Linux-Advocacy Digest #893, Volume #30 Fri, 15 Dec 00 00:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Whistler review. (kiwiunixman)
Re: IBM 1 billion dollar deal - Linux! (Gary Hallock)
Re: Whistler review. ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Does anyone know..... (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Re: Predictions (featuring Drestin Black) (kiwiunixman)
Re: New to Linux, and I am not satisfied. (Anonymous)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Anonymous)
Re: What does KDE do after all (Anonymous)
Re: Tell us Why you use Windows over Linux. (Gary Hallock)
Re: Name one thing Microsoft INVENTED.... (tom)
Re: What if Linux wasn't free? (kiwiunixman)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source (Gary Hallock)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (kiwiunixman)
Re: Whistler review. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (kiwiunixman)
Re: Whistler review. (Monkeyboy)
Re: Caifornia power shortage... (Craig Kelley)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (kiwiunixman)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (kiwiunixman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 04:11:22 GMT
<snype>
> You guys could at least WAIT for the next virus to strike
> before I prove to the readership that your both full of shit.
>
> Please don't just GIVE IN YET.
>
> Christ!
>
Charlie, they are not virus's or security holes, they are Microsofts
"features".
kiwiunixman
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 23:14:54 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IBM 1 billion dollar deal - Linux!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> Freeway, the new S/390 announced this week. Runs Linux. And Shark,
> IBM's answer to EMC's storage subsystems, fully Linux enabled. The
> press release is on C|Net if you're interested.
>
And Freeway is the first 64-bit S/390 and will have 64-bit Linux support
with the 2.4 kernel.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 04:22:27 GMT
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2000 03:32:44 GMT,
> Chad C. Mulligan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Of course, but that is not the default install, hwich is what we are
> >talking
> >> about here.
> >> Since Charlie claim that he can write a program that can corrupt NT sys
> >> files as user, I'm sticking to defaults here, in showing him how it is
> >> impossible to do so.
> >
> >That is exactly what I was referring to. I wasn't sticking to defaults
here,
> >neither system is safe when defaults are used.
> >
>
> You guys could at least WAIT for the next virus to strike
> before I prove to the readership that your both full of shit.
>
That's a good trick as you've not proven anything yet.
> Please don't just GIVE IN YET.
>
> Christ!
>
> Stick to your guns and wait for me to make a fool of your
> comments. Don't just voluntarily admit your wrong before
> we have proof your wrong.
>
> I believe if you make a statement such as the one's I've read
> on this threat, you should stick to your guns until your dead.
>
> Don't get everyboyd pissed off and thinking your an asshole
> then just give it to them on a silver platter that you were
> assholes.
>
Ran out of civil arguments eh. Still waiting for the "next virus" so I can
wave it by just like the last big virus. You want to know why I'm not
worried (NOTE: this is just an example from my experience). When Melissa
was supposed to "bring all the Windows systems to their knees" I was working
under contract for an ISP (Their eunuchs couldn't figure NT out either). Of
our 200,000 email accounts we had less than 50 detections of possible
Melissa contents, as our corporate headquarters, that we were conected to,
was running Exchange the risk, on a properly administered system just isn't
that great.
> Geeze.
>
> Charlie
>
> Strength in debating.
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Date: 15 Dec 2000 04:23:48 GMT
Subject: Re: Does anyone know.....
>My guess is that this is an eclectic group, and perhaps someone would
>know of a large public domain database which I can use for testing?
Why not use a short programme to create a random database as desired? It could
just be a loop containing things like "print out 3 < x < 20 chars for a first
name, 5 < x < 15 for a surname, etc..."
--
Marada Coeurfuege Shra'drakaii
Colony name not needed in address.
DC2.Dw Gm L280c W+ T90k Sks,wl Cma-,wbk Bsu#/fl A+++ Fr++ Nu M/ O H++ $+ Fo++
R++ Ac+ J-- S-- U? I++ V+ Q++[thoughtspeech] Tc++
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Predictions (featuring Drestin Black)
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 17:26:13 +1300
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph?display=&site=www.xtra.co.nz
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph?display=&site=www.telecom.co.nz
largest ISP in New Zealand, with 250,000 subscribers.
kiwiunixman
Ayende Rahien wrote:
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:914avk$al5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "Pan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Chad Myers wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It's actually:
>>>>> read | weep > tissue
>>>>>
>>>>> -Chad
>>>>
>>>> Any guesses as to what your ISP's NNTP service is running on? lol.
>>>
>>> Mine is exlusevely Windows one.
>>> Mainly Win2K, AFAIK.
>>
>> Lets see: (from netcraft)
>>
>> The site taliesin.netcom.net.uk runs Apache/1.3.12 (Unix) on Solaris
>>
>> The site www.netcom.net.uk runs Stronghold/2.4 Apache/1.3.0 C2NetEU/2407
>
> (Unix) on Solaris
>
>> Looks like they like solaris.
>
>
> I don't use my ISP's news server, as it force me to use my real email, which
> I would like to keep spam free.
> If you would check, you would see that the newsserver I posting from is a
> free one.
>
> Oh, and my ISP is the third largest in the country, and growing quite
> rapidly.
> http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph?display=&site=www.surfree.net.il
> Windows 2000 Microsoft-IIS/5.0
------------------------------
Subject: Re: New to Linux, and I am not satisfied.
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 08:56:08 -0500
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 11 Dec 2000 04:34:55
>"Anonymous" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Swangoremovemee in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 09 Dec 2000
>>
>> >How come you are T.Max under some posts and Anonymous under other
>> >posts?
>>
>> It is a server glitch.
>
>Interesting: the posts show up here, avoiding whoever is canceling
>the others.
Excuse me? Am I to understand someone is canceling my posts?
If I didn't know better, I'd swear that some people *really* don't want
to hear what I have to say. I'm not sure if they're taking me to
seriously, or taking themselves too seriously, but either way they
obviously have a problem.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
--------== Posted Anonymously via Newsfeeds.Com ==-------
Featuring the worlds only Anonymous Usenet Server
-----------== http://www.newsfeeds.com ==----------
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 10:36:52 -0500
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Said Steve Mading in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 11 Dec 2000 21:01:07 GMT;
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>: Said Steve Mading in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 8 Dec 2000 22:40:26 GMT;
>
>:> By itself it isn't enough. You are taking this "evidence in
>:>support" to mean "total proof, beyond a shadow of a doubt", and that's
>:>not what it means. Since this is the premise behind everything else you
>:>said, I don't feel the need to respond to the rest of the post.
>
>: Can get you convicted. Is that "proof" enough? Yes, having an
>: overwhelming market share, without sufficient defense providing a
>: reasonable doubt, you can be convicted of monopolizing, according to the
>: Supreme Court. Sorry if you weren't aware of that. Note that "can"
>: isn't "will", so nobody is claiming that having a large market share is
>: illegal per se.
>
>As you admit yourself, "can" is not "must".
No, I discussed "can" and "will", not "must". "Must" indicates some
moral imperative which isn't really valid in the context of the
discussion, at least from your perspective (it is, actually, valid in
reality, as I explain below.)
>The *REASON* for that,
>is that by itself, it is evidence, but not SUFFICIENT evidence to
>prove monopolization.
That is not an assertion which can be presented in the absence of a
specific case. In other words, you are wrong. If the prosecution
charges a company with monopolization, and presents as evidence the fact
that they control 90% of the market, and the defense can provide no
evidence providing a reasonable doubt that they have monopolized, then
they can, in fact, (and will, if the law is being followed) be
convicted.
>It cannot get you convicted if that is *all*
>they have on you. They need that PLUS something more. Which is
>precisely what I've been saying all along, and what you've been
>denying.
Because you've been wrong, and I've been refuting your argument by
pointing out that you simply weren't aware of the reality of the
situation. I know it sounds outrageous, particularly in today's market
environment (where anti-trust enforcement is so weak as to be
practically non-existent except in the most extreme cases), but it is
true.
It isn't anti-trust law, you see, which prevents a company from gaining
a dominant market share. It is a free market; free markets do not allow
monopolization, because the more valuable the opportunity, the greater
the competition. This is not to say that any company with a large
market share will be hauled into court and charged with monopolization.
Most companies with large market share, after all, *can* provide a
defense to the charges. But any company indicted has got to present a
convincing defense, or they're going to be found guilty. No prosecutor
likes a shakey case, of course, so generally there's going to be more
evidence presented than this. But according to the law, the statute and
the Supreme Court, large market share is all that is necessary to prove
monopolization, absent all other considerations. Your "something more"
is really just such considerations. Obviously, if a company has a
patent on technology which gives it a decisively superior product, or
has competitive justification for its business strategies leading to
such success (not merely "facially plausible", but real justification,
which stands up to scrutiny by legal and business examination), or
merely benefits from some accident of history, then they will not be
convicted.
It isn't a question of whether market share is "proof" of
monopolization. Its a question of who has the burden of proof, if a
large market share is presented as evidence. A large market share, all
by itself, is sufficient evidence of monopolization that the burden of
proof is placed on the defendant, not the prosecution, to provide
evidence of that monopolization has not occurred.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
--------== Posted Anonymously via Newsfeeds.Com ==-------
Featuring the worlds only Anonymous Usenet Server
-----------== http://www.newsfeeds.com ==----------
------------------------------
Subject: Re: What does KDE do after all
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 10:36:58 -0500
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 11 Dec 2000 17:26:25
GMT;
>On Fri, 08 Dec 2000 13:04:47 -0500, Anonymous wrote:
>
>Well you're both sort of right.
>
>Clearly, if B is a subset of A, then A is more functional, but the
>extra functionality could come at a price. In particular, simple
>things tend to be less error prone.
>
>I'm not clear on how much difference there is in practice though --
>I don't see how sockets are that much less reliable than pipes.
It isn't whether simple things are less reliable; its whether a series
of simple things is less reliable than a single simple thing. In
practice, as well as theory, the strength of a chain is determined by
its weakest link.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
--------== Posted Anonymously via Newsfeeds.Com ==-------
Featuring the worlds only Anonymous Usenet Server
-----------== http://www.newsfeeds.com ==----------
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 23:27:44 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Tell us Why you use Windows over Linux.
Joel Barnett wrote:
> I have a dual boot pc at home - W95/Linux(Mandrake). The only reason I have
> W95 is for PCAnywhere dialup access to my W2k pc at work. If there's a Linux
> app that can do the same thing, I can free up some hdd space on my home pc
> ;).
>
> jbarntt
>
Citrix has an ica client for Linux:
http://www.citrix.com/products/clients/ica/
Gary
------------------------------
From: tom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Name one thing Microsoft INVENTED....
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 04:19:22 GMT
Vaporware? :)
Tom
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Seems like people are having trouble naming ONE THING
> Microsoft invented.
>
> So I'll try it again on it's OWN THREAD.
>
> Name one thing, just one thing Microsoft actually
> invented.
>
> You don't even have to give me a LINK to prove it.
>
> Charlie
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What if Linux wasn't free?
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 04:29:52 GMT
<snype>
> And the same can be said of the Windows user.
>
> Despite the bullshit, Windows is making a systems administrator
> out of everyone these days.
>
> Charlie
Hence the phase, "the point and click generation", when refering to
todays system admins.
kiwiunixman
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 04:29:41 GMT
The USB layer under Linux doesn't support full soft-enumeration of the
devices under the BUS in perputiaty. WHICH IS THE POINT OF USB!
You plug in a USB device, great. Can Linux identify it, yes. Can it
support it? No. Can it support it through a simple, modular HID layer
change? NO. Can it support it without recompiling the kernel? Probably
not.
Does Linux support it at all? Probably not.
Linux uses modules, which are part of the kernel, which is THE OPERATING
PLATFORM. The Linux OS structure does not work well with the idea of
"drivers" or "3rd party modules". You can't simply download & install a
DRIVER in Linux, you have to accomidate for the new MODULE.
Which goes back to the 30 year old structure; Why the hell can't the Linux
kernel be revamped to support non-compiled resource modules? LIKE DRIVERS.
Every other platform does.
"SwifT -" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2000, Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
> > Really? If the USB layer in Linux actually WORKED, maybe companies who
make
> > drivers multi-platform wouldn't be so dead-set against wasting their
time
> > writing drivers for a platform that literaly CAN'T support them?
>
> Why do you think it doesn't work? Ain't there enough postings from people
> who have their USB-devices working under Linux?
>
> --
> SwifT
>
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 04:31:40 GMT
It's supposed to be BOTH in this MODERN ERA of computing.
The line between a UI and the OS are so blurred that they ARE SUPPOSED to be
one. It's just that instead of accomidating for the changes in modern day
computing, Linux has kept it's 30 year old mantra that "just stack something
above me" (in this case, the UI) actually works. It never worked. Windows
95 can attest to that. So can MacOS, so can Solaris.
"SwifT -" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2000, Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
> > Got a point, StarOffice is NOT Microsoft office by a long shot.
>
> And why should I be disappointed by that?
>
> > KDE2 is still lacking in unifying administration features, even though
the
> > interface is more intuitave, and it's STILL not truely integrated with
the
> > OS.
>
> When KDE integrates with the OS, I'll stop using it. It's an interface,
> not a part of an operating system.
>
> --
> SwifT
>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 23:36:05 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
"Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
>
>
> It isn't the only indicator just a good example of the trend that is
> building.
>
> You can head | sand all you want but faith ain't gonna help.
>
Where is this trend? You only provided one example and it was wrong. Star
Office was not open source until after Sun bought it. Now it is open source
and you can download a copy - no need for any registration like you claim.
Here, I'll make it easy for you. Click on this link:
http://a1376.g.akamai.net/7/1376/2064/OpenOffice613/anoncvs.openoffice.org/download/OpenOffice613/oo_613_src.tar.gz
Gary
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 04:38:44 GMT
Solar Powered tourch :)
kiwiunixman
--
"Like a midget at a urinal, you gotta keep on your toes"
Naked Gun 33 1/3
"Like a blind man at an orgy, you gotta feel your way out"
Naked Gun 33 1/3
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 04:45:16 GMT
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000 04:22:27 GMT,
Chad C. Mulligan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2000 03:32:44 GMT,
>> Chad C. Mulligan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Of course, but that is not the default install, hwich is what we are
>> >talking
>> >> about here.
>> >> Since Charlie claim that he can write a program that can corrupt NT sys
>> >> files as user, I'm sticking to defaults here, in showing him how it is
>> >> impossible to do so.
>> >
>> >That is exactly what I was referring to. I wasn't sticking to defaults
>here,
>> >neither system is safe when defaults are used.
>> >
>>
>> You guys could at least WAIT for the next virus to strike
>> before I prove to the readership that your both full of shit.
>>
>
>That's a good trick as you've not proven anything yet.
>
If you can call quoting your own comments from your own newspost
a trick?
Yes. I often do that. I force people to write the truth.
What you should have been ashamed of were the kids who were
probably reading your post and thinking Windows was a safe
OS to use. And even while you were posting these comments, you
knew you were lying about the facts. Then you got caught
by admitting it to everybody on the newsgroup in your own
message..
And now your saying I "tricked you" into doing that.
And I'm also sure you still think I'm a total asshole
for recommending to people they be safe by using Linux.
It all just goes on the STACK of evidence that the
Windows using community typically has the IQ of a
bowl of jello.
To listen to the comments of ANY of them is foolish.
I'll say it again just to see if it sticks this time.
Microsoft does not make an operating system.
Linux, BSD's, Solaris's, SCO'S, SysV's,,, these
are operating systems. Microsoft isn't associated
with ANY of them. Not even remotely.
Microsoft produces a product called Windows.
Windows is NOT an operating system. An Operating
system has default security and some chance
of recovering from catastophic application crashes.
Windows can't accomplish either of these tasks.
And it costs an arm and a leg also.
Windows is not an operating system. It's a large
application which EMULATES a real operating system.
But like ANY EMULATION, it has flaws. It can
never be exactly like what it EMULATES.
Windows is NOT a *NIX system.
Windows will NEVER be like a *NIX system.
I'll throw in another TRUE statement.
By 2005, Linux will displace this Windows
Emulation on all PC's globally.
And finally, just because you can read the
crap off a Microsoft Web site, don't believe
for one minute that you are a fully qualified
systems administrator.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 04:47:05 GMT
<snype>
> That's because LoseDOS loosers are so accustomed to seeing utterly
> rediculous "Are you sure?" "are you reallly sure?" "Are you really
> really sure?" "Do you have a notarized letter stating that you are sure?"
> blah, blah, fucking blah, etc. string of utterly fucking useless
> warning messages...
>
> ....that when they see a warning message on any other system, the
> just fucking IGNORE it, because...in Microshaft land, warning messages
> are put there for the sole purpose of confusing the novice.
Or as my cousin put it (who a computer newbie), I want a computer that
is easy to use, but doesn't treat you like a total dick head. Installed
a copy of Linux for him (and bought a couple of games for his birthday
(Simcity 3000 and Civilisation)), and now he is a very happy Linux newbie.
kiwiunixman
--
"Like a midget at a urinal, you gotta keep on your toes"
Naked Gun 33 1/3
"Like a blind man at an orgy, you gotta feel your way out"
Naked Gun 33 1/3
------------------------------
From: Monkeyboy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 04:48:27 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JM
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 21:10:11 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (Monkeyboy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JM
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 07:06:51 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> >> ("Monkeyboy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Real computers don't do x, y or z" is a stupid argument. Computers
> >> >are
> >> >hardware. Hardware fails. OSs are software (yes, even ROMs). Software
> >> >fails.
> >> >Accidentally (bugs) or deliberately (user). To pretend otherwise is
> >> >not
> >> >unlike an eunuch attempting to masturbate. Distracting but ultimately
> >> >futile. Nothing of any consequence will come of it (pun intended).
> >>
> >> Actually, eunuchs can masturbate etc, they're just jaffas.
>
> >And have no balls. No balls = no Monica stain.
>
> It's not the ball that produce it, but some gland somewhere else.
Ooooohkay....
M
--
- Sig. Space For Rent -
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Caifornia power shortage...
Date: 14 Dec 2000 21:50:54 -0700
Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Craig Kelley wrote:
>
> > Kills /some/ types of land. None of the reservoirs in our area
> > (Idaho) have these problems, and many are as old as TVA projects.
>
> The land under the water is as productive as it was before it was
> flooded?
In most cases, its *more* productive because the water is used to
irrigate farms that used to be wasted. Intelligent management of
water is a plus for everyone and everything. Bad management leads to
disaster, of course.
> Fish can still move freely?
The Flaming Gorge dam in eastern Utah created many more fish
habitats, which helped the populations of several birds and mamals
(including the Eagle). Before the dam, the green river had a
feast-and-famine flow that precluded all these things.
The cut throat salmon of the northwest have been affected by the
Columbia dams, but many solutions are working (the worst of which are
hatcheries). Pundits often ignore the other benefits of the Columbia
dams on other species.
> Wildlife migration patterns haven't been disrupted by the new lake
> too big to swim?
On the contrary, they provide more dependable water sources.
> Hydroelectric has its place. But you can't run the country on the
> few suitable hydroelectric sites that exist.
Too true.
> > To assert that the specific case applies to all general cases is a
> > classic green tactic. One Chernobyl justifies a full ban on nuclear
> > power.
> >
> > Interestingly, the new Chinese dam on the yellow river is going to be
> > worthless in about 20 years because of all the silt. The project is
> > behind, and they may only get 10 years of power out of the
> > monstrosity. Any sane person would agree that these kind of projects
> > need to be stopped, just as other dams make good sense.
> >
> As was true of the Aswan dam in Egypt. Built the dam, suddenly find all
> the silt the Nile deposited on the land was trapped behind the dam. Dam
> silts up, land quits producing crops. Duh.
There are bad ideas in every area of science.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 04:52:17 GMT
<snype>
I have used Windows 2000, and when the setup say's it need's to reboot,
I reboot (just in case). There are software packages that don't need a
system reboot, however, try to uninstall these packages, and they need a
reboot. Why isn't their a solution. I can install and uninstall
StarOffice with out any need to reboot under Linux, compare that to
installing Office 2000 under Windows 98! what a reboot-a-thon.
kiwiunixman
--
"Like a midget at a urinal, you gotta keep on your toes"
Naked Gun 33 1/3
"Like a blind man at an orgy, you gotta feel your way out"
Naked Gun 33 1/3
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 04:59:58 GMT
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> Got a point, StarOffice is NOT Microsoft office by a long shot.
Thats why I don't use it. If I use my Wintel machine, I use Wordperfect
2000, on my Lintel machine, I use StarOffice, both are superior to Office.
>
> KDE2 is still lacking in unifying administration features, even though the
> interface is more intuitave, and it's STILL not truely integrated with the
> OS.
>
I don't want it intergrated with the OS, because when you try to
dismantle this intergration, to use the OS as a server, problems occur.
Also, as the intergration becomes greater, instability is the end result.
kiwiunixman
--
"Like a midget at a urinal, you gotta keep on your toes"
Naked Gun 33 1/3
"Like a blind man at an orgy, you gotta feel your way out"
Naked Gun 33 1/3
____
Unix Programmer:
"If it an't broken, don't fix it"
Microsoft Programmer:
"If it an't broken and working perfectly, then their must be a problem"
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
