Linux-Advocacy Digest #375, Volume #29 Sun, 1 Oct 00 00:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Jim
Richardson)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes ("JS/PL")
Re: Win2K ("Todd")
Re: How low can they go...? ("James A. Robertson")
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop ("Todd")
Re: Can Win9x and NT be considered in the same family? ("Todd")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Chad Myers")
Re: How low can they go...? ("James A. Robertson")
Re: How low can they go...? ("James A. Robertson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
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, 30 Sep 2000 13:36:32 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 26 Sep 2000 21:23:33 GMT,
Donovan Rebbechi, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 20:36:02 GMT, Joe R. wrote:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>(Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
>>> I'm simply pointing out that Bush's policy does not offer them very much.
>>> Sure, given a choice between a Coke a day and no Coke a day, I'd probably
>>> take it. But I'd hardly act like I'd won the lottery because of it.
>>
>>First of all, your numbers are way off.
>
>4 family members * $1/coke * 1 coke/day * 365 days/yr = $1460
Even if you buy it out of a machine, it's <$1, hell, the brand name stuff is
under $2 a sixpack on sale, and <$3 a sixpack when not. Buy it in the 2 liter
bottles and it's even cheaper.
>
>>That's a lot of money for someone in that income bracket.
>>
>>But what do you want him to do? How much more can they offer than
>>eliminating taxes? GIVE them money?
>
>Well, I'll take that as an admission that your vision really doesn't
>include much more than tax cuts either.
>
>Start by fixing the broken health care system.
Sounds great, get the govt meddling out from between my doctor and I.
>
>>> I think it's for Bush to come up with the evidence that his policy has
>>> something to offer ordinary Americans. I haven't seen any such evidence.
>>
>>Because you refuse to look.
>>
>>The average family making $35 K today pays $1500 in taxes. Bush's plan
>>eliminates that.
>
>That's not in itself a compelling reason to vote for him.
It wouldn't be if Gore had a plan that did the same thing, and if Gore was the
kind of person who you could trust not to stab you in the back later...
>
>>> The dollar amount that goes to the wealthy is greater. Suppose I am
>>> wealthy and you are not. George Bush's plan allocates more to me than it does
>>> to you.
>>
>>
>>I don't think anyone's denying that.
>>
>>But it seems plenty fair.
>
>To the wealthy voters, I'm sure it seems "plenty fair".
>
>But unless a case is made that his policy has something to offer the
>average American, this doesn't help much. I disagree that the tax cut
>is in itself a compelling reason to vote one way or the other. Take a
>look at the polls if you want to know which way the public are leaning.
I don't vote because of how the polls run, I vote for the person/party/policy I
want to see implemented.
>>So, even though the millionaire saves more dollars, he's still paying
>>far, far, more than the lower income person. The lower income person
>>sees more percentage benefit.
>
>I'm not trying to imply that Bush's tax scale is flat.
>
>>The only way to do more than Bush proposes is to PAY those making under
>>$35 K in addition to not collecting any taxes. That's absurd.
>
>The first way to "do more" would be to fix the health care system.
>
>BTW, while we're on the topic of Bush's policies, I was a grad student in
>TX for a year, and grad school there is like indentured servitude. It's
>like a bad joke.
Is it any different at any other grad school?
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[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
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 23:24:42 -0400
"Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> We lived in our last house 7 years and sold it for exactly what we paid
> -- even after $20 K in capital improvements. So, appreciation was
> negative. Our payments were about 90% interest (which doesn't get us
> anything, but a tax deduction) and 10% payment on principal. The rent in
> that area would have been considerably less than we paid in mortgage and
> taxes, so we'd have been just as well off renting.
A house that loses 20k in worth over seven years must have been pretty
shitty. Was it a house(trailer) per chance? Did American Airlines install a
nationwide hub next door? Was it a crack house? Love Canal?
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2K
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 11:18:59 +0800
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8qkr6h$lev$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Adam Warner wrote:
> >Hi Mark,
> >
> >I appreciated the compassion of your post about an employee with
dyslexia.
>
> Thankyou - some things transcend technology.
>
> >
> >You have to realise that what I posted was correct. The initial poster
made
> >the logical fallacy of implying that a particular instance of something
> >happening means it will always happen (Some A is B does not imply all A
is
> >B).
>
> Can't disagree with the logic there.
>
> >
> >> >1. Of course Win2k can multitask.
> >
> >IIRC, the original poster said that Win2k cannot multitask any better
than
> >Win 3.1!
> >
> >> >2. Many application crashes do not bring down explorer.
> >
> >Making the point that not all application crashes bring down explorer...
> >
> >> So many application crashes do bring down explorer - the shell.
> >
> >Of course some can.
> >
> >> >3. Even if explorer halts, it can be restarted (the computer will NOT
> >> >spontaneously reboot).
> >>
> >> Always, or just sometimes?
> >
> >Caught me there. That would be sometimes.
> >
> >> >4. Win2k is a stable operating system (but of course it is not "the"
most
> >> >stable OS).
> >
> >> Err, how do you know? The previous poster was quite convinced that it
> >> be unstable. So much so that he'd rather use linux at home. Looks
like
> >> Win2k is unstable. In his view, at least.
> >
> >To deny that Win2k can be a stable OS is just plain silly.
> >
> >> Very little said, I thought, but an awful lot stated without a hint of
> >proof.
> >
> >(Sigh). Do I really need to provide proof that Win2k can multitask better
> >than Win 3.1? (3.1 couldn't even pre-emptively multitask). Do I really
need
> >to provide proof that all application crashes don't bring down explorer?
Do
> >I really need to demonstrate how to restart explorer using the Task
Manager?
> >Do I really need to labour the point that Win2k CAN be a stable OS? (and
> >look how I tempered my initial comment)
> >
> >Any person that disputes these simple issues is a poor alternative-OS
> >advocate. Let's stick to debate about debatable issues :-)
> >
>
> Could be my writing style - I wasn't commenting on whether win2k was more
> able to multi-task than win3.1 or more stable than win3.1.
If you are even comparing Windows 3.1 at all with 2000, your credibility is
going to go right out the windows. Many will doubt that you've even used
2000 for an extensive period of time.
> I suspect that Microsoft have a Win2k machine which has been in a
carefully
> controlled lab environment for a few months now, on a UPS, not running
> anything, so that someone can post an 'uptime' statement when it starts to
> look competitive with linux. 'course, I could just be an old cynic :).
heh.
My new project at work involves two 2000 machines, one SQL and one WEB
server (one is outside the firewall)... I can give you uptime stats., but
you'd probably just say they were doctored anyway... what would be the use?
Suffice to say, they have both been up since we went live which was a few
months ago.
They just don't crash. Quite impressive given that they have multiple
systems running on them.
I doubt doubt Linux uptime stats., but Windows 2000 just hasn't been around
to prove itself in a corporate environment. That will start to change.
Windows 2000 is rock solid stable.
-Todd
> --
> Mark - remove any ham to reply.
> (Killed (sigserv (This sig is reserved by another user)))
------------------------------
From: "James A. Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [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: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 03:30:38 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >>
> >> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >>
> >> I think where you got tripped up was in presuming that
> >> 'over-simplification is the opposite of convoluted', which is not really
> >> true at all. What you might have meant to say was 'simple is the
> >> opposite of convoluted', but I don't think that would make it difficult
> >> to figure out how simplifying the presentation of the law (specifically,
> >> having to simplify the law in order to understand it easily) indicates
> >> that the law itself is convoluted.
> >
> >But it's not. Define 'anti-competitive'. Then get 10 people in a room
> >and see if you can get consensus on your definition. If it were clear,
> >we wouldn't have adjudication.
>
> If it weren't clear, we wouldn't have adjudication; judges aren't
> allowed to make up laws.
Explain any of the recent Supreme Court rulings then.
> 'Anti-competitive' is defined as 'violating
> the law against restraint of trade, monopolization, or attempted
> monopolization', generally. To be more specific, "not pro-competitive;
> resulting in decreased, rather than increased, competition." I'm sure
> you can mis-read that easily, but, again, the consensus of the judges
> and equally informed opinions is all that is of concern; whether 10
> random people are familiar with the details of anti-trust law is not a
> consideration. Other than to support my position that most people's
> understanding of anti-trust law is misinformed quite radically by
> 'popular wisdom'.
Ok, then replace people with judges. same result as I said before
>
> >Moreover, if it were clear Judge Jackson wouldn't have held all
> >penalties pending the appeal, because he would have been absolutely
> >certain of the outcome. Fact is, he's not certain. Nor is anyone else,
> >MS or the DOJ.
>
> Nobody can be certain of anything, of course. The stay of the remedy is
> a procedural thing; it is not based on his confidence in his ruling, but
> on the limits of his jurisprudence. Believe me, if Jackson weren't
> quite absolutely certain of the validity of the conviction, he wouldn't
> have made the decision to convict. You, MS, nor any others who might
> defend MS's criminal actions, have provided any counter-argument
> indicating the decision is not fully and completely founded on Supreme
> Court precedent.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
>
> ======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
>
> Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
>
> http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
>
> -----= 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! =-----
--
James A. Robertson
Technical Product Manager (Smalltalk), Cincom
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 11:30:41 +0800
"Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:EXtB5.4994$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
news:8r5nt1$g2e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > There is a lot of hype about Linux. I use it to learn a bit about Unix
> > at home. But as a desktop, Win2k is really years ahead and has
> > numerous high quality apps. It is also very stable.
> >
> > I would really like to know why anyone would prefer Linux as a
> > desktop? Reasons such as "Win2k is made by the Evil Empire are not
> > really valid".
>
> 1.win2k is a god damn memory hog, my win2k takes 56 MB just at clean
bootup,
> thats a fucking scandal!
> (my linux install takes 35 MB, SuSE Linux 6.4 gnome OR kde)
This is a common argument by Linux users.
Two points I'd like to make:
1) On initial setup, Windows 2000 enables many of the 'services' that you
don't really need (especially at home). Disabling these services can free
up lots of memory. I have a 46MB footprint on Windows 2000 AS ! That's
right, it's all in the services.
2) Memory is cheap. In two years, it will be a ton cheaper for more
memory. Why does the footprint really matter? A HP Calculator has a low
memory footprint... do you want to use that instead of Linux?
As long as the OS does what you need it to, then memory is irrelevant as
long as it doesn't exceed your cost constraints.
I have a standard 256MB of memory in all of my machines simply because it
was so cheap.
Do I really care whether I am at 35MB or a 46MB footprint? Nope.
> 2.linux is even more stable than win2k (no bsod, as i do have had with
> win2k, 3 times ;))
Hmmm... I have to disagree. I have never had Windows 2000 crash on me
except due to a hardware configuration problem. (I didn't seat my memory
properly). However, we all know that hardware problems like that do not
discriminate about what OS is running on that hardware.
My E-Vectra has been running 2000 since the day I got it, and I've never had
a OS system crash, ever. I don't know how Linux can be more stable than
that.
Try running Netscape on RedHat 6.2 and see how stable Linux is then.
Sometimes, a crash will bring down all of Linux and you get the famous
segment dumps.
> 3.you have a lot (if you are a"experienced home user") more flexibility
with
> linux than win2k
> more powerfull tools and features to work with
I disagree. Could you name the tools and features?
> thats just 3 quick but big reasons, please come back for more!
Unfortunately, none of them qualify... come back and try again though!
> > Linux is a promising product, and I suppose it needs its supporters.
> > But for the rest of us, we just want to be productive.
>
> productive on linux?
> well oracle, mysql for databases staroffice or wordperfect 2000 for office
> work
Try MS SQL server + Office 2000 + ASP + DCOM + blah and more blah
> netscape, opera for internet browsing,
IE is better than both, and you can get netscape and opera on Win32 which
have better versions anyway
> gimp for advanced image editing...
gimp? sheesh... even paint shop pro is better than Gimp, and then there is
adobe photoshop for serious work. Not to say that Gimp sucks, but it isn't
as good as PSP or Photoshop.
> and more ...and more
> (this is just whats come out of my head right now, im sure that there is a
> lots of folks around to
> tell you even more about that part)
Face it. Linux apps. are inferior to their Windows counterparts in *most*
cases. Yes, there are exceptions, but not usually.
-Todd
> /IL
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Can Win9x and NT be considered in the same family?
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 11:38:25 +0800
"OSguy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Can we really consider 9x and NT part of the same OS family? I say no!
> > 9x is 32/16bit hybrid hack for DOS. It has no filesystem protection,
> > no journaling, and no real multi-user capabilities. NT actually has
> > these. The only thing have in common with each other is binary type and
> > UI and even then they aren't 100% the same. The API's are somewhat
> > similar however they have several large differences and some functions
> > do not do the same things.
>
> I say yes you can consider 9x and NT part of the same OS family because
> this "OS family" is owned by the Evil Empire
Gee, now that's a good argument. Xenix was also developed by MS, is Xenix
part of Win32?
>, and it only runs (and was
> designed to only run) on the Intel Microprocessor Family, a processor
> family that is Backwards compatible.
Wrong. The 'NT' family of products was designed to be processor
independent. It succeeded for the most part (it can run on a multitude of
processors), but because of customer demand, the other versions failed to
sell in significant numbers.
Witness the NT HAL/HEL/KERNEL implementation. This is radically different
than how 9x is implemented.
> Putting in new features on each newer
> upgrade of the OS does not make it a different family (especially since
the
> software APIs are mostly compatible from version to version of the
> OS.....indicating to me that there was no radical change in the basic
> philosophy of how the Win32 OS will work).
Features has nothing to do with the underlying part of the OS.
>
> Just my opinion....
Unfortunately, how the two OS families differ is not an opinion. I don't
think you have seriously tried NT/2000 or 9x. If you had, you'd definitely
know the answer, and there would be no doubt whatsoever.
I could write a book and explain the differences, but let me sum it up very
easily for you:
9x = crap. (sux, blows, whatever)
NT = Nice Try (almost there)
2000 = Rockin' (kick ass take no prisoners)
There :)
Actually, NT and 2000 share very similiar underlying architecture. 9x
shares almost nothing at all except a common API (which was a very very
smart thing to do by MS).
-Todd
>
> I still prefer Unix/Linux implementation over Win32.
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[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: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 03:46:48 GMT
"James A. Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> > If it weren't clear, we wouldn't have adjudication; judges aren't
> > allowed to make up laws.
> Explain any of the recent Supreme Court rulings then.
To back up Jame's here, read the U.S. Constitution Article III (section 2
specifically)
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "James A. Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [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: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 04:04:37 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Jonathan Revusky in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> [...]
> >I can guarantee you that it *is* indeed patently obvious, if you
> >followed the thread, that James did not respond to my points because he
> >was unable to. They devastated his entire argument.
>
Nope. I don't suppose that it occurred to you that I just got tired of
you? You don't discuss; you name call. I may disagree with Max (in
another thread), but I like to think that it's a reasoned, mature
discussion. With you, it's like arguimg with a 2 year old. It gets
tiring pretty quickly.
When you can control yourself for minutes at a time and not throw ad
homeneim attacks, you'll get better results.
> >
> >He seemed to be claiming that an anonymous jerk poster who spread
> >anti-Java FUD on the clja newsgroup for years had some kind of unlimited
> >right to anonymous free speech. BTW, the jerk in question is Gary Van
> >Sickle, who posted for years anonymously under the JTK pseudonym. Some
> >of the guy's posts were clearly libellous. He repeatedly called me an
> >alcoholic and called at least one other person a racist.
> >
What I was saying is simply this:
-- I was once of the opinion that anonymous postings here showed a lack
of backbone
-- after seeing what lengths people like you and pvdl are willing to go
to, I now
understand the desire (and even need in some cases) for anonymity.
--
James A. Robertson
Technical Product Manager (Smalltalk), Cincom
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
------------------------------
From: "James A. Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [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: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 04:06:02 GMT
JS/PL wrote:
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
This whole segment is why I now understand the desire for anonymity.
Self appointed Usenet police like you virtually demand it.
> ISP's are not under any obligation to provide login access to their network
> to anyone asking. It's a priviledge for you to use the service, not a right.
> Don't start rolling out the lies again.
>
> A portion (rule 4 & 6) of YOUR particular ISP agreement is as follows:
>
> 4. Nothing But Net and its services may only be used for lawful and legal
> purposes. Transmission of any material in violation of any US or state law
> is prohibited. This prohibition includes but is not limited to copyrighted
> material, threatening or obscene material, or material protected by trade
> secret. You agree to indemnify and hold Nothing But Net from any claims and
> expenses.
>
> 6. Nothing But Net has the right to suspend or delete your account at any
> given time.
>
> You broke state and maybe federal laws. You are lucky to even have access to
> the internet because of it.
--
James A. Robertson
Technical Product Manager (Smalltalk), Cincom
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
