Linux-Advocacy Digest #180, Volume #33 Thu, 29 Mar 01 15:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Communism (Gunner ©)
Re: Communism (Dark Shadowy Figure on Usenet)
ATA standards ("Andy Walker")
Re: Windows, Linux and evolutionary models ("Andy Walker")
Re: ATA standards (Donn Miller)
Re: Microsoft abandoning USB? (Dave Martel)
Re: Microsoft abandoning USB? (Dave Martel)
Re: Arrrrgh! Hoist the Jolly Roger! (Dave Martel)
Re: Communism (Roberto Alsina)
Re: All your PCI slot are belong to Microsoft. (Dave Martel)
Re: ATA standards (Brian Langenberger)
Re: What is the size of Linux 2.4.1 Kernel (Chad Everett)
Re: Communism (Chad Everett)
Re: Communism (.)
Re: Communism (Barry Manilow)
Re: Communism (Roberto Alsina)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gunner © <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 10:29:22 -0800
On 29 Mar 2001 16:43:48 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina) wrote:
>
>Not to mention that the Cessna was invading their airspace.
>The US has killed more people in the mexican border than East
>Germany killed at the Berlin wall, so americans should be very
>careful before accusing others of defending their space too
>harshly.
>
>--
>Roberto Alsina
That was Cessna(s) on life flights looking for refugees. Shot out of the
skys by Migs. Well known flights that were there commonly, and well
known NOT to be a danger to the country. Some call it murder, pure and
simple.
Id love to see your cites on the Mexican border/Berlin comparison.
Please provide them. I do not recall ever hearing about the AirForce
shooting down unarmed civilian aircraft intentionally knowing full well
that they were unarmed civilian aircraft. Of course, I dont ever recall
the need for such flights looking for refugees trying to escape the US.
Gunner
--
"Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to
clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because Liberals are
so stupid it is easy work." Steven M. Barry
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 13:31:05 -0500
From: Dark Shadowy Figure on Usenet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Communism
"." wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > You are so badly brainwashed the the ONLY cure for you is 130 grains
> > of copper-jacketed lead to your head.
>
> Your death threat has been reported to yahoo. Sorry about that.
Hey simpleton, he wasn't threatening anyone. He was merely insinuating
that the person commit suicide. It was an over-exaggeration, you stupid
biotch. I wonder if you call the police every time you hear someone
threaten another person on TV? Obviously, peckerheads like you never
heard of this thing called "freedom of speech", you old dufus-like
scheiskopf.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Andy Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: ATA standards
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 19:26:17 -0000
I read in a Linux mag the other day a report about the ATA standards people
debating embedding systems to prevent copying of DVD's etc.
>From what I could make of this short article worried me.
Is it just my imagination or are companies deliberately releasing file
formats into the public domain to get them into common use and then
demanding money when they become popular?
GIF's were as common as muck a few years ago only for a company to pop up
and claim copyright over the format then demand money for the usage of it.
The same seems to be true of MPEG and now BT claim they own HTML!
While I have no problem with copyrights, I do get pissed of with companies
deliberately misleading the public. If a company gave away cars for nothing
and then demanded payment for them six months later, there would be a riot,
so why is it happening in the computer industry?
------------------------------
From: "Andy Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows, Linux and evolutionary models
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 19:40:44 -0000
Natural selection partly relies on the ability to adapt to the future. As
the future almost certainly involves multiuser, multitasking and
multiplatform not to mention stability, I can't see Windows making the
decade out. Whereas Linux is already being ported to 64 bit architecture,
Windows still relies on 16 bit DOS in parts and is very badly supported in
the types of processors it runs on.
Scalabilty is also an important issue. Linux can be used, as has already
been seen, in anything from embedded set top boxes up to large network
servers. With the inevitable integration of electrical consumer goods and
audio visual systems, Linux is perfectly suited to being at the forefront of
this revolution.
Larry Cosner Jr. wrote in message ...
>Being a chronic lurker, I wasn't sure if I should just add this to the
>thread that sparked the idea for me; however, as it was somewhat OT, I
>started a new thread. Hope this fits the expectations regarding behavior
>'round these parts.
>
>Recently there was a discussion of Darwinian evolution, including ideas
>revolving around natural selection; this was discussed particularly as it
>applied to the Linux/Windows confrontation (conflagration?). The
>discussion got me to thinking about a concept known as 'frozen accidents'
>in evolutionary biology. I'm not sure how widely known this term is
>outside bio-geeks, so I'll give a minimalist definition below; sorry if it
>is superfluous.
>
>In terrestrial evolution (other kinds being difficult to study), the
>following has been observed: when some 'problem' is solved in a new and
>significantly better way, that solution rapidly displaces all previous
>mechanisms for addressing this problem. This is regardless of whether the
>new 'solution' is optimal or not. Put slightly differently, if the new
>solution is enough better than any of the old solutions (as opposed to an
>incremental improvement), it rapidly comes to dominate.
>
>In such instances--assuming that this new solution is 'better', but not
>necessarily 'optimal'--truly optimal solutions have a much more difficult
>job displacing an entrenched, system-wide 'solution', even if they are
>provably better.
>
>The common example, in biology, is that of oxidative-phosphorolation/
>electron-transport (OxPhos/ET) as a means of obtaining energy. Prior to
>the evolution of this mechanism for extracting energy from chemicals,
>there were many competing mechanisms amongst the microorganism that
>floated around our planet. When that showed up: BLAM! Pretty much
>you--as a cell--either adopted that mechanism or you could forget any job
>advancement, especially in better (multi-cellular) corporations. I'm led
>to believe, by seemingly competent people, that it can be proven that
>OxPhos/ET is definitely not the "best" way to extract energy from glucose;
>however, it was so much better than any previous solution that we now have
>a planet full of life which uses it, with little hope of adoption of any
>(marginally) better solutions.
>
>Now this worries me, as it smacks a bit of our current market situation
>with Linux and Windows. That is, was Windows such a step-change--at least
>in the eyes of most lusers--when compared to text-based OSs that it will
>be difficult to de-entrench by _any_ other OS, even if that OS is provably
>better?
>
>Note that I'm NOT trying to defend Windows here. In fact, my fondest
>memories are of the days when I had a PDP2 at home (home built), a PDP3 at
>work, ran RT11 on both, and could use PIP for anything!! But I gotta tell
>you: I say that to any of our 200 users at the hospital where I manage the
>IS dept, or even to my younger, Windows-only employees, and I get nothing
>but blank looks and/or pitying stares. To them, GUI is everything. More,
>in fact. GUI _that_looks_ and_behaves_just_like_Windows_ is everything!!
>
>Now, there are clearly some potentials for hope. For one thing, it is
>easy to argue that the step change of a STABLE, DECENT OS [Linux] over an
>unstable, indecent OS [Windows] could result in another 'takeover'. It
>has not yet happened, however. Similarly, one could argue that the domain
>of computer OSs is not random and unguided (like biologic evolution), but
>is instead guided and controlled. I suppose it depends on whether the
>'evolution' of computers and their OSs is mostly market (which often looks
>like unguided, stupid, blind biology to me), or has at least some
>cognitive component (which I hope for, though on some days dispair of).
>
>Finally, there is the whole issue of time. It is easy to forget how
>_long_ real evolution--even just individual
>natural-selection-events--take. Perhaps our time-constants for the
>removal of an eggregious OS are simply wrong. It won't happen in a few
>months, but will in a few years. Still, this doesn't give me as much hope
>as it would. If it is gonna take years to displace Windows, that's alotta
>BSODs I still have to look forward to.
>
>I'd be interested in your thoughts.
>
>...Larry.
>
>BTW: Yes, I run Linux on a couple of our servers. But, in vertical
>markets like hospital IS, vendor mandates are _VERY_ powerful. We're
>still running NT4.0 and W95 (!!) because that's what the vendor says we
>run, else we get no (applications) support. So I hide--and try to slowly
>multiply--the Linux servers, and wait for an opening to try one out on
>some desktop... ...L.
>
>==================================================================
>| ~ ~ ~ ~ |
>| Morning Routine: |-( <- { c[] + c[] + c[] + c[] } => :-)) |
>==================================================================
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 13:48:56 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ATA standards
Andy Walker wrote:
> GIF's were as common as muck a few years ago only for a company to pop up
> and claim copyright over the format then demand money for the usage of it.
> The same seems to be true of MPEG and now BT claim they own HTML!
I hate HTML anyways. Might as well be using LaTeX as the new "web"
standard. Hey, Gopher moved over in favor of http/html, who's to say we
won't see the same of HTML? I think there where quite a few gopher
browsers out there before WWW made them obsolete. It's possible that we
may see the same of HTML-based browsers.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft abandoning USB?
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 11:47:57 -0700
On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 17:13:50 GMT, T. Max Devlin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Who's "they"? I believe copyright law (and, more importantly, popular
>misconceptions about copyright law) needs to be modified to become
>reasonable. It may have been rational before, when it could be assumed
>that distribution required production. But since the costs of these
>things have dropped, and the prices haven't, there is every reason to
>believe that rather than exercising any "right to profit", corporate
>media owners are under the impression they have a right to profiteer.
The first change *I* would like to see is a provision that a copyright
is null and void if the holder attempts in any way - be it restrictive
licensing terms, copy protection, or burdensome registration schemes -
to interfere with the "fair use" provisions.
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Microsoft abandoning USB?
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 11:51:20 -0700
On 28 Mar 2001 15:28:01 -0700, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cray Drygu) writes:
>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (WesTralia) wrote in
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>> >The next 5 years are going to be very interesting years watching how this
>> >plays out. It is my hope that the Internet, true to form, grows around
>> >any obstacle put in its way.
>>
>> "The internet views censorship as damage, and routes around it."
>>
>> You're right, it's going to be a very interesting time. What concerns me
>> more is why there's some kind of content control in 1394. Isn't it just
>> supposed to be a way of transferring data? What's next, ethernet with
>> content control extensions in the NICs?
>
>You better believe it.
>
>They already have monitors and speakers ready to go. Soon it will
>flow from the RIAA's slaves/musicians right out your legally licensed
>speaker system.
>
>Not only that, but it will be hard to have unlicensed music (ie,
>everything will be considered copyrighted until proven *otherwise*).
>This is all bad news for open source people because they will never
>give us the means to view their "content" [see Quicktime and Windows
>Media Player].
There's no doubt the RIAA will pull this off, but I don't think they
realize just how fragile the boundary is between an honest consumer
and a pirate. If they're not careful they may alienate so many
consumers that they end up with a thousand more times pirates than
they're facing today.
I'm thinking of joining the Jolly Roger movement myself. It just
doesn't make sense to keep enriching an industry that uses my own
money to try to take over my hardware.
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Arrrrgh! Hoist the Jolly Roger!
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 11:51:25 -0700
On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 16:22:14 GMT, T. Max Devlin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I haven't any hard
>facts on the subject, which is why I was hoping you'd do some research.
FWIW there's a web page out there on the whole thing. Afraid I no
longer have the URL, though.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: 29 Mar 2001 19:01:49 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 10:29:22 -0800, Gunner © <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Id love to see your cites on the Mexican border/Berlin comparison.
>Please provide them. I do not recall ever hearing about the AirForce
>shooting down unarmed civilian aircraft intentionally knowing full well
>that they were unarmed civilian aircraft.i
I didn't say the airforce killed anyone on the border. It's usually up
to border patrols, or the good citizens of the US.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: All your PCI slot are belong to Microsoft.
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 11:53:39 -0700
On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 10:38:21 -0000, Ray Chason
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Right there on Page 24:
>
> No user access to internal parts. All user-accessible expansion
> capabilities are external. User-accessible memory expansion is
> discouraged in the same manner. The system can have internal PCI,
> AGP, or memory slots to allow the manufacturer in the factory or
> the distributor to configure the system. However, these slots
> should not have quick-access mechanisms, and they should not be
> promoted as end-user expandable. If internal expansion or memory
> expansion is available, dealer or manufacturer service is
> available to perform the expansion.
>
>This is from the "Easy PC Initiative," supposedly about making the
>PC easier to set up and use. The copyright notice on the document
>names Intel and Microsoft.
Try swapping two PCI cards between slots sometime and booting Windows.
Don't know about later versions of Windows, but under Win98SE there's
a very good chance that you'll have to reinstall drivers for both
cards. It would be a _major_ tech-support headache if consumers who
didn't realize this, decided to reposition cards just to arrange the
connectors to suit their tastes.
Actually I think the whole sh*tty Intel-platform monstrosity needs to
be thrown out. That's one more reason I'm excited about linux - it
breaks would-be platform designers out of the applications catch-22.
As linux spreads we should begin to see some more sensible computing
platforms.
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ATA standards
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 19:06:11 +0000 (UTC)
Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Andy Walker wrote:
:> GIF's were as common as muck a few years ago only for a company to pop up
:> and claim copyright over the format then demand money for the usage of it.
:> The same seems to be true of MPEG and now BT claim they own HTML!
: I hate HTML anyways. Might as well be using LaTeX as the new "web"
: standard.
LaTeX's style of "write what you mean, not how it should look" is
what HTML was meant to be. It just mutated into something else...
: Hey, Gopher moved over in favor of http/html, who's to say we
: won't see the same of HTML? I think there where quite a few gopher
: browsers out there before WWW made them obsolete. It's possible that we
: may see the same of HTML-based browsers.
Replacing HTML completely is likely impossible at this point;
there's just too much of it in existance (far more than Gopher's
pages could ever hope to have). What the web *could* use is a
page layout language to live alongside HTML - sortof a
Postscript-lite. Such a language could give all those
graphical designers something to work in (with nice, shiny happy
layout tools) that would guarantee everything on the page will
go exactly where they want it. And, so long as it's still text-based,
CGI scripts could still generate them on-the-fly.
Perhaps it could be the HTLL, or HyperText Layout Language...
And if it succeeds, maybe it'll get the graphics folk someplace
to play without having to mutate HTML anymore.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: What is the size of Linux 2.4.1 Kernel
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 19:42:17 GMT
Linux Supreme
>Alan Po <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Dear all
>>
>> Would you tell me the size of Linux 2.4.1 kernel? Is it very large?
>
>Kernel source, about 100 MBytes.
>
>Compressed, about 20 MBytes.
>
>Kernel binary on my machines runs about 600kbytes.
>
The 2.2.xx compiled kernels on my system are about 600K. The
2.4.2 kernel customized and built for my system is about 1Meg.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 19:44:13 GMT
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 01:03:09 +1000, Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Gunner © wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 01:59:15 -0500, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >> Cuba has dedicated itself to the principle that, within its means, it
>> >> will try not to kill any human beings due to lack of food, shelter,
>> >> medical care, poor sanitation, etc.
>>
>> But they got real good at shooting down Cessnas......
>
>I wonder what Cuba would be like if Batista and the Mafia still ruled.
>
It would be a lot like Las Vegas, Nevada
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: 29 Mar 2001 19:54:10 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Dark Shadowy Figure on Usenet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." wrote:
>>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > You are so badly brainwashed the the ONLY cure for you is 130 grains
>> > of copper-jacketed lead to your head.
>>
>> Your death threat has been reported to yahoo. Sorry about that.
> Hey simpleton, he wasn't threatening anyone.
His intention is not important. What yahoo thinks is important. They thanked
me for the notice and assured me that there would be police involvement if they
deemed it nessesary.
Interesting time we live in, eh?
> He was merely insinuating
> that the person commit suicide. It was an over-exaggeration, you stupid
> biotch. I wonder if you call the police every time you hear someone
> threaten another person on TV? Obviously, peckerheads like you never
> heard of this thing called "freedom of speech", you old dufus-like
> scheiskopf.
I know all about freedom of speech. I'm not forcing kulkis to stop talking,
you idiot.
=====.
--
"Great babylon has fallen, fallen, fallen;
Jerusalem has fallen, fallen, fallen!
The great, Great Beast is DEAD! DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!"
------------------------------
From: Barry Manilow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 12:00:00 -0800
"." wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > You are so badly brainwashed the the ONLY cure for you is 130 grains
> > of copper-jacketed lead to your head.
>
> Your death threat has been reported to yahoo. Sorry about that.
>
Thanks yttrx! ;)
--
Bob
Being flamed? Don't know why? Take the Flame Questionnaire(TM)
today!
Why do you think you are being flamed?
[ ] You continued a long, stupid thread
[ ] You started an off-topic thread
[ ] You posted something totally uninteresting
[ ] People don't like your tone of voice
[ ] Other (describe)
[ ] None of the above
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: 29 Mar 2001 20:06:03 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 01:03:09 +1000, Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Gunner © wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 01:59:15 -0500, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >> Cuba has dedicated itself to the principle that, within its means, it
>>> >> will try not to kill any human beings due to lack of food, shelter,
>>> >> medical care, poor sanitation, etc.
>>>
>>> But they got real good at shooting down Cessnas......
>>
>>I wonder what Cuba would be like if Batista and the Mafia still ruled.
>>
>
>It would be a lot like Las Vegas, Nevada
Last i checked, Las Vegas Nevada had the mob, but didn't have
a) Batista
b) A right-wing dictatorship
c) A huge record of human rights violation (and no, I don't mean
by Castro)
My personal guess is, it would be like Cuba in 1950.
A place where they welcomed a communist revolution.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
