear on this page,
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opre/timetren/index.htm
indicates that about 85% of AFDC money reaches the recipi-
ents, and only 15% goes to administration. This agrees
approximately with figures of 90% / 10% that I heard ten
years ago in a taped lecture by either Holly Sklar or
Frances Fox Piven.
Since Germer's number on bureaucratic waste in welfare
appears to be exaggerated by a factor of .71 / .15 = 470%,
all of his claims must be regarded as extremely doubtful,
unless he can cite authoritative sources for his figures.
Judging by his remarks, Germer appears to be an indiscrimi-
nate believer in extreme lying Right-wing propaganda. This
evaluation is supported by his claim here,
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=584240506
that every homosexual person has "a diseased brain" and
therefore never "has anything worthwhile to say or which
can be trusted".
Links To Reality
http://www.aliveness.com/msb.html
* Maintenance Assistance Administrative
Expenditures per Expenditures per
Case Recipient Case Recipient
1987 $359.46 $122.93 $45.33 $15.50
1988 370.50 127.17 50.92 17.48
1989 380.98 131.39 53.69 18.52
1990 388.81 134.84 54.74 18.98
1991 387.84 134.71 49.72 17.27
1992 388.85 136.09 47.45 16.61
1993 372.83 131.32 47.18 16.62
1994 376.47 133.55 51.67 18.33
1995 376.18 134.35 56.71 20.25
1996 371.58 133.76 54.25 19.53
In article <39af5381$1$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 09/01/2000 at 01:38 AM,
> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> >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.
>
>What a load of Pure Bullshit! You are a flat out liar and typical Algore
>apologist. Go to Hell and stay there.
>
>It was the damn social welfare programs started by Roosevelt and expanded
>by the Johnson Administration which caused the huge debt we are all
>saddled with.
>
>Social Security abuse alone represents 80% of the debt. It was passed as a
>retirement supplement. It has become a huge transfer of wealth vehicle
>from the working class to the lazy, incompetent, drug infested misfits of
>America. Social Security was never meant to be the support of those too
>lazy, drug addicted, etc. SSI payments alone are greater than the interest
>on the debt.
>
>The Democratic administrations and congresses of the past 50 years have
>expanded the second biggest waste - government agencies beyond all reason.
>For God's sake, there are three times as many federal employees per capita
>today than there were in 1945 when more than 70% of those on the federal
>payroll were in the armed forces in wartime.
>
>Look at welfare. Only 29 cents of every dollar extracted from the working
>people gets to the recipients. The rest is wasted by lazy, incompetent,
>dishonest "civil servants".
>
>--
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 14
>MR/2 Ice 2.20 Registration Number 67
>Finishing in 2nd place makes you first loser
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
