Linux-Advocacy Digest #981, Volume #28 Thu, 7 Sep 00 19:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: Criteria in Evaluating Distributions:
Re: SmartShip needs multiple platforms (Was: Am I the only one that finds this just
a little scary? (Perry Pip)
Re: SmartShip needs multiple platforms (Was: Am I the only one that finds this just
a little scary? (Perry Pip)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (Perry Pip)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (Perry Pip)
Re: A guise for Marxism (Was: businesses are psychopaths (Perry Pip)
Re: Gtk+ is *L*GPL (Was: Qt goes GPL) (Perry Pip)
Re: philosophy is better than science (Perry Pip)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <[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: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 13:50:03 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:4%Ht5.6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Spoken like someone that has never written a line of code in his life.
You
> can't just "take out" fundamental architectural changes to software. This
> is similar to a judge ordering that the basement be removed from 100 story
> skyscraper.
>
> It's easy to just say "The architects and construction company put in in
> there, they can easily take it out".
>
Have you considered RCS, SCCS, CVS, et al?
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 14:53:29 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Christophe Ochal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:aoMt5.983$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Do you know that the LZW patent was issued to a company that did not
> develop
> > it, after that
> > compression algorithm was already in wide spread use? That company then
> > sought royalities for its use which is why LZW compression was abandoned
> by
> > so many developers.
>
> That's what's in GIF right?
Yes, and unix's "compress" and many other programs were already using LZW.
Then LZW was patented, there was much concern, but company that was the
patent holder professed that it would not seek royalities from prior use of
LZW or any new non-commercial use of LZW. Guess what? They went back on
their promise a step at a time. One by one they started to enforce their
patent against pre-existing commercial usage of LZW. They enforced it
against freeware uses of LZW. Compuserve (the developers of the GIF format)
was concerned but was promised by the patent holder that all GIF uses of LZW
would remain free. Then the patent holder started demanding royalities from
developers of software that could work with GIF files. Then they started
causing trouble for BBS's and other archives of GIF images.
That is why GIF is nolonger directly supported by most image processing
software.
> > Do you know that most if not all the human gnome has been patented?
>
> Christ... What are they gonna do, collect royalties from people because
they
> have "ilegal" copies of those DNA sequences?
That is what I would like to know. That was a "side effect" of the human
gnome project. Many other human and non-human genes, protiens, amino acids,
RNA and DNA sequences have also be patented. Some have been produced
genetic engineering other just discovered in nature, yet they are still
patented.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Criteria in Evaluating Distributions:
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 15:03:52 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
SamIam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > SamIam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > What's so hard about setting up an ISP with Linux? Any distribution
> > > with KDE should be just fine. I've never had any problems using KPPP
> > > with Mandrake. It does take an extra step of actually calling the ISP
> > > and getting DNS numbers but other than that its simple. Can't comment
> > > on setting up a broadband connection because I've never done it.
> >
> > Even that is not needed pppd can be configured to get the IP addresses
for
> > the ISP's DNS servers and then generate and install the /etc/resolv.conf
> > file automatically. At the time that first connection is established
Your
> > resolv.conf can be generated and even installed for you there after each
> > time you connect a new resolv.vonf can be generated for you if you do
not
> > want to be concerned with keeping that files up to date.
> >
> > If you are using demand dialing you can trigger the first connection by
> > pinging an IP address that is not in the range of addresses on your
local
> > network.
>
> Sounds good. How do you configure kppp to do this?
I for one have not used kppp or any of KDE, and from the people having
problems getting it to handle connections they way they prefer, it sound
like more trouble than it is worth. An experienced KDE expert would be
needed to help you on that point if you want to do it with kppp.
Personally I just configure pppd by hand and include the command to start
pppd in my start up scripts so that from the time that the router is booted
the ppp network interface is available are ready to automatically activate
the link whenever it is needed and then deactivate the link when it is
nolonger needed as well as automatically reactivate the link when it the
link fails.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: SmartShip needs multiple platforms (Was: Am I the only one that finds
this just a little scary?
Date: 7 Sep 2000 22:12:42 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>>>> Three *consective* paragraphs directly quoted from the article:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ron Redman, deputy technical director of the Fleet Introduction
>>>>>>>>>> Division of the Aegis Program Executive Office, said there have been
>>>>>>>>>> numerous software failures associated with NT aboard the Yorktown.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Refining that is an ongoing process," Redman said. "Unix is a better
>>>>>>>>>> system for control of equipment and machinery, whereas NT is a better
>>>>>>>>>> system for the transfer of information and data. NT has never been
>>>>>>>>>> fully refined and there are times when we have had shutdowns that
>>>>>>>>>> resulted from NT."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Yorktown has been towed into port several times because of the
>>>>>>>>>> systems failures, he said.
>>>
[yawn]
>>>General purpose computers for non-essential tasks are fine, with rare
>>>exceptions for things like a database or server. Defintely not for the
>>>primary control or monitoring of equipment, local or remote.
>>
>> So then provide a URL to what you think they should use (hardware and
>> software) to develop custom GUI screens for the command and control of
>> machinery.
>
>Prototype, develop, test, iterate as necessary, ... on whatever you care
>to. I refer to final implemenation that goes aboard operational ships
>only.
Translation: you don't have a workable COTS solution for
GUI screens for the command and control of machinery.
>> They don't "cut costs". They have fixed budget and realize that to
>> stay within it they have to use COTS where possible.
>See above.
Translation: you don't have a workable COTS solution for
GUI screens for the command and control of machinery.
>While space is a more hostile environment to operate within, I think having to
>deal with combat is a greater burden.
Do you have *any* experience specifying systems for either? Do you
have *any* experience with mil-specs at all?? Spacecraft systems use
many of the same mil-spec components used for combat systems, with
additional requirements for the harsh environment of space. This
includes tolerances for shock and vibration. You have only a few
additional requirements for shipboard systems such as resistance to
salty air. My point is you can get COTS products that meet all
applicable mil-specs, and their is no reason for a 'custom
solution'. You can get highly reliable, easy to repair shipbaord
mil-spec VME boards with x86, Sparc, or PPC processors. On those you
can run NT/Linux/Solaris, Solaris/Linux, and VxWorks/Linux
respectively. So you choose an OS based on the suitability and
reliability of the OS for the specific applications you need.
>>>A consumer device managing a GUI does suggest that the Navy might be able
>>>to come up with one also.
>>
>> From the VxWorks 5.4 Programmers manual, chapter 1.3
>>
>> "UNIX and Windows hosts are excellent systems for program development
>> and for many interactive applications. However, they are not
>> appropriate for real-time applications. On the other hand, traditional
>> real-time operating systems provide poor environments for application
>> development or for non-real-time components of an application, such as
>> graphical user interfaces (GUIs)."
>
>Yet Sharp manages a GUI in a consumer device.
How do you know how much they modified the VxWorks OS and libraries to
make this work?? How do you know they haven't made it more of a general
purpose OS just like Unix can be made more embedded?? Thus, what
advantage do you gain using such a platform instead of a general
purpose platform that is already *proven* to be reliable as such??
>> "Rather than trying to create a single operating system that "does
>> it all, the Wind River philosophy is to utilize two complementary and
>> cooperating operating systems (VxWorks and UNIX, or VxWorks and
>> Windows) and let each do what it does best."
>
>A fine approach for general purpose devices, but not univerally
>applicable. One exception possibily being the control and monitoring
>equipment I have previously described which may be needed during extreme
>environmental and combat situations. But you digress, my argument is more
>with the use of general purpose computers compared to a custom solution,
>more embedded solution. The kernel used in such a solution is a secondary
>issue. I simply would prefer something like VxWorks over a UNIX kernel, a
>UNIX kernel of some flavor could be used.
Whether you use UNIX or VxWorks you don't need a 'custom
solution'. You can get COTS VME boards and chasis the meet all
applicable mil-specs for extreme environmental and combat situations.
There are dozens of companies that make them.
>> A personal internet device is not a Smartship ...
>
>Reread "It's an example of a capable GUI".
It's not a solution for SmartShip.
>> ... Did it even occur to
>> you a Smartship needs to be multiuser, so that poeple don't have
>> access to things they shouldn't have access to, and so it is known who
>> has done what.
>
>Again, I am only discussing the control/monitoring stations, not the
>server/database side of things.
You don't think multiuser security is needed for control/monitoring
stations?? There are *alot* of sailors on board the ship!!
>>>Again, my argument is that developer convenience is a secondary
>>>consideration.
>>
>> It's obvious you haven't done any development work for VxWorks, and
>> understand nothing about it's architecture. VxWorks uses a single
>> process, multiple task paradigm. In other words, all tasks have access
>> to the same memory space, so that one task an inadvertantly clobber
>> another's data, or even it's execution stack. File descriptors in
>> VxWorks are global in scope. So instead of getting an error from a
>> write() or select() call, you may inadvertantly write to another
>> processes file, pipe, or socket. System calls in VxWorks run in user
>> mode and can be preempted at any time, meaning you are not guaranteed
>> atomic writes. Many system calls in VxWorks are not reentrant.
>> Application code has direct access to hardware. Not being multiuser,
>> everybody in VxWorks is basically 'root'. These features are great for
>> the hard realtime performance VxWorks but are a disaster for complex
>> GUI's. It's not a matter of developer convinience, it's a matter of
>> system integrety and reliability.
>
>How many times need I write I am not discussing the server/database side
>of things, or a secondary high level analysis station? Most of the above
>is irrelevant for a primary control/monitoring station, local or remote.
No it's not irrelevent. You need high level GUI screens for primary
control/monitoring of complex systems like those on smartship. I'm
talking about UI screens that schematically or functionally display
the system components (valves, pumps, tanks, machinery, power feeders,
breakers, xfmrs, etc. etc.) in a manner that shows how they
interoperate. You click on a functional block in a high level diagram
and a new window pops up with a schematic of that subsystem. Click on
a valve and a dialog pops up to open, close, or adjust it. Click on a
controlled sensor value and a dialog pops up to change it's
setpoint. Right click on the sensor you spawn another application
pulling up it's historical data. You've never seen custom GUI's for
control of large engines or other complex mechanical/electrical
systems, have you?? There are many packages on the market for
developing them, most for Unix, some for NT, and none for VxWorks that
I know of. If you have one for VxWorks, provide a URL. Otherwise, you
are wrong.
>You are making things far more complex than they need to be.
No, you are, by choosing the wrong tools to do the job, and by
reengineering mil-specs. You obviously don't know what the *fuck* you
are talking about.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: SmartShip needs multiple platforms (Was: Am I the only one that finds
this just a little scary?
Date: 7 Sep 2000 22:13:24 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 5 Sep 2000 22:14:43 GMT,
Anthony D. Tribelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>No, PCs don't work great for these applications, even ruggedized ones.
>Custom designs can be made much more reliable, repairable, etc.
No you don't need a 'custom design'. You need a COTS solution that
meet's applicable mil-specs. Have you ever worked with complex
control systems, or with mil-specs?? Obviously not.
The military used to do custom solutions all the time, which is how
mil-specs came about. But because the military buys so much (the Navy
has thousands of ships) of certain things, numerous defense
contractors make mil-spec equipment off the shelf. What you are saying
is that the Navy should discard established mil-specs and reinvent the
wheel, which is unreasonable.
>I disagree, I'm leaning towards the more survivably and repairable at the
>expense of more economical.
VME rack systems are easily repairable. You just swap in another
board. And you can get VME rack systems that meet a applicable
mil-specs for combat readyness. So what 'custom solution' are you
talking about??
>
>Your numerous exaggerations of WinNT are irrelevant to my point.
>
He's not exagerating. In real world practice, Solaris is easily dozens
of times more reliable than NT.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: 7 Sep 2000 22:13:34 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 04 Sep 2000 18:34:31 -0400,
Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Perry Pip wrote:
>
>But how many western settlers lived near the route anyway?
There were five TC routes completed by the year 1900, we've already
been thruogh that. You're trolling.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: 7 Sep 2000 22:13:43 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 04 Sep 2000 18:31:36 -0400,
Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Perry Pip wrote:
>> Sure, but what if they attacked around 1900,
>
>And no private firm would have built a transcontinental railroad
>by then?
We've already been thru this. Your trolling.
>
>Oh gee, only 33 years to build a railroad.
>
There were five TC route's built by 1900. We've already been thru
this. You're trolling.
>What enemy?
We already discussed that. You're trolling.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: A guise for Marxism (Was: businesses are psychopaths
Date: 7 Sep 2000 22:13:49 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 04 Sep 2000 20:22:51 -0700,
Craig Brozefsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip) writes:
>
>> Anarcho-syndicalism is just a marxism hybrid under the guise of a
>> fancy name to hide that it is just another form of marxism.
>
>Most Marxists, including Marx and Lenin, would disagree with this
>assesment.
Marx would disagree that Leninism is a form of marxism. So??
>The think that anarcho-syndicalism is bourgeois
>wishful-thinking, and that the proletariat must take over the State
>and it's power in order to repel the counter-revolution. See Lenin's
>"State and Revolution"[1] or his letters to the 10th Congress of rhe
>Russian Communist Party[2] for further explanation of the "Marxist"
>assesment of anarchists.
Those were works after the worker uprisings degraded into
totalitarianism, and Lenin had to justify his claim to power.
>> The fundamental problem is that any time a country tries this
>> bullshit the ideal of anarchy inevitably fails, and totalitarian
>> state socialism ensues to fill the vacuum.
>
>Well, the last time that I know of there being anything resembling
>anarcho-syndicalism would be the Spanish Civil War. The ideal of
>anarchy did not fail there, instead the Communists sold out the people
>to the Fascists.
Their system failed because it left a vacuum of power. Any such
anarchist movement is doomed. History has proven that.
>Under anarchism, quite remarkable things occured in
>Spanish industry and agriculture, including increased production in
>one city equaling the production of the entire nation prior to worker
>control of the factories. For more information on the Spanish Civil
>War see http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/9820/
Sure, they are mirrored on the Marxist Internet Archive as well. If it
wasn't Marxist, why are Marxist's preaching it as one of their claims
to fame: http://www.marxists.org/history/index.htm. The main ideas
in anrachism can be found in the writings of Marx and Engel.
>> What anarchists fail to admit to themselves is that humanity is not
>> yet socially evolved enough for a very large society without some
>> form of controlled hierarchy.
>
>Yes, that is quite often the ruse that those who are presently at the
>top of that hierarchy, or otherwise been fitting from it's presense,
>push off on everyone else.
Yes...like the vast majority of working people in industrialized
nations today who are doing quite fine thanks to capitalism.
>It's true that the ideologies guiding our
>society would need to be changed in order to support the anarchist, or
>communist vision.
Human nature at a very basic level would need to be changed. How are
you going to change it?? Thru force and violence people are going to
become nicer???
>The anarchist acknowledged this explicitely. Kropotkin[3] saw education
>as one of the primary tools of the anarchist, preparing society for
>life without rulers, for life without subjugating others. So your
>charge that they could not admit this to themselves is ludicrous, a
>false charge.
Education can only do so much to make people more altruistic, which is
what your philosophy requires. But after encouraging all this violence
you encourage, you are going to have to teach them first how not to be
violent any more.
>> This is not to say it can't be possible some day. But such evolution
>> is not going to come thru a violent or agressive uprising.
>
>How can it come thru any other means?
Violence only breeds more fear and distrust. It certainly won't teach
people to be more altruistic, which is what your philosophy
requires. That's utterly stupid. All forms of this worker uprising
bullshit have historically failed...and led to disaster for the workers
who were supposed to benefit.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: Gtk+ is *L*GPL (Was: Qt goes GPL)
Date: 7 Sep 2000 22:13:57 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 4 Sep 2000 23:35:22 +0200,
Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Perry Pip wrote:
>
>> And not enough. You still can't develop closed source apps with Qt/KDE
>> without paying sizable royalties to Troll Tech. With Gtk/Gnome you
>> can. I can't blame the guys at Troll Tech for wanting to pay their
>> bills, but others have to pay their bills as well, or have other
>> reasons for not wanting to release source code.
>
>BS... so now you want to debate about what is better - LGPL or GPL??
Excuse me, I'm just stating a factual difference that matters to some
people.
>If you want to release closed source software then you better pay for the
>tools you use.
>
If you use Qt/KDE yes. If you use Gtk/Gnome, no.
I am working in an avionics lab for a large aerospace research
project. For both intellectual property and security reasons, we are
currently not releasing source code except to our subcontractors. Thus
we can use LGPL'd but not GPL'd libraries. I think you find there are
many other organizations that have some additional intellectual
property to protect besides the software itself and thus can't release
sources. You'd better believe Sun and HP took this into account in
making their decision to standardize on Gtk/Gnome.
>And maybe when its a bit more stable.
I find that my own apps using Gtk widgets and some Gnome Widgets are
quite stable. I don't use the overall integreted Gnome Desktop.
Perry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: philosophy is better than science
Date: 7 Sep 2000 22:14:07 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 5 Sep 2000 15:50:31 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Class systems are not uniformly rigid.
But the only class lines are only conceptual. That's not much of a
class system. If you say an uneven distribution of wealth means a
class system, then you have that everywhere and your point is
meaningless.
>You are welcome to provide
>statistics showing the percentage of poor, poorly educated immigrants
>who strike it rich, along with the percentage who never make out
>of the second quintile.
A statistic like that won't show anything. There are plenty immigrants
that refuse to even learn the language. The are also plenty immigrant
families who came to the U.S. with *nothing* at all and are doing very
well becuse of their *ethics* for hard work. Ethics most Americans
don't have. If a person in America has such a work ethic, and he
applies it, he will succeed. I have a number of coworkers that I work
with that grew up in very poor minority neighborhoods. They got
out. They worked for it, they didn't get a handout on a silver
platter.
>>Our society (the U.S.) is one of the few that strives to give everyone
>>the opportunity to acchieve their full pontential. The fact that many
>>don't is their own doing,
>
>Hey, I love the U.S., I wouldn't live anywhere else, but do try to get
>some perspective.
Hey, I never said the U.S. was perfect, or that it couldn't improve
it's social policies. But put it in perspective yourself. Look at the
rest of the world. Why are so many immigrants trying to get into the
U.S?? Why has the American system become a model for others to
follow?? There may be a few developed Western countries that are ahead
of the U.S. in terms of allowing people to achieve their full
pontential. And those countries have systems of capitalist/democratic
economies/governments somewhat similar to ours. Are you telling me
Richard's communism would be better?
>
>And if their parent made mistakes when they were children and later
>when they were young adults (or maybe they just aren't very bright)
I know a young 18 year old man (actually an acquantance of my fiance)
who just got released from a juvenile detention center upon turning
18. He has spent 4 years of his life, inlcuding the last 3, in
juvenile detention centers for petty crimes. Although he has a chance,
statistically it is very likely a person like him will end up in
serving much of his life in adult prison. His family upbringing
sucked. His father left his mother years ago, and his mother is an
alcoholic who does nothing but use and manipulate him. He has two
older brothers already serving long sentences in prison. However, he
also has an older brother and sister that both have good jobs and are
doing quite well. He is not a stupid kid, but not a genious either. 3
years ago, when he went into the detention center, could barely read
at all. He finished his GED in the detention center.
So what will happen of him?? He is at a cross road. He could fuck up,
and with is juvenille record he will get stiff sentence, and unlikely
ever get his act together, except to learn how to live in prison. Or
he could do the straight and narrow. His uncle got him a job, and he's
working long hours and saving money. He has no interest in drugs,
that's a good thing. But having an upbringing with no structure or
self-discipline, how will he stay on the right path?? He does have one
real very good opportunity though...the one my fiance and I recommend
he take. He can join the service. Anyone with just a juvenille
criminal record can. The service would provide both the structure and
self-discipline he needs to get his shit together. And they would
teach him skills he could use when he get's out. He says he is
considering this alternative as a last resort. Problem is if he fucks
up (get's arrested), it's too late and he loses that last
resort. Nonetheless, he has choice to to do right, and their are both
people and institutions in our society willing to support him if he
makes that choice. Any one in the U.S. who get's a GED (even in
prison) can join the service and get usefull skills.
I am all in favor of helping people in need, Morphus, provided they
are willing to be helped. But alot people don't want to be helped, and
others abuse the system. Why should I pay taxes for a 16 year old girl
who *decides* to have a kid? What about all these lazy ass people
claiming disability under the guise of "chronic fatigue syndrome"?
Alot of hard-working self-disciplined people in America would like to
help others, but don't want to pay taxes for this shit.
>and are now working overtime to make it to the poverty level and keep
>the family in some minimal physical comfort without depending too much
>on handouts ... resulting in an inability to spend enough time with
>their children,
Why are they having children in the first place if they don't have
money to care for them?? They should be working, saving money, going
to night school etc. etc. ****before**** having children!!!! That's
what *responsible* people do. Why should we be subsidizing
irresponsibility?? If you subsidize irresponsible poeple having
children we are propagating natural selection of irresponsible DNA. Is
that how we want to evolve?? It's a complex issue, isn't it?? You
feed the poor, you breed the poor. The poor need to learn birth
control, and that should be a prerequisite for assistance.
>how much is our society doing to help either
>the parents or the children in these situations? In comparison
>to other industrialized countries?
Go visit other industrialized countries and I think you will find they
aren't as utopian as we hear they are. In many, social policies do
work better because they a smaller and more homogenous. None of them
have the massive influx of immigrants that we have. But they've all
got thier own ugly things to look at as well.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
