Linux-Advocacy Digest #66, Volume #31 Tue, 26 Dec 00 17:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Which OS for 2005 ? ("David T. Johnson")
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? ("David T. Johnson")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (DishDude)
Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000 (Bob Hauck)
Re: Windows 2000 (Bob Hauck)
Re: Windows 2000 (El Carpa)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Windows 2000 (kiwiunixman)
Re: Why Advocacy? (kiwiunixman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 15:14:10 -0600
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> > As a server, I find all the distributions of Linux useless, as I can get
a
> > BSD for the same price, get a higher quality product and lose nothing in
the
> > process.
>
> Those harsh words indicate a lack of understanding,
> and are typical of a bsd bigot - I notice they tend to
> hate Linux with am intractable, bright green jealously.
The reason BSD users dislike Linux is multi-faceted.
1) They don't like the license. This is not really that big of a deal, but
to some it is.
2) They dislike the conflicts with different libraries. Which version of
glibc is installed, and how is it built? This app needs glibc built
differently than that app does.
3) All forms of BSD use similar directory and file configurations. This is
totally different in Linux depending on which distro you have.
4) The BSD's have a much more stringent authorized changed policy. This
gives them much greater control over the quality of the product.
There are other reasons, but these come off the top of my head.
> Perhaps you learned bsd and now don't want to learn
> anything new? I have run bsd servers also, and while
> solid, bsd is not the end all and be all of OSes. - bsd
> is certainly no Linux killer, either on the server side or
> on the workstation side.
>
> All things considered, I prefer Linux.
Linux is much more cutting edge, which makes you bleed a lot more.
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 14:13:31 -0700
Tom Wilson wrote:
>
> "Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Wed, 20 Dec 2000 18:05:08 -0700, John W. Stevens wrote:
> > >Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> >
> > But while I think electoral reform is due, it needs to be performed in an
> > even handed manner, and not in an ad-hoc manner during counts
>
> Any system will break when you abuse it via the judiciary. That's one of the
> reasons a state's Legislature has the final say in appointing electoral
> representatives. The courts have NOTHING to do with it nor should they.
And I was waiting, rather anxiously, for the Florida Legislature to step
up and do their duty.
I was even hoping that they would make a statement to that effect: "This
is our decision, and both the Florida Supreme court, and the National
Supreme court, have no say in this."
But they didn't. Which was probably for the best, but I must admit, I'm
getting tired of seeing the checks and balances of a three part system
get eroded by this belief that *EVERYTHING* is litigatable (sp? real
word? I don't know . . . feel free to correct me if you wish).
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 14:09:06 -0700
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2000 18:05:08 -0700, John W. Stevens wrote:
> >Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
> >Just today, Molly Ivins (an old-style liberal) states in her news paper
> >column that actually upholding and following the Constitution is "the
> >most frightening thing I've ever seen".
> >
> >This, from a party that repeatedly claimed to support the rule of law?
>
> Woah ! You've gone from a single person to a party in one line.
Excuse . . . I should have pointed out that quite a few people were
echoing the same sentiment.
> >I'm disgusted by the whole thing, but I'm especially disgusted by people
> >who loudly claim that Al Gore won.
>
> This is a straw man.
How so? A great many people said just that: "Al Gore won the state of
Florida!"
One claim was that he won by more than 40,000 votes.
> >I'm disgusted by any and all references to "the national popular vote".
> >
> >Such references are either indications of someone who is wildly
> >ignorant, or who does not uphold the Constitution of the USA.
> >
> >THE NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE IS AS MEANINGFUL IN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AS
> >THE NUMBER OF Z's IN A CANDIDATES LAST NAME.
>
> Not at all. It's a good indicator of the level of support for a candidate.
My point, if you'll look again, is that the so-called "national vote" is
irrelevant ("meaningless") in terms of an election.
It has no weight.
I may very well measure how popular a man is across the entire country,
but that in no way says anything about the election, as after all, the
election isn't a national election at the single voter level . . . it is
a national election only at the Electoral college level.
> It just so happens that it's not the indicator that is used to determine
> the outcome of the election.
Which was my point: the so-called national popular vote is meaningless.
To continually talk about it in the context of who won or lost the
election is either silly, or just plain "dirty pool". To imply that Al
Gore should have won *because* of the national popular vote, is to
advocate ignoring, violating, or over turning the Constitution, and the
law.
> (I'm not saying that it should be either).
> It also points to the fact that the outcome of the election was close
> enough to be determined more by technicalities and errors than anything
> else.
Florida was a dead tie. The Florida legislature should have done their
duty, and exercised their authority to choose the electors, as required
by the Constitution.
> However, the "will of the people" if there is such a thing is clearly
> bipartisan government, and I think the outcome of the election (including
> a split senate and a relatively moderate republican) will result in this.
>
> >In short,
> >
> >AL GORE LOST THE NATIONAL VOTE.
>
> On technicalities.
No. There were no techincalities involved. Florida was a dead tie, and
the only clearly correct and legal procedure was for the Florida
legislature to choose the electors. Do you have any doubt at all, that
those electors would have been promised to George?
But, if we grant for a moment (as an arguing point) that George won on
technicalities, then the same point holds true for Al: he would have won
on technicalities.
That said: why characterize this election as having been decided based
on "technicalities", when *ALL* elections, everywhere, are *ALWAYS*
decided on the basis of technicalities?
I've never understood this disdain for following the rules that
complaints about "technicalities" indicate.
> That's if you're prepared to accept the machine's definition.
Since no standard *except* the machine standards had been established
before the election, then what other choice was there?
> It sounds
> like a perfectly reasonable definition. However, it also seems that error
> margins exceeded the margin of victory (I believe one of the judges said
> something to this effect)
Yes. Which is why I say (as a techincally trained person, I had this
beaten into me in college) that the Florida election was a dead tie.
> >The Democrats are calling for the imposition of an outright tyranny. Do
> >we really want to do this?
>
> Both sides were furiously attempting to gerrymander the result in their
> favour, the Democrats by selectively recounting, the Reps by suppressing
> recounts.
The Republicans were not trying to supress recounts . . . they were
trying to supress *illegal* recounts.
Which point the Supreme court pretty much agreed with. It simply isn't
reasonable, or fair, to make the rules up as you go along. The
Republicans stepped over the line at one point, and only at one point:
when they tried to insist that what recounting that had been done, in a
legal and timely fashion, should not be included in the certified
election results. They shouldn't have done that.
> Personally, I'm not the least bit surprised.
Nor am I. Both sides were true to their basic pattern.
> BTW, IMO Gore should have won, not because of the popular vote, but because
> he was ahead on the two-candidate preferred (meaning that I think it's stupid
> that third party candidates can syphon votes of a major candidate)
And that statement is precisely the thing I am complaining about: Gore
SHOULD NOT HAVE WON, and he DID NOT!
To claim otherwise is to imply you do not support the rule of law, but
that instead you are willing to bend, re-interpret, or simply ignore the
law.
You may not like the way elections are held, and if so, you are in good
company, but if we are to be a nation of laws, we must *ALL*,
individually and personally, uphold those laws, because that is how we
become and remain a nation of laws . . . through individual commitment
and support to the concept of "rule of law".
> Likewise,
> I think Bush Sr should have beaten Clinton.
And, in keeping with my statement above, I disagree. Clinton should
have beaten George Sr. . . . and he did.
I despise Clinton, but he won legally and correctly, and he was my
President for eight years. You might hear me complain bitterly about
him, or say how much I disapprove of him, but . . . I would *NEVER*
claim that he wasn't my President, as some Democrats have re: George W.
> But while I think electoral reform is due, it needs to be performed in an
> even handed manner, and not in an ad-hoc manner during counts
Agreed. If you can get reform through, then the new laws will be just
that: law. And I will support 'em.
In the meantime, having studied the reasons and history behind the
Electoral College, I fully support it.
Having studied the reasons behind this mish-mash of machines and
different election procedures, I once again support it, but I would
support *voluntarily* conformance to a published standard in regards to
voting machines, ballot layout, counting procedures, and in establishing
a clear standard as to what is, and is not, a vote.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 14:19:00 -0700
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Sun, 24 Dec 2000 11:59:39 GMT, Tom Wilson wrote:
>
> >The election results were determined by a system that foresaw close
> >elections and litigated outcomes and worked despite the best efforts of the
> >Democrats to monkey-wrench it.
>
> The election results would probably not have been closer had everyone voted
> randomly. To chalk this up as a decisive win for Bush is naive or dishonest.
And if I ever indicated, in any fashion, that I viewed this as a
decisive win for George . . . I apologize.
> It was a win,sure. But it was hardly a landslide, something Stevens completely
> ignores.
Where did I ignore it? The point spread is irrelevant. Whether you win
by one point, or twenty, you still win.
> Whatever.
And here *YOU* seem to be ignoring, dissing, or simply side stepping
"rule of law" . . . which was exactly what I was complaining about.
> However you try to slice it, the election boiled down to the finer
> points of the law, the electoral system, errors etc.
>
> >Denying alternate parties a political voice would be reprehensible. They
> >have as much right to campaign and lobby as the major parties do.
>
> If you really cared about the right of smaller parties to campaign, you would
> advocate an instant runoff system,
In a single statement, you switch from "campaigning", to elections.
Try again.
> I'm talking about instant runoffs. I still don't believe that third parties
> should sabotage elections. And I don't believe in a two-party duopoly.
Third parties *don't* sabotage elections. Or do you have information
you can share with the rest of use re: Green party candidates sabotaging
voting machines, ballots, vote counting, or the like?
You may not believe in the two party system, but it has it's merits, not
the least of which is that most of the time, the winning candidate has
the support of the majority of the people.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "David T. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.inferno,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Which OS for 2005 ?
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 13:37:57 -0500
israel raj thomas wrote:
>
>
> When Windows 2000 has gone the way of OS/2 ( Dead and decaying, no
> longer sold retail , IBM says no new versions only bug fixes will be
> released ) , the unices will still be going strong.
>
Except that IBM has NOT said 'no new versions.' IBM just released a new
OS/2 client version v4.51 as the first Convenience Pack version on
11/30/00. This is available retail online from many resellers. IBM has
stated that this OS/2 client version will be updated again in November,
2001.
------------------------------
From: "David T. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.inferno
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 13:41:04 -0500
Bob Hauck wrote:
>
> >Uh, well, BSD and Linux are being actively worked on, and have seen
> >numerous continual improvements.
>
> Yes, and that's the problem with OS/2. IBM has left it for dead. They
> kick out a few updates once in a while to keep certain big users happy
> and that's about it.
IBM just released a new OS/2 client version v4.51 as the first
Convenience Pack version on
11/30/00. This is available retail online from many resellers. IBM has
stated that this OS/2 client version will be updated again in November,
2001.
------------------------------
From: DishDude <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 21:46:59 GMT
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
> DishDude wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I find Al Franken far more irritating than Rush. Mostly because he is an
> > > > > painfully non-funny comedian. He, David Brenner, and Garry Shandling set
> > > > > my teeth on edge.
> >
> > You can add Dennis Miller to that list as well, AFAIAC. :)
>
> Aw, man, Dennis was in rare form on MNF last night. "Tackle by Claude Rains",
> that was really a good one. Trouble is, people don't get Dennis's jokes
> because the references are older than N'Sync.
I get Dennis' jokes just fine, thank you... I just happen to think they
suck. (BTW, I'm 40, so I *do* know who Claude Rains is, and your N'sync
reference obviously doesn't apply to me.) Dennis Miller's humor is more
often intellectually forced humor that just doesn't 'flow' naturally.
For every good zinger he puts out there, he lays about 2 dozen duds.
Every time I hear Dennis Miller, I'm reminded of the old addage about a
blind squirrel finding a nut every now and then. Listening to Dennis's
humor is more _painful_ for me than it is enjoyable... to the degree of
reaching "a point of diminishing returns" when I have to wince or gag 20
times or so in order to get one good belly laugh from him.
> > > Some of Al Franken's early stuff on SNL was pretty good, i'll admit that.
> > > You'll never convince me that Brenner or Shandling have any talent, though.
> >
> > Agreed. Typically whiny humor that only New Yawkas/Yiddish really
> > appreciate. Doesn't translate well to the rest of the country though.
>
> Get literate, buddy. Read some books and get some learning.
> You'll find life more enjoyable.
Hmmm... you seem to be equating yiddish oriented humor with literacy.
Interesting...
--
"I am sorry I ever invented the Electoral College" -Al Gore.
Rick
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 21:43:45 GMT
On Tue, 26 Dec 2000 12:07:23 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>"sandrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Borlands Delphi versions 3,4 and 5.
>
>Nope. Delphi works just fine on a user account if you've installed it from
>that user account. You don't need systemwide access.
It would be nice if you could install it from one account and use it
from a different one, don't you think? At the very least multiple users
should be able to install independent copies of it. Otherwise, your
multi-user OS isn't very multi-user, for that application.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 21:43:46 GMT
On Tue, 26 Dec 2000 20:35:33 -0000, Jeepster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Out of curiosity, what do Linux users feel about this OS?
>Do they hate it or admire it?
Neither. I can't speak for all Linux users, but I for one don't care
about W2K. At least where I work, even the NT users don't seem very
excited. "Yeah, someday we should upgrade" seems to be a common
attitude. The IT folk are upgrading us to SP6a over the holiday
though. Big excitement. Yawn.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: El Carpa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 21:47:05 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Out of curiosity, what do Linux users feel about this OS?
Pretty good as a workstation. Linux is way better for server porposes.
IMHO, of course.
>
> Do they hate it or admire it?
Having used workstations based on windows 95, NT4 and 2000, I'd say I
admire it. But if you have to install and mantain a server, linux is
*very* easy compared to windows....
>
> Hate because its MS
No, that's not a reason.
>
> or
> Admire cos it is an OS that is comparable with Linux?
Comparable with linux? As I stated before, I'd say it's even better than
linux for the standard users that need office apps, internet apps and
the point-and-click ease of use.
But I think that linux is way better for virtually any other use....
--
After three days in the desert fun
I was looking at a river bed
And the story it told of a river that flowed
Made me sad to think it was dead
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 14:53:53 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said John W. Stevens in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 20 Dec 2000
> [...]
> >While I disagree with some of the other stuff he says, I have to go
> >along on this one.
>
> While I disagree with just about everything that anyone else says, I
> think you're an utter jerk, John.
But of course you do, Max. You almost always do.
My opinion of you isn't much higher than your opinion of me, after all,
so why would I expect to have your respect? I consider you to be a
pseudo intellectual who has claimed to be an engineer, but repeatedly
proven that he is not.
> >Why would *ANY* American consider it frightening to do so?
>
> Now, here we have the classic kind of bullshit, soft-headed,
> transparently moronic argument that Republicans and right-wingers of all
> stripes typically use.
Ah, yes. Let's not start without the obligatory personal attacks.
> By self-defining
And you follow your usual pattern: you immediately do what you accuse me
of doing.
And of course, you make totally unsupported assertions.
> everything which happened in
> the Presidential election "upholding the Constitution",
Your first mistake. I did not define everything that happened in the
post election as "upholding the Constitution". In fact, I really didn't
define anything. I complained bitterly about those who refuse to uphold
the law and the Constitution.
> this pea-brain
> John Stevens then states unequivocally that anyone in disagreement with
> him
Wrong again. I stated, pretty much unequivocally, that anybody who does
not support the clear and easily understood wording of the
Constitutition, was against upholding it . . . as, for example, Ivins
does.
> (and, we are to presume, Rush Limbaugh and George Dubaya Bush) is
> therefore against upholding the Constitution. By 'carving out' a
> position in this fashion, they quickly convince themselves that their
> thinking is sound and their facts are unassailable.
Thanks for explaining . . . what *YOU* just did in this posting. It is
both instructive, and amusing, to watch you do exactly what you accuse
others of doing.
Having carved out your position, you will no doubt defend it with vim
and vigor.
> I don't know.
Then why post?
> Why don't you tell us? And I think we'd also be
> interested in "how well does the technique of accusing your opponents of
> doing whatever you're doing as a pre-emptive deterrent to clear
> communications work?"
Since you exhibit precisely this tactic: tell me why *YOU* are using it?
> That figures.
Such a clear statement, with such crystal clear reasoning behind it to
explain and justify . . .
> Actually, those who believe that Al Gore won don't base it on the
> popular vote;
You are ignorant. That is precisely what some did.
> they base it on the malfeasance among the Republicans
Malfeasance? The sheer chutzpah is amazing . . . the Democrats twist,
spin, squirm . . . and the Republicans get painted with the word
"malfeasance" when they complain.
Blame the victim . . . a classic tactic, that.
> This is correct. Many believe, while taking such extreme charges as
> proffered by Jessie Jackson with a healthy dose of skepticism, that Gore
> won the Florida popular vote if the election had been conducted justly
> and fairly.
There you go again, illustrating your "carve out a position".
The election *was* conducted justly and fairly. Before all the idiocy
re: recounts was begun, a blind, fair and objective count of what were
unequivacolly "votes" was done, and Gore lost.
> >Why are the Democrats unwilling to talk truthfully about this issue?
>
> They aren't;
Sure they are. They flat out changed the rules repeatedly, then refuse
to discuss the issue.
Instead, the point fingers at the Republicans and charge 'em with all
kinds of stuff.
I have yet to hear one single Democrat discuss, honestly, why it wasn't
a violation of the law to simply change the rules and deadlines, again
and again. They've talked about "self-definitions" of "fairness", and
"full", and "accurate", but never about "upholding the law", except as a
self-serving sound bite.
> they just don't have any need to engage a straw man,
Paint, label, carve out . . . standard tactics. What you cannot defend,
do not fight about.
> as
> their argument is not that Gore 'should have won' because more people
> voted for him, nationally.
Maybe you just didn't listen to enough of the post election coverage . .
. quite a few did.
> I don't even hear the Democrats arguing that
> the electoral college should be dismantled or modified.
Oh, now I *KNOW* you weren't listening. That is precisely what some
Democrats are arguing for. I know you've probably never heard of a
little known senator-elect from the state of New York . . . Hillary
Clinton, but if you had, you'd know that she was calling for just that.
> Though I do
> recall at least two Republicans mentioning it during the heat of the
> crisis. Probably just selection bias, though.
Selective deafness on your part.
> >ALL THE VOTES WERE COUNTED!
>
> By definition,
By the law, and the judgement of the Supreme court. The most
intelligent questions that were asked in this whole thing came from the
justices of the Supreme court . . . even the extremely and very
obviously biased justices asked good questions . . . I'm much more
confident in the Supreme Court than I used to be.
Seven out of nine agreed that these recounts would have violated the
14th amendment, and *YOU* feel you have a right to judge me as
"self-defining", when it is *YOU* who ignore the clear and easily
understood definitions that were in place before the election.
> it appears,
More seletive . . . vision, this time. You cannot support your
assertions, so you resort to personal attack. Typical.
> because only what was counted is a 'vote', to
> you. How silly.
Yes, how silly that you don't realize that this very definition was one
supported by a great many people, including the Supreme court.
NOBODY argued that the votes counted by the machine should be thrown
out, because the didn't fit somebodies definition of what a "vote" is!
> They were calling for a fair hand recount,
That's a lie. They were NOT calling for a fair hand recount, as became
crystal clear as they repeatedly changed the rules and changed the
deadlines. Then they only asked for recounts in areas where they knew
they would pick up votes.
If they were interested in a fair count, they would have accepted the
machine recount.
> which given the extremely
> close numbers involved, was appropriate.
You are ignorant. Considering the closeness of this election, no
recount would have decided it, as the difference was far, far lower than
the system could resolve. In short, you cannot measure a 1/1000th inch
difference with a freeby yardstick.
> The Florida official (a
> Republican) who screwed the works and the Florida Supreme Court that
> botched the job of immediately defining the responsibilities and powers
> involved and determining how a fair and objective threshold for counting
> ballots as votes should be established; they are responsible for the
> outright tyranny, if any exists.
Nonsense. No such definitions could legally be applied *AFTER* *THE*
*FACT*.
That is precisely why I claim that you, and others like you, refuse to
uphold the law. The law was very clear on this point: these procedures
and definitions cannot be made during, or after the election. What was
defined and established *BEFORE* the election, was what was valid. And
when the voters are unable to decide, the responsibility of choosing the
Electoral College representatives resides with the State Legislature.
The accusation of tyranny arises out of the call, by numerous Democrats,
to deny, supress or outright usurp the Constituionally granted powers of
the State Legislature.
Disgusting!
> Live and learn. I'm from PA, and
> we've had much more reliable and objective voting equipment used
> throughout the state for decades now,
A real engineer would know that there is no such thing as a "full, fair
and accurate count", unless the system has been designed to resolve
differences down to and below the level of a single vote.
Are you claiming that the voting machinery and vote counting processes
of PA are capable of this?
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 21:54:01 GMT
Do you use a fake email address because you are scared that you will be
flamed for posting f%$^kedup things regarding Windows 2000 on a COLA!
Jeepster wrote:
> Out of curiosity, what do Linux users feel about this OS?
>
> Do they hate it or admire it?
>
> Hate because its MS
>
> or
> Admire cos it is an OS that is comparable with Linux?
>
>
>
> --
> 8:34pm up 1 day, 11:19
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Advocacy?
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 22:00:34 GMT
<snype>
>> This is unfair. Take USB, as Xmas has passed I now have a USB mouse
>> which worked fine under windows, yet I know that I really don't want the
>> pain of configuring USB under Linux and would prefer to wait until 2.4.
>> Linux is a better OS technically, but many end users are not as
>> concerned if it does not easily support hardware and perhaps more
>> importantly software. Linux will in time.
>>
>
>
> Maybe USB-support is not perfect in Linux. So I donīt buy USB-Devices
> because I want the OS and not a special kind of a mouse.
Down at my local computer store, I can either spend $189 for a Mickysoft
USB mouse or $50 on a decent logitec PS/2 mouse. What would you choose?
most poeple would know which mouse I would choose and it an't the
over-priced, glorified micksoft mouse.
kiwiunixman
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
