Linux-Advocacy Digest #124, Volume #31 Fri, 29 Dec 00 18:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Why Advocacy? (Mig)
Re: Why Advocacy? (Mig)
Re: VB job offer, and ensuing dilemma (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linux, it is great. ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Linux, it is great. ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 15:46:17 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said John W. Stevens in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 27 Dec 2000
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >>
> >> Said Tom Wilson in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 24 Dec 2000 11:59:39
> >> [...]
> >> >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.
> >>
> >> If you cannot recognize that it was also, therefore, despite the best
> >> efforts of the Republicans to do the same,
> >
> >Wrong. The Republicans did not use the same tactics as the Democrats.
>
> Yes, they did. They didn't perform the same actions, maybe, but they
> were every bit as focused on coming up with whatever justification might
> allow their candidate to win as the Demos were.
Once again, having no case, you do not post *SPECIFICS*!
C'mon, Max, *EXACTLY* what law breaking or bending did the Republicans
do?
Remember, it was the judgement of the Supreme Court that the Democratic
requests were unconstitutional . . .
> >The Republicans, with one exception, simply asked that the law be
> >followed.
>
> That's all the Democrats were asking, as well.
That's a lie. The Demoncrats *SPECIFICALL* asked the Florida Supreme
Court to "re-interpret" (CHANGE!) the law to suit their ends.
This simply illustrates why you've resorted to so many, and so many
different kinds, of personal attack . . . the facts don't support
your position.
> The Republicans want to
> stomp their feet and insist that the isn't true,
Yes . . . because it isn't true.
> but that merely
> undermines their position, as it requires an admission of omniscience to
> unilaterally declare what the law says, without consulting with those
> who's job it is to determine it (the courts).
The job of determing what the law says lies with the legislative
branch, not the courts. It is the courts job to uphold that law,
not change it. The Florida Supreme court were the ones to change
the law, after the fact, at the request of the Democrats.
Once again, the facts do not support your assertion.
> >On many separate occasions, the Democrats asked that the law be modified
> >(after the fact), or simply ignored in their favor.
>
> So says you,
No, that is what was specifically requested by the counsel representing
the Demoncrats.
What, are you going to try another "Big Lie" here?!
The court proceedings were televised, for God's sake! The Democrats
specifically requested that the Florida Supreme court ignore the
legal deadlines.
The Court Ok'ed that change, for reasons that it stated, then turned
about later and totally proved itself to be radically hypocritical
when it ruled on the first case.
> and it seriously undermines your credibility when you say
> that.
When I state the truth, it *undermines* *my* *credibility*!?
> >Wrong again. Typical liberal response, though . . . state a lie, as if
> >it were the truth.
>
> Apparently, Republicans (at least the flakey ones) have an allergic
> reaction to honest discussion.
Stating lies, does not an honest discussion make.
> >The system is supposed to include the right to *REQUEST* (not demand) a
> >recount, but that recount may not affect the certified results if it
> >cannot be completed within the legally mandated time limit.
>
> Where the hell are you getting this stuff?
>From studying the relevant laws, and listening to the court proceedings,
and reading the commentaries published by both sides.
> >> then it was the Republicans who fought
> >> against the process
> >
> >Nope. I notice you didn't describe, at all, how what the Republicans
> >did was "against the process" . . .
>
> Nor did I address your bogus claims that what the Demos did was "against
> the process", you'll notice.
Right. You have no response, so you didn't post one.
You simply assert that my claim was bogus, in the hopes that that will
fool *SOMEBODY* . ..
>
> >> and broke the rules on those absentee ballots
> >
> >Another lie. No rules were broken on/about absentee ballots.
>
> So says you,
So said the courts, too.
> Why the hell did we have an election to begin with; since Republicans
> stand for truth and honor and laws, and Democrats are filthy liars and
> don't stand for anything, we really should just appoint Republicans for
> all government posts, don't you think?
Well, considering we are well on the way to that . . . :-)
Max, if you don't know *ANYTHING* about this, why are you posting?
Post *ONE* reference to *ANY* support for your claims . . . any at
all!
> >Typical liberal use-emotion-not-reason response.
>
> You know, I think its worth mentioning at this point that I'm not a
> liberal. ;-D
So what? You respond like one. That was what I was saying . . .
> >You're correct. Desire has nothing to do with fact. The Republicans
> >were more "in the right", than the Democrats on this one, as they
> >followed the law.
>
> And we know this to be true because they told us so.
No, we know this to be true due to the simple fact that the Supreme
court said so.
Seven out of nine of the justices declared the Democrats attempted
modifications of election law, AFTER THE FACT, to be unconstitutional.
> Obviously, the
> right to a fair and just recount is against the law, huh?
Nope. And I never said it was.
More "Big Lie" tactics from you . . .
> >Wrong. The machines are not biased, and by definition, they have a
> >built in "standard" for determing whether or not a ballot contains
> >votes.
>
> That "standard" had a higher margin of error than the difference in the
> vote, and as such was worthless.
Wrong. There is no relationship between the built in "standard", the
error rate of the system, and the worth of the standard.
What is true, is that the system was not capable of determining a
winner where the total vote difference fell below aprox 22,000 votes.
(The 22,000 figure is a rough calculation made by a systems engineer
from Purdue. Don't like the figure? Fine. Ignore it, or come up
with one of your own).
> >No problem . . . since no Republican ballots were tampered with.
>
> You figure that just ignoring things makes them go away?
Do *YOU* figure you can make people believe your lies if you keep
repeating them?
Again, Max, post specifics, or simply admit that you don't know.
> Most of the
> time, you're right, BTW, but I just can't bring myself to encourage
> ignorance so strongly.
You encourage ignorance with your statements, Max. You have yet
to even give one detail about this supposed ballot tampering perpetrated
by the Republicans . . . once again, where and how was this
accomplished?
> I don't know the details,
Finally! Some truth!
You don't know . . . because it didn't happen.
> so perhaps you're
> resting on a technicality; it could have been the registrations for
> absentee ballots, but it makes no difference at all.
That statement, once again, clearly illustrates exactly what I was
complaining about.
You simply, arbitrarily, ignore what you don't like. And you cannot
see the monumental injustice in that!
> There were enough
> votes which, according to the law and rules which you insist you are
> relying on so strongly, were not valid that Gore would have won the
> election from that alone.
Wrong. The courts ruled on this, too. Those votes were and are valid,
so your conclusion is wrong, as well. More double standards from you,
Max. First you call for letting the courts rule . . . then when they
do, you simply ignore those rulings you don't like.
I also notice that you sing two different songs about "error rate", when
a few votes would have given Gore the election, than when those few
votes would have given Bush the election . . .
> >Wrong again, as no Republican ballots were tampered with.
> >
> >And here Max illustrates precisely what I was complaining about: Liberal
> >lies, misrepresentations and half truths.
>
> As opposed to complete and utter ignorance?
I know more about went on in this situation than you do . . . so
if the charge of ignorance is to be leveled, it applies firstly
to you.
You admit above, you don't know what you are talking about.
> Grow up, for heaven's sake.
That's what I've been asking you to do. You repeatedly call me names,
denigrate me personally, make unsupported allegations, make factual
claims that you cannot back up . . . then do this "maturity
demonization"
thing.
Yeesh! Max, you really need to alleviate some of your ignorance
about this election, before posting again.
> I'm not the one trying to say that "my
> side" (which isn't my side; I'm not a Democrat, either) is all that is
> good and right and demonize the other side.
I'm not demonizing . . . these things really happened.
Also, I already admitted that at least one of the things the Republicans
did was wrong, and that they should not have done it.
> Check the last three times
> you used the word "liberal" in your message, notice how it is related in
> your text to "lies, misrepresentations and half truths", and such, and
> then reconsider your behavior, Mr. Kettle.
Ok, after due consideration . . . nope. Doesn't apply. I'm not
simply calling names, or performing personal attacks out of the blue.
These things did happen, they were performed by Democrats and
representatives of the Democratic party, and they were flat out
wrong.
Also, the Democratic party has repeatedly claimed the label of
"liberal", so once again, I'm on track.
Now you're playing the "Ok, so we screwed up . . . but the other side
is just as bad!" game.
Nonsense! The Republicans *WEREN'T* "just as bad"!
> What the hell have you been smoking?
Nothing. I don't smoke.
> Likewise.
[He bows . . . ]
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 22:48:36 GMT
[snips]
"Russ Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > turned off. Personally, I could care less. So my electrical bill is
five
> > bucks higher; that's my choice.
> >Does that affect you? Perhaps. Perhaps
> > not. If it does, because rates go up, it _also_ affects me. Fine, so
my
> > bill is $100 for three months instead of $80. Whoopee. If you don't
like
> > it, see if you can get a law passed - and enforced - that requires me to
> > turn off any unused lights.
>
> If you live in California, I would just as soon charge you for the power
> that you use so my bill will go down. The problem I have is when you use
> up power in your state, then try to rob my state of its power resources.
> The Demlicans want to keep the big electorial states happy, so they keep
> screwing me.
What, you're a non-voting entity? Fine... why not vote, or move somewhere
where you _can_ vote? You, and the rest of the sweaty bodies[1] making up
the general populace, have at least _some_ say in who is in charge; if
people in general think this issue is one worthy of note, it'll be dealt
with.
Feel free to start a petition, unite the masses, raise awareness... if you
seriously think that the matter is important enough to John Q. Public that
he _will_ rise up about it. If not, well, reality suggests that not
everyone under a single system can always get everything they want, so
either you have to convince others your way is right, or go somewhere where
they do have what you want. Or skip paying electrical rates entirely, buy a
generator, and pay gas rates instead. Whatever turns your crank.
[1] Which includes me, just in a different electoral process. :)
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 22:38:07 GMT
In article <92isv1$fu3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:b6W26.52507$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:92h7sc$mqn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Because IT WOULD MAKE SENSE. That's why.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why just those? Why not every window manager known to man?
> > >
> > > Why not make a file like RPM, so each application can have,
which will
> > > contain its configurations and will be openable by some common
program.
> > > And no, I'm talking about
> > > pico/ed/whatever-other-text-editor-you-had-in-mind.
> > > XML would do nicely here.
> >
> > XML is just syntax. It saves you from writing a parser or reusing
> > any of the more free-form parsers already done, but nothing
> > else. This is not unreasonable for new programs but the
> > people who have copied the same config files from machine
> > to machine for the last 20 years and know how to read and
> > type them aren't going to be happy if they suddenly are forced
> > to make them ugly and unreadable. XML is easy for the
> > computer to parse but I'm not sure it makes sense these days
> > to make it harder for the human and easier for the CPU.
>
> The advantage XML has is in that it's both human & machine readable.
So is sendmail.cf for some value of readable, human and computer ;-).
> And building a program that would be able to read & change every
> program's setting that I can think of would not be a problem.
There is one, it's called "pico". Just because a program can parse
XML, it doesn't mean that it can figure out what the XML means.
Take, for example, a very simple config file format: INI-like files.
You know, tag/value pairs grouped on sections?
They are trivial to parse for men and computers (much simpler than
XML!). They are used by many apps (all KDE apps, all GNOME apps).
Now, write a program that can configure all KDE and all GNOME apps.
Now, are you sure writing that program would not be a problem?
> And you could probably add a switch to turn the application to the
> old config method instead of XML, so old fashion guys who like text
> files could still have them.
As someone who has had to go through it: bad idea. If the app has two
different mechanisms to save data, there is a awfully large chance that
the data will not be saved right in one or the other.
> The advantage a common syntax to all config files would be that a
> single tool can handle them all, making tools such as LinuxConf so
> much easier to user.
Parsing the config files is the simplest of all steps in the road to
having a global config tool. You still have to write the logic to
present the user with a comprehensible UI to change configs, the
logic to modify the config data based on user input, the logic
the verify coherence of the generated config data, and then (this one
is easy) turn the config data back into storage form.
--
Roberto Alsina+
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Advocacy?
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 23:47:44 +0100
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> In article <92g6gq$h1e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > But you can't! There are a lot of things for GNOME (Linuxconf) and
> > > some things for KDE. You can't get applications built for GNOME that
> > > are also built for KDE. Why would a developer do that?
> >
> > There is allways an equivalent app... not allways up to the same
> > standard but there is allways an app. BTW żou seem to mix Gnome and
> > GTK apps together.. i think linuxconf is based on GTK and not Gnome.
>
> Not even. Linuxconf is multi-UI. If I open linuxconf through the
> web interface in konqueror, does it make linuxconf a KDE app?
No it does not.. and i was focusing on the GUI. Apps can be designed by
separating data, functionallity and user interface. Lets say you write a
Qt frontend for nmap. Will that make nmap a Qt app ? No it changes nothing
underneath the GUI.. youre just making the GUI a Qt app and nothing else.
> I even wrote a KDE linuxconf frontend once. Not functional, and now
> totally obsolete and lost.
Publish it Roberto.... some like me would prefer another GUI for linuxconf
:-)
> --
> Roberto Alsina
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
--
Cheers
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Advocacy?
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 23:51:10 +0100
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> You're signal to noise ratio is amazing!
First i was thinking that you was thinkign about me but that could not be
true could it ? :-)
Fortunattely i used DejaNews and found Mr. Kuklis... I must send a present
to my news administrator since Kuklis posts are allways filtered out.
--
Cheers
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: VB job offer, and ensuing dilemma
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 23:03:55 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tom Wilson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 29 Dec 2000 08:35:20 GMT
<c1Y26.604$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >
>> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > > [snip]
>> > >
>> > > Minimum wage for a programmer is out of the question do not take it.
>> > > You'd be better off making more money at McDonalds.
>> >
>> > I'd agree, but with the following exceptions:
>> >
>> > 1) If the company is extremely prestigious and has a low churn rate.
>> >
>> > 2) If the training leads to a valuable certification.
>>
>> Define "valuable certification"
>
>A piece of paper that impresses bean counters.
Or Human Resources.
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
up 91 days, 19:36, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, it is great.
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 18:07:09 -0500
Tom Wilson wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Cannon Fodder wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 28 Dec 2000, mlw wrote:
> > >
> > > >Windows may have more games, and support a few pieces of hardware that
> > > >Linux does not, but Linux does almost everything, is free, and is more
> > > >stable.
> > > >
> > > What impressed me was the wealth of scripting languages to
> > > automate almost anything you might imagine.
> >
> > Damn straight.
> >
> > Every time I go to work at a new site, the first thing I do is write
> > a bunch of scripts to solve the site-specific problems.
> >
> > After a couple months, I don't have much to do....
> >
> > Then boredom sets in...
> >
> > time to get a new job :-)
>
> What I love is that once you script and cron a linux box, you can pretty
> much ignore the thing and get down to actual work. The Linux boxes at the
> office are pretty much out of sight and out of mind. They leave us plenty of
> time to reboot and curse at our MS development stations.
Working on an MS platform?!?!?! Eeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!
>
> --
> Tom Wilson
> Sunbelt Software Solutions
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
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 (C) 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: "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: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 16:00:54 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Tom Wilson in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 29 Dec 2000 05:50:59
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [...]
> >> >The Republicans, with one exception, simply asked that the law be
> >> >followed.
> >>
> >> That's all the Democrats were asking, as well. The Republicans want to
> >> stomp their feet and insist that the isn't true, but that merely
> >> undermines their position, as it requires an admission of omniscience to
> >> unilaterally declare what the law says, without consulting with those
> >> who's job it is to determine it (the courts).
> >
> >The issue is that the Dems were asking that the laws be circumvented.
>
> As were the Republicans, as I pointed out. Its just a matter of which
> laws you are concerned with.
Once again with the bald, unsupported assertions?
Again I ask: What specific law were the Republicans asking be
circumvented?
> >No, we'd have to deal with the moral majority on a full-time basis
> >then...Yech!
>
> Such a stance is contra-indicated by support for conservative factions,
> I'm afraid.
The Republican Party != The Moral Majority.
A bit of a red herring, if not simple FUD, that.
> I would agree entirely. So far as I know, any actual occurrences of
> this are little less than hearsay.
You are wrong. This was illustrated for the courts, and is one of
the reasons that the Supreme Court ruled against the Democrats.
> >A higher margin of error than divination and wishful thinking?
> >Oh please...
>
> A higher margin of error than hand-counting, given a practical,
> accurate, and consistent standard,
Which didn't exist . . . so therefore, the machine had a lower margin
of error than a hand recount.
> which the Republicans in charge
> refused to provide.
Misrepresentation . . . "which the neither the Republicans, *NOR* the
Democrats could legally provide after the fact" would be more accurate.
> >If the registration issue were indeed an issue, then the GOP would have lost
> >the case and we'd be talking about President Al Gore. Proclaiming them
> >invalid is rather foolish since this obviously isn't the case.
>
> AFAIK, the case has not been decided,
The CASES (two, and you would know that, if you actually knew what you
were talking about!) have already been decided.
[Rest of your ignorance snipped, out of pity]
> >He's not smoking anything. Unless election fraud has occured, the State
> >Legislature has the final say on electoral appointments.
>
> You say "election fraud" as if there is a single law which the courts
> have leeway to judge. Anything that anyone petitions a court to
> redress, provides a potential opportunity for the courts to rather
> radically modify what is considered legal.
The fact that you actually believe that is kind of frightening.
The courts do not have the power to make law.
> Ultimately, courts have the
> right and the duty to pass judgement on *everything* the executive or
> legislative branch does.
Wrong. And if the courts actually tried to do to much of that, they'd
get slapped down, hard. It is the job of the courts to uphold the law,
not make it or, as you put it, "to rather radically modify what is
considered legal."
That's to much power for one branch of government, which is why
"deciding
what is legal" was a power granted to the legislative branch, while
"enforcing and upholding the law" was a power granted to the judicial
branch.
Granted, sloppily written laws require interpretation, but if a law
is clear, then it is the duty of the court to uphold and enforce it,
nothing more, nothing less.
> I would have thought everyone discussing these matters would be aware of
> that fact.
This is only a "fact", if you ignore the Constitution.
Typical liberal response . . .
don't like that label? Then *COMMIT* to something, and tell us
what you are!
Yeesh!
--
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: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 16:06:46 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 28 Dec 2000 13:42:10
> >I can't remember one time where the Republicans even attempted to monkey-
> >wrench the process.
>
> Oh, that's a huge surprise.
If you have specifics, Max . . . post 'em.
> >At every turn, they were trying to stand up for the laws that were in
> >place in Florida. Katherine Harris followed, to the T I might add, her
> >Florida Constitutional and Legal responsibilities without wavering. It's
> >somewhat amusing that Democrats now personally attack her for following
> >the law because, of course, they hate the law.
>
> Which law said that recounts should be stopped if you're too close to
> the deadline to resume them after the courts have decided on the
> legality of your action?
What a twisted phrase!
What are you talking about? The last Supreme Court action? If so (and
I'm guessing here, 'cause of your insistence on avoiding, at all costs,
posting specifics . . . ) then the law is "irreparable harm".
> >On the other hand, Democrats were doing their best, at every turn, to
> >break, manipulate, and work around the law to meet their ends.
>
> Yea, right. You know, if it weren't for bullcrap like this, Chad, I
> wouldn't even care who won.
Bullcrap!? Where . . . ?
Once again . . . specifics, please?
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, it is great.
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 18:08:02 -0500
Tom Wilson wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Adam Warner wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi mlw,
> > >
> > > > PostgreSQL, a full relational, enterprise ready SQL database.
> > > > Star Office, a full featured office packages.
> > > > Full TCP/IP networking support.
> > > > Apache, a world class web server.
> > > > PHP, a world class web scripting language.
> > > > KDE2, a very good desktop environment.
> > > > GCC, a world class C/C++ compiler.
> > > > Countless languages and utilities.
> > > > CD ROM creation utilities.
> > > > MP3 generation.
> > > >
> > > > Too many programs to mention. All free. Sweet!
> > >
> > > Well you could have added MySQL and Gnome ;-)
> >
> > I think MySQL is too limited, it is a toy and I think it reflects badly
> > on Linux and OSS.
>
> Agreed, its' kind of the "notepad" of databases. Postgres, OTOH, is really
> quite good.
>
> >
> > GNOME is too unstable. I keep trying it, but it never seems to work
> > right.
> > >
> > > And OpenOffice (http://www.openoffice.org/) is the successor to
> StarOffice.
> >
> > I'll have to check that out.
> >
> > [MP3 snipped]
> >
> > Software patents are bogus and stupid. We must all fight them.
>
> I always thought it silly to claim exclusive rights to an algorithm.
>
Actually, the algorithm itself can't be patented...
but the PROCESS can.
> --
> Tom Wilson
> Sunbelt Software Solutions
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
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 (C) 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.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
