Linux-Advocacy Digest #438, Volume #29 Wed, 4 Oct 00 00:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: IBM announces 64-bit mainframes and 64-bit Linux for S/390 (Gary Hallock)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: IBM announces 64-bit mainframes and 64-bit Linux for S/390 (.)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: GPL & freedom ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes) (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux Sucks (unicat)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop ("James Stutts")
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop ("James Stutts")
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop ("James Stutts")
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop ("James Stutts")
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop ("James Stutts")
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop ("James Stutts")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 22:12:26 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IBM announces 64-bit mainframes and 64-bit Linux for S/390
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> Wow. Only $1,200,000.00
>
But only $500 per Linux image.
Gary
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 02:15:15 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >But not at the time that the decision is actually made. Or are you
> >claiming that he's there "in spirit"?
>
> No, he's there at the time the decision is actually being made: when he
> programs what result the decision will have, and how the decision will
> be made, and whether there is a decision.
So the programmer was there when the program decided "since ABC share
price is going down, sell that stock"?
Not that it matters since the programmer isn't responsible for the kind
of decisions the automated trading system will make. If he wrote "sell
good stock, buy shitty stock" then he'd be fired and the machine junked.
The existence of the automated stock trading machine is dependent on the
good will of the corporation and its making the kind of decisions that
the corporation wants using the economic model that the corporation wants
and the value system that the corporation wants. The machine is not an
extension of the programmer's will in any way, shape, or formo insofar
as it is behaving correctly (ie, not crashing, not having code that is
difficult to maintain or extend, et cetera).
> >If I read a book and follow its advice, just who is performing decisions?
>
> Me.
So if I read "shoot people" and I go out and kill rich sons of bitches,
then that's /your/ decision, right? I just want to clarify this so I
know what to expect from the jury ....
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: IBM announces 64-bit mainframes and 64-bit Linux for S/390
Date: 4 Oct 2000 02:17:20 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wow. Only $1,200,000.00
It *is* a mainframe type deal afterall. You arent buying little
compaq machines. :)
=====.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 02:37:48 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> Why not?
Because people "want" Unix compatibility and that's something I won't
provide. And *even* if I provided it, it just wouldn't be Unix and
people are comfortable with Unix.
> We're assuming, I guess, that you're designing a system that
> won't suck, at least in your opinion. If you opinion is so unique and
> unrelated to what makes an OS useful that nobody else would find benefit
> in your system, it will suck. If it doesn't suck, other people will
> want to use it.
Which doesn't mean that 1) they will be aware of the existence of my OS
(how many OSes do you know about? Is it around two or three dozen?) nor
that 2) people will actually install my OS.
> I'm all for recognizing the value of not trying to
> design a single product which will work for all users; I'd much rather
> see a dozen or more interoperable OSes being used than any one, even
> Linux.
>
> The problem is that you can't get beyond arguing rather pedantically
> (and insultingly) about all these 'superior intellectual theories'
> you're supposedly basing your thinking on, and seem rather reticent to
> state your claim and explain the value of your system or your approach.
> If we can get past, for the moment, the fact that your aim has been to
> denigrate Unix, rather than promote your alternative, let's take the
> issue of the only feature which you've conventionally explained:
> orthogonal persistence.
And this is the *easiest* "feature" to explain to people who don't
know high-level design. How exactly would I explain Security (which
I've touched on), extensibility, uniformity, reflection, distribution
(Unix doesn't have it, Plan 9 only partially has it), connectedness,
object-orientation (a la Alternate Reality) or exokernel? How do I
explain the Quality Without A Name (geez, why *do* you think it has
no name?) to people who stubbornly refuse to see the ugliness of Unix?
> As I mentioned recently, I've heard of other computer scientists which
> believe that this would be the correct way to design an operating
> system. But when the subject comes up, and the inevitable debate
> starts, you don't provide an ongoing rant presenting the lengths to
> which you've thought the issue through, and relate other benefits which
> result from or contribute to this feature, and discuss why such a model,
> outside of the preconceptions of people who have become familiar with
> the Unix model. Instead you say something like "you've proven you're a
> clueless moron, blah blah blah" and go on about the most esoteric
> existentialist philosophy/mathematics/cognitive science crud that you
> can find.
Hehe. Well, that's one way of putting it. The problem is that teaching
is *hard work* even if you have all the material already well-formulated.
Teaching Calculus is hard work despite the fact that calculus has been
taught for decades by tens of thousands of profs. How much harder do you
think it is with material that isn't already neatly packaged together?
> Still, it might be even more entertaining, if slightly less of a
> spectacle, to discuss alternative OS models and why Unix is not ideal in
> all circumstances.
Unix is not ideal in /any/ circumstance except that you want an OS that
has "features" which is compatible with the crap that's already out there
and which has tons of applications for it. Pretty much like Windows.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 02:49:00 GMT
"Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8r93h5$lal$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> OK... let's see.
>
> I spend 4 years creating something (say a piece of software).
>
> That software costs nothing to copy - it could be made available over the
> net.
>
> So what you're saying is that because it costs nothing to copy, I
shouldn't
> receive any compensation for my 4 years work?
No one can force you to work for nothing, but suppose someone else
works just a bit harder and decides to sell his better version just a bit
cheaper and no one will buy yours. Do you think your work, no
matter how hard, deserves protection against that? Now suppose
a dozen people share the work, easily create something even better
and decide to give it away. How are you going to compete with
that?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 02:54:39 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> El mar, 03 oct 2000, Richard escribió:
> >It's the *corporation* that decided to use the automated stock trading
> >system, NOT the bozo who created the system, nor the bozo who installed
> >it, nor the bozo who's maintaining it!
>
> But the bozo who decided that such a system should exist and perform that task?
Answers to other people in the corporate structure. The decision to create
and use an automated stock trading system is a perfect example of a human
decision that transcends the human level and rises to the corporate level.
It is a corporate decision.
> >If you manufacture a fridge then sell it to me and install it in my home,
> >are *you* the one that's refrigerating my food for me??
>
> No, you are.
Exactly.
> >The robot is an extension of the corporation and it welds because it is
> >the corporation's will.
>
> According to the definition of will you gave before, the robot's control
> program has will of its own that causes it to weld.
That's like saying that your arm has will because it has nerves in it
that respond autonomously (ie, autonomous reflexes). Your arm's will is
an extension of your own will. Similarly, the robot's will is an extension
of the corporate will.
> ><sigh> Learn something about the philosophy of science some day.
>
> Perhaps if you said something of substance beyond insults, I would care about
> your opinon.
Perhaps if you ever bothered thinking about what I write long enough
to respond intelligently you would see the substance behind my words.
> >And if someone opened a window that let in the gust of wind that
> >caused it to crash, then is it still my action that caused it to
> >fall?
>
> Your imprudence caused the fall. Just ask your mother.
Fuck the old hag.
Now, if you asked someone whose opinion I *might* care about, say a
random stranger on the street, then I'm sure they would say that it
wasn't my fault.
> >Stock trading systems exist because it is the corporation's will.
>
> No, it's the manager's will that the corporation shall have such a thing.
The manager does not have any independent will in regards to these matters.
And he *certainly* does not have any control over the economic model the
machine will be using. If the manager made a decision contrary to the
interests of the corporation, he would be fired. But he'd never make such
a decision in the first place since he's been selected on the explicit
criterion that he is sensitive to the interests of the corporation. IOW,
the existence of the machine is NOT the result of the manager's will.
Claiming otherwise is like saying that a slave who rationalizes all his
master's orders until he believes he wants to follow them is actually
operating of his own volition.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes)
Date: 4 Oct 2000 03:12:20 GMT
On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 00:18:55 GMT, Marty wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 03 Oct 2000 23:05:33 GMT, Marty wrote:
>> >> Now that's what I call a Tholen-war.
>> >
>> >On what basis do you make this claim?
>>
>> On the basis that it satisfies the definition of the term previously
>> posted.
>
>Classic illogical circular reasoning.
It's logical unless you object to either the aforementioned definition or
the assertion that this discussion satisfies the criteria for that definition.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 23:15:45 -0400
WickedDyno wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > WickedDyno wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Joseph T. Adams" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > : On 1 Oct 2000 15:13:23 GMT, Joseph T. Adams wrote:
> > > > > :>In comp.os.linux.advocacy JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > :>In many urban areas in the U.S., urban decay, crime, and the
> > > > > :>middle-class flight syndrome (often mistakenly labeled "white
> > > > > :>flight")
> > > > >
> > > > > : How mistaken is the label ? I was in Newark NJ for a while, and I
> > > > > : remember
> > > > > : walking along crowded streets where I was the only "white person"
> > > > > : (
> > > > > : whatever
> > > > > : that means ) in sight. Of course, it's also true that all the
> > > > > : middle
> > > > > : class
> > > > > : African Americans who used to live there also seem to have packed
> > > > > : their
> > > > > : bags and moved to the suburbs.
> > > > >
> > > > > That is precisely the difference. It isn't that white people don't
> > > > > want to live in terrible areas, but, rather that NO ONE wants to
> > > > > live
> > > > > in those areas. All but the very poorest leave.
> > > > >
> > > > > For a variety of reasons, most of which are not their fault, Black
> > > > > and
> > > > > Hispanic and other minority citizens are greatly overrepresented in
> > > >
> > > > Low-IQ correlates with low incomes and unemployment.
> > >
> > > IQ correlates even more strongly with education.
> >
> > Of course... retards generally don't make it into college.
>
> Neither do those with low incomes or unemployment.
Wrong. Millions of people go to college while earning
what is considered to be "poverty level" incomes.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/directedfire.referrer.fcgi?2632
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: unicat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Sucks
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 23:16:18 -0400
C'mon people, look at the poster's name-
Richard (Dick) [EMAIL PROTECTED] -HAH!
This is an obvious Linux assasin hired by the evil Redmond empire!
A pox on him and his inbred community of losers!
Victory through Linux!
Open Source forever!
Richard, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I tried Linux and I think it stinks. While there seem to be hundreds,
> if not thousands of applications included with the basic cd, most of
> them are useless junk that seem to require an interpreter of sorts to
> figure out.
>
> My advice is to let Linux be and allow it to die the slow death it
> seems to be dying as we speak. What junk this linux is. Do people
> actually like this sort of rot?
>
> Richard Y. Hertz
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 03:20:18 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> El mar, 03 oct 2000, Richard escribió:
> >explanatory power. The value of prediction lies only in the fact that
> >many humans don't recognize bullshit when they see it and fool themselves
> >into accepting theories with little or no explanatory power. IOW, the
>
> It is simple to explain Napoleon as a solar myth. Try it. Predictive power of
Bullshit. Any such "explanation" will be utter nonsense.
> science is paramount. Why do you think relativists were so happy after that
> particular eclipse when the light was bent by gravity?
Einstein wouldn't have given a damn. And neither would I since unlike most
scientists I don't need predictions to be able to separate sense from nonsense.
> You claim to understand superstrings?
You claim to understand *anything*?
> They don't predict gravity. You seem to ignore the meaning of prediction. They
> AGREE with gravity, because gravity was known and preexistent.
You're a moron.
> >> It's a verification of the theory, which sure is handy. However,
> >> there are probably an infinite number of theories that "predict" the same
> >> equation.
> >
> >Idiot. There are only 6 such theories and they were all found to be dual
> >to each other!
>
> There are only 6 theories that can possibly predict that equation? I find that
> interesting.
Fuck, you don't know the first thing you're talking about. "the equation"???
What the fuck is that supposed to mean???????????
> >And if I "replaced" the management in a company by firing every single
> >manager (upper, middle AND lower), shot them all, and then brought in
> >a completely different management from some other company, then I would
> >not expect any continuity either.
>
> But you will. Experience in the real world says so.
Only antedeluvian neanderthals with paralyzing cases of idiocy would
expect any continuity. If the typical manager expects any continuity
then that only proves they're as stupid as you are.
> > I don't know if you're an idiot for
> >rhetorical purposes or you're just an idiot, but your expecting any
> >continuity after, say, you fire all the employees in a corporation is
> >ludicrous.
>
> It's trivial to prove: corporations have replaced all employees and had
> continuity. It is a gradual process, though.
Same with cells in the fucking human body, as I have already explained
twenty fucking times.
This is the last straw, shitehead.
> >If you replaced neurons in the brain one at a time, letting the new
> >ones reattach according to their neighbours, then there would be
> >continuity.
>
> That is, I must say, just guessing.
Wrong, shithead. It's been done. You just have *NO* fucking idea about
*ANYTHING* and you keep talking out of your ass. Fuck this; I'm a complete
idiot for ever talking to you.
> > The same thing with replacing employees one at a time.
>
> But you just said above that if all the employees were replaced continuity
> would be lost. Seems you forgot to qualify your previous statement. Tsk, tsk.
<BANG!> <BANG!> <BANG!>
> >Explain that to a psychologist specializing in the visual system.
>
> A psychologist usually has no clue on electromagnetism.
Unless they're working on the visual system. You are such a fucking SHITHEAD!
> >Transcendance doesn't mean that you are greater in all ways. Corporations
> >transcend human beings from the mere fact that they are immortal while
> >humans are not.
>
> Corporations are not immortal. Corporations cease to exist.
immortal = does not age
eternal = does not die
You're such a shit for brains asshole.
> You told me what to do to show the inadequacy of your definition.
And you *needed* me to tell you that. This alone proves you're an imbecile.
> I did. Now
> you improved it. It still sucks.
It matches MY conception of will just fine.
> >every entity on the level of abstraction of fundamental physics in our
> >reality.
^^^^^^^
> That assumes the existence of a single universe, I must say. Not a large
Other universes are not part of our reality in any meaningful sense.
> assumption, at least practically. It also assumes that only entities with
> material existence exist.
No. It assumes that only entities with material existence materially exist.
That's why I said AT THAT LEVEL OF ABSTRACTION!
> Corporations don't like tax breaks. You will never see a corporation patting a
> tax break in the back.
You'll never see me patting chocolate ice cream on the back either. Doesn't
mean that I don't like it, MORON!
> >Still talking about psychopaths after it's been shown you know
> >nothing on the subject? Imbecile!
>
> It has not been shown, at least not to my satisfaction.
But you're an imbecile so your opinion hardly matters.
> >Psychopaths have preferences and likes and dislikes. If they didn't
> >then they would not seek power (since power is the ability to impose
> >one's preferences on others).
>
> I was referring to the specific inability to like childrens YOU mentioned,
> Richard.
Cooperatives like children. Corporations actively dislike them.
> >They are so flawed, you're just going to great lengths to avoid passing
> >a negative judgement on your friend Mr. Corporation.
>
> I really don't like corporations. I don't hold that against them, though.
Same thing.
> >*Hallucinating* holes is not the same thing as actually showing they exist.
>
> Denial. What a shame.
Idiocy. What a waste.
And "denial" is a technical term in psychology. Don't misuse it asshole.
> >Define thought and corporation, from which corporate decision-making will
> >follow!
>
> If you claim we have no working definition, abstain from making judgement
> values that require the definition.
No, I claim that YOU have no working definition. I have one but it's not my
job to produce it and since you're an utter idiot, I would gain nothing from
producing a working definition.
> Can you change the functionality of a fully developed cell? I had never seen
> that mentioned, but indeed I am not a biologist. Care to cite a pointer?
D O L L Y.
------------------------------
From: "James Stutts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 22:19:34 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 2 Oct 2000 23:11:22 -0500, James Stutts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
<snip>
> >This has ZERO to do with the SCSI card, but is a software problem with
> >the WINASPI driver provided with an Adaptec SOFTWARE PRODUCT. Did
> >he say SCSI anywhere?
>
> Yes, when he said ASPI.
Having an ASPI layer has nothing to do with having a SCSI card. You can
have Winaspi.dll
without any actual SCSI hardware anywhere on the computer.
JCS
------------------------------
From: "James Stutts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 22:22:12 -0500
"Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8rdcs2$hkird$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>You might want to stare a little harder at some of those SGI graphics
> >>workstations. They
> >>have a whole line that runs NT.
> >
> > ...or Linux.
> >
>
>
> This may be partly true - ix86 processor based sgi machines can run NT (or
> linux) but
Why is this partly true? It is completely true that SGI sells a line of x86
based
workstations. Recently, they have begun selling Linux-running x86 systems
as well.
> how many machines using normal non-intel SGI hardware can run NT (they can
> run linux).
>
Some (not all) MIPS-based SGIs can run Linux. Last I checked, the ports
weren't to the level
of the SPARC port. There's no reason that a MIPS-based SGI can't run NT -
if a HAL is written for
it. NT and MIPS go back quite far.
JCS
------------------------------
From: "James Stutts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 22:23:49 -0500
"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> James Stutts wrote:
>
> > You might want to stare a little harder at some of those SGI graphics
> > workstations. They
> > have a whole line that runs NT.
>
> Didn't know that. The ones here all run Unix for some reason.
Why would that be "for some reason?" IRIX is quite powerful.
>
> Is SGI using x86 for their workstations?
SGI sells a line of desktop x86 systems and has (or at least, had) Merced on
their roadmap.
They've offered these machines since early last year.
JCS
------------------------------
From: "James Stutts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 22:24:43 -0500
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 2 Oct 2000 23:14:09 -0500, James Stutts
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >You might want to stare a little harder at some of those SGI graphics
> >workstations. They have a whole line that runs NT.
>
> They also have a whole line that runs Linux. Click the "Linux" link on
> <http://www.sgi.com/>.
>
Been there, done that. They're priced well out of our market for nodes.
The desktop x86 SGI machines originally ran NT 4.
JCS
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 22:45:25 -0500
"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 3 Oct 2000 17:44:53 -0500,
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"Glitch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > You just can't beat Windows 2000 -- it is simply the best all around
> >general
> >> > purpose OS out there today.
> >>
> >> and the most expensive
> >
> >Haven't priced Solaris lately, have you?
>
> Bought the CD's from Sun for $10 plus shipping.
Solaris < 8 is still quite expensive.
Description: Solaris 7 x86 Desktop, CD, Hard Copy Documentation and
Single-user RTU
Part Number: SOLMI-07D-D999
List Price: 450.00 USD
Oh, and if you want it in Japanese, it's $750.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 03:28:44 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> El mar, 03 oct 2000, Richard escribió:
> > Not every property of objects on the subvenient level
> >transcends to the supervenient level. The fact that corporations
> >do not have snivelling noses says nothing about whether or not they
> >can be psychopaths.
>
> The fact that corporations are not human, does.
No, cretin. Psychopathy is a property of BEINGS, not humans. Aliens
could easily be psychopaths.
> >I'm not going digging for you!
>
> Then, AFAICS, it is just your opinion.
Yeah, but nobody cares about your opinion cause you're an imbecile.
> >Consciousness is irrelevant. He *has* lost (some of) his rights
>
> Such as?
The ability to piss when he wants to.
> >And btw, there is no human right about freedom of religion, only FROM religion.
>
> The UN disagrees.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not perfect and this can be judged
because human rights are *NOT* made in such declarations, they're only DECLARED.
> >Corporations buy back their own stock all the time. Toys 'R Us did it a
> >while ago and it expected to have to do it for years to come.
>
> Not *all* their stock.
They expected to do so indefinitely. (They expected to run an enormous
profit indefinitely.)
------------------------------
From: "James Stutts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 22:28:06 -0500
"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 3 Oct 2000 17:44:53 -0500,
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"Glitch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > You just can't beat Windows 2000 -- it is simply the best all around
> >general
> >> > purpose OS out there today.
> >>
> >> and the most expensive
> >
> >Haven't priced Solaris lately, have you?
> >
>
> Bought the CD's from Sun for $10 plus shipping.
Your not running Slowlaris x86, are you? BTW, it is $75 + shipping. I
really
miss SunOS 4.1.3_U1....
JCS
------------------------------
From: "James Stutts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 22:33:17 -0500
"Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8rddep$hfdqe$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<snip>
Nigel,
Please don't call them "linux tools". Stallman really needs better PR.
> Of course, the win32 versions of all these linux tools need to be
downloaded
> from the internet but are already included with the operating system under
> linux.
JCS
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
