Linux-Advocacy Digest #256, Volume #33 Sun, 1 Apr 01 15:13:15 EDT
Contents:
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Paul Holloway)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("billh")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("billh")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("billh")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("billh")
Re: Communism ("billh")
Re: Communism ("billh")
Re: Communism (Scott Erb)
Re: Communism, and Communist propaganda agents in the USA....*STILL* (Scott Erb)
Re: Communism (Scott Erb)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (Scott Erb)
Re: Communism ("Brian Turner")
Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing? (Wilbert Kruithof)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Holloway)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 18:19:08 GMT
On 1 Apr 2001 00:27:08 GMT, "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Paul Holloway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: If you don't have a viable solution, then you're part of the problem.
>
>
>There is a great solution. It's called the Constitution. It is the
>highest law of the land, and anything contrary to it is null and void.
>
>I'm sworn to defend it, and that is why I oppose those who have
>knowingly and actively violated it for their own personal gain.
>
>Most of those who get labeled as "anti-government" actually favor
>lawful, Constitutional government. What they oppose is the current
>oligarchy masquerading as a democracy, most of whose actions are
>obviously and blatantly unlawful. And on that point at least I'm with
>them 100%.
>
>
>Joe
Ok, troll boy, I'll give you have a chance here.
What major Constitutional violations are currently being perpetrated?
How do we currently have an "oligarchy".
By the way, the US is not a democracy, it's a republic. Maybe you
meant "......masquerading as a republic?".
"May you always have fair winds and following seas.."
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 18:24:31 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis"
> So, in other words, I have done *NOTHING* to disqualify myself
> as officer material.
Your the travails in court could. Also your lack of an ability to earn a
degree would quickly catch up to you. Since you're afraid of PLDC you must
be terrified of OCS.
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 18:31:04 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > > How many months have you drawn hostile fire pay, KuKuNut? I'll
> > guarantee
> > > > not as many as me.
> > >
> > > Tell us about it.
> >
> > Just did, dolt.
>
>
> Kinda short on specifics, aren't you, liar.
Yup. Deliberately so too.
Too bad you weren't a little more grown up when you posted about your
counter-terror "expertise" helping your unit to be awarded the Presidential
Unit Citation or your clas ops in Iraq or your insinuation that you are a
qualified infantryman or any other of your numerous lies. You remind me of
Michael Jackson...you're so unhappy with yourself you had to "reinvent"
yourself. You can post or think whatever you want about me, but the sad
fact remains. You are a pathetic lying wannabe "war-hero" of little
importatnce to anyone. I've not been afraid to advance in the Army. Too
bad you can't say the same.
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 18:31:42 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > Tell us again about your belief that German, Japanese, North Korean,
> > > Chinese, Viet Cong, and North Vietnamese soldiers never ever ever shot
> > > at well-marked American medical personnel and facilities.
> >
> > You truly are childish, KuKuNut. Truth hurts you and you break out the
old
> > broken record. Pathetic, truly pathetic.
> >
> > > Speaking of lies, tell us how nobody ever shoots at American medical
> > > personnel.
> >
> > Twice in a single post. Sad.
>
> You're the one who goes around claiming that the Germans, Japanese,
> North Koreans, Chinese, Viet Cong and North Vietnames *NEVER* shot
> at American medics.
Really? Where? You lie yet again. Try again.
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 18:32:43 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > I suppose that she's soooooo smart that she holds your belief that the
> > > Germans, Japanese, North Koreans, Chinese, Viet Cong, and North
Vietnamese
> > > never shot at American medical personnel....
> >
> > > > He doesn't talk the talk and hasn't a clue about how the
real
> > > > world works. Just another lying wannabe.
> > >
> > > As if your claim that nobody ever shoots at American medics has
> > > any basis in fact.
> >
> > YAWN.
>
> Translation: Bill is quite weary of being reminded of the lies he
> tells becuase I dared to follow up on a cross-post that
> invaded his little clique.
Proofs in the puddin' liar. Care to so us all where I've commented one way
or the other. Pathetic, KuKuNut, just pathetic.
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 18:34:18 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis"
> Our XO said, "Kulkis is referring to Sun Tzu. Maybe if you knew
> what he knows, you wouldn't be asking these questions."
WOW!!! A compliment from a Lieutenant! ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 18:38:20 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis"
> Tell us again about your belief that the Germans, Japanese, North Koreans,
> Chinese, Viet Cong and North Vietnamese *ALL* refrained from ever shooting
> at any of our medics.
YAWN
------------------------------
From: Scott Erb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 14:06:29 -0400
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Scott Erb wrote:
> > Too simplistic. Here is a bit about fascism:
>
> Naturally a 4-line summary is going to be a simplification.
>
> >
> > Fascism:
> >
> > The basis of fascism is irrationality -- it starts based on conservative
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> This is true of ALL forms of socialism.
No, fascism is nothing at all like socialism. You really need to learn
the basics of political ideologies if you want to avoid looking like a
fool on the internet.
Socialism has many forms. Marxian socialism is based on certain beliefs
about philosophy and science which form a rational (if wrong) ideology.
Rational means that it has premises and core assumptions which are built
upon to develop the ideology, and which determine what the ideology is.
Most modern ideologies are rational in that sense, you can trace their
basic assumptions and beliefs. Fascism rejects rationality and the use
of reason as a limitation on human will and spirit, the exact opposite
argument of socialism. It is an essentially different ideology.
> > irrationality. It is also anti-communist and anti-liberal.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> The only redeeming values it has.
Note here that liberalism as an ideology traces itself back to Locke,
and the view that individual rights are paramount, specifically life,
liberty and property. In the US both Democrats and Republicans can
trace their ideological roots to liberalism. Liberalism split between
"classical" liberalism (more free market) and "new" liberalism (growing
from people like John Stuart Mill, who argued that equal opportunity
required more state action).
> > Conservatives: society is important, traditions of nation and culture.
> > Fascists: STATE is important, embodies society.
> > NATIONALISM: as protection of traditions of nation
> > WAR/STRENGTH: Social Darwinism applied
> >
> > At base, fascism is a social darwinist form of ultra-conservative
> > thought. BUT, calling it conservative is a disservice to real
> > conservatives, just as Stalinism is not a form of Social Democracy.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Who, other than you, is claiming that Stalin was a "Social Democrat"
No one. Read more carefully and you'll see that the point is that even
though both conservatism and fascism are on the "right," they are
opposed to each other, just as Social Democracy and Stalinism on the
Left are opposed to each other. The point is that one can't
simplistically link all of the "left" or "right" together.
> Actually social democrats tend to be closet-communists who lack
> the balls to admit it.
Your assertion, besides being unsubstantiated, is denied by history. A
lot of the most vicious political battles, often turning into street
fights, have been between Communists and Social Democrats who have very
profound differences.
> > Liberals: humans have the capacity for rational thought, to improve
> > society.
>
> Except for the current variety known as the "Liberal Democrat" in
> American society. These self-proclaimed liberals maintain that the
> average citizen is incapable of rational thought...therefore, a
> myriad array of government bureacracies must be set up to do
> his/her thinking for him/her.
I have never known any liberal who believed that, you're simply being
bombastic now. Cool if you want to try to arouse reactions, but not
very rational on your part.
-snip-
> You must be one of those over-educated morons who can't see that
> which is freaking obvious to even a 4-year old child.
>
> Indeed, race DOES exist. However, making one's legal standing
> dependant upon one's race is outlandish.
Race is a social construct. There are genetic differences galore among
humans, some particular diseases stay within groups where genetic
differences exist, such as families, groups separated from others over
time by geographic region, etc.
> Question: Why are sickle-cell anemia public service announcements
> aimed only at blacks?
> Conversely, why is Down's syndrome almost unheard of in black >families?
>
> Indeed, race DOES exist.
No, you're missing a step here. Genetic differences exist, and in
groups (sometimes small ethnic groups) particular diseases and traits of
that group form. Not just groups defined by skin color, there are a
myriad of ways of dividing people. The concept of race and the focus on
that particular distinction is a social construct, it could be done many
different ways. I suspect what we consider "race" was chosen because
skin color is so obvious, and the people looked different. But religion
is another way of socially constructing division, as is gender, eye
color, or whatever we choose. Genetic differences exist, the idea of
"race" is a human idea, a way people have categorized others for their
own purposes.
> By the way...in light of the fact that one's legal standing before
> the law should NOT be dependant upon one's race....what does that
> make of Affirmative Action programs and other public policy
> where race is the primary, or even ONLY consideration for
> one's standing in relationship to these laws?
Since race is a social construct (and social constructs are real, even
if contingent on human ideas and actions), it has real, social
ramifications. Discrimination in the past according to race has led to
structural inequities between groups, and affirmative action is one
attempt to try to undo past damage. This is not focused only on race,
of course, but also gender and other aspects of ethnic heritage. It's
dangerous to use that kind of policy because it could become a cure as
bad as the disease, but used as a "tie breaker" rather than a
determining factor for who gets a job seems reasonable.
> Jest askin'.
And you're getting answers.
> Scape-goating...you mean line blaming all of society's ill's on
> "dead white men", followed closely behind by "living white men"
Those would be examples. So would blaming Communists, or socialists, or
liberals. It's all the same, people trying to find some "enemy" to
blame problems on so they can feel all good and righteous out on some
crusade. Rather pathetic, but a lot of poor souls fall into that trap.
> The same can be said for Communism.
>
> They're an improvement over anarchy...but then again, so is
> everything else (including dictatorship).
Perhaps. Though I doubt even a chaotic anarchy would have had the 20
million or so deaths attributable to Stalinism, or 11 million to Nazism
(not counting the war dead, that adds even more!)
> I notice how you spend a lot of time pointing out the flaws in
> right-wing socialism,
Socialism is, quite obviously, an inappropriate word. The differences
are immense. Fascism is appropriate.
> but only one sentance devoted to the
> problems of left-wing socialism.
>
> Why is that?
Because I posted info on fascism. If I was posting info on communism
(as I have), I would point out the dangers inherent in centralizing
power, a planned economy, and all that. But the issue at hand was
fascism, so that is what the post was about. Suffice it to say I'm just
as completely appalled by Stalinism as I am by Nazism.
cheers, scott
http://violet.umf.maine.edu/~erb/
------------------------------
From: Scott Erb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.society.liberalism,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Communism, and Communist propaganda agents in the USA....*STILL*
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 14:06:58 -0400
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Scott Erb wrote:
> >
> > Japan is certainly not fascist. Do you just make this stuff up as you
> > go?
>
> You are truly ignorant of the structure of Japanese society.
No, I'm not.
> Its economy is completely vertically integrated....just like Italy
> and Germany in the 1930's.
No, that's not true. Where are you getting the information for your
claims? Japan's economy is too interlocked, with banks, government, and
corporate heads in partnership in a way which stagnates the system and
in fact is more integrated than the German and Italian examples you
cite. You need to explain your position with more detail.
> It is an extremely racist society....probably the most racist society
> on the planet. Here's a concise summation of the average Japanese
> person's view on race: "We Japanese are the elite of the earth.
> Other oriental nations are close, but markedly inferior to us.
> All non-oriental races are subhuman. Africans are closer to
> the other primates than they are to us, *THE* Japanese."
As an isolated island, the Japanese, especially uneducated ones, often
have racist attitudes. But I don't think your fantasized quote reflects
what most Japanese say. You see your racist fascist types in the US as
well.
> Every once in a while, some Japanese politician makes a remark in
> public about his views of America's black citizens, asking such
> questions which range from "Why doesn't the US government send them
> back to Africa" through "Why doesn't the US government lock them up
> in cages" all the way to "Why doesn't the US government exterminate >them."
I haven't seen any of those quotes from Japanese politicians. Do you
have a source?
> Do some research (Nexis/Lexis is your friend..albeit expensive), and
> you will find reports of these sorts of comments from AP/UPI/Reuters, >etc.
I have no reason to do that kind of research since you don't
substantiate any of your claims and I have no reason to spend any time.
If you make a claim but can't back it up, then don't expect people to
believe you.
> > Yeah, that's capitalism in action for you, big corporations controlling
> > a lot of economic activity.
>
> No, that's FASCISM.
>
> In the United States, the Fortune 500 accounts for less than 5% of the
> economy.
>
> Hope that helps, disinformation agent.
Alas, you still don't seem to know what fascism is. Japan is certainly
not fascism. Oh, and I *fight* against disinformation, one of the
reasons I'm correcting the many errors in your posts.
> > Corporations world wide seek to benefit corporations. Capitalism.
>
> No. Corporations seek to make a profit. In fact, in the United States,
> if the Board of Directors, and key Officers (CEO, VP's, Treasurer, etc.),
> are derilect in their duty to attempt to maximize the corporation's
> profit (within the bounds of LEGAL behavior), then those individuals
> can be SUED by the stockholders for damages.
Making a profit is the biggest benefit a corporation can have. That's
capitalism.
> > Capitalist? OK, but their systems of government were fascist. Fascism
> > can co-exist with capitalism, of course.
>
> No, you moron...they were NOT capitalist, they were Fascist.
You are a very confused individual. Capitalism is an economic system,
fascism is a governmental system. Just as many South East Asian
countries have used "state capitalism" as a path to development, opening
to more democratic reforms after economic success (Korea and Taiwan are
examples, China may be going down that path now), capitalist forms of
market economies can exist in an authoritarian state, a fascist state,
and a liberal democratic state. One states which deny market mechanisms
(such as planned socialist economies) cannot co-exist with capitalism.
No capitalist state has pure capitalism, of course, it's always a mixed
form or a variant of capitalism.
> No, that is ***NOT**** Capitalism, you ninny.
>
> I already PROPERLY described that economic structure as being one
> of the primary definitive aspects of Fascism as opposed to other
> politico-economic systems.
You're simply wrong. I think you're just making this up as you go,
following your whims, nothing more.
> > Perhaps you need to define fascism more clearly, and explain what you
> > mean, your assertions are all very murky at this point.
>
> Scott, why don't you lay off USENET until you are capable of writing
> material which isn't 90% lies and leftist propaganda.
Just correcting you on some glaring factual and logical errors you make,
trying to fight against disinformation.
cheers, scott
------------------------------
From: Scott Erb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 14:06:07 -0400
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Scott Erb wrote:
> >
> > True...there does seem to be an aspect of human nature that makes it
> > corruptible when people have power over others.
>
> It couldn't be that Communism concentrates ALL the power in one place.
Or at least all governmental power. That is precisely the problem, that
is what makes it possible for Stalin to order the murders of tens of
millions, for Mao to decide to move people from agriculture to steel
production, leading to a famine that kills tens of millions. For
Khruschev to order people in the northern Komi Republic to grow corn
when it is too cold to grow corn there, as they sit at night in fields
with torches hoping to keep the seeds warm enough to stay alive.
Concentration of power is indeed the problem.
> And...as we know...power attracts the corrupt, and absolute power
> attracts the absolutely corrupt.
See Lloyd Etheredge, "Can Governments Learn" (1985) for a good book on
describing the personality traits of those who are drawn into government
out of a desire to bolster self-esteem through holding power.
> No...of course not.
???? Why not?
------------------------------
From: Scott Erb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 14:10:04 -0400
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Scott Erb wrote:
-snip a bunch of insults and lame attacks-
> FUCK YOU and your LYING PROPAGANDA SPEWING ASS.
I'll keep correcting you with facts, and showing how your claims,
unsubstantiated and unsupported, are dead wrong.
If you don't like it, feel free to hurl more insults.
> There is no "democratic" about it. We are a Republic. More
> specifically, we are a CONSTITUTIONALLY LIMITED REPUBLIC.
The proper term is a Democratic Republic, or, as I explained, a Liberal
Democracy. You are simply wrong, I've even pointed to books, I can give
you some more cites if you want.
But since they contradict your silly whims, you'll just call it
propaganda, and rely on your unsupported assertions. Very lame. But
very easy to slap down.
> NOWHERE in *ANY* government laws and sort of democratic *anything*
> allowed at the State or Federal level.
You're wrong. The day for elections is even specified, elections are
part of democracy. Certainly we don't have pure, crude democracy of
unlimited majority rule. No one is arguing for that.
> If you want to run a town, or even a county, as a democracy, you
> are fully within your rights to do so.
>
> But the US Constitution, the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, specificies
> in UNMISTAKABLE language the the United States is a Republic.
A Democratic Republic. No matter how much you try, you can't deny that
the two terms are not contradictory. Republics can take many forms,
ranging from authoritarian to democratic. This is basic stuff, Aaron.
Where are you getting your information -- just from your whims?
> Not a "democratic republic"....just a Republic.
>
> Popular election of Representatives and Senators does *NOT*
> a democracy make, nor a Democratic Republic make, so you and
> your PROPAGANDA NOISE about the US being a "democratic Republic"
> can go take a flying fucking leap off a cliff.
(chuckle) You're simply wrong. Representative democracy is precisely a
system where you choose representatives and Senators, and they make
laws. Our system is partially a representative democracy, though not
completely, due to the role of the President and Courts. I'm simply
stating reality. You calling it propaganda with unsubstantiated and
unsupported (and bizarre) claims only makes you look a tad silly.
> Wrong. The United Kingdom is a Representative Democracy.
> However, *WE* do not have a parliamentary system, therefore,
> we are not a Representative Democracy
We're a Presidential system, but also have a legislative branch that is
indeed a form of representative democracy. It's not a pure form like
the UK, since the President has specific powers that limit what the
legislature can do (the whole checks and balances thing).
> To wit, you previously said that the United States is a "democratic
> republic", and *NOW* you said that it is a "representative
> democracy".
>
> Well, which is it? A Democracy by Representation, or a
> Republic by Democracy?
Democratic Republics can also be representative democracies. That is
one way the Republic can be formed. Republics have whatever mechanisms
and attributes their constitutions create.
Perhaps, rather than simply throwing out strange assertions, you should
back them and explain precisely what you mean by terms like Republic,
Democracy, etc. Or is that too HARD for you?
> It can't be BOTH ways.
It certaily can.
> Therefore, I have now demonstrated, by your own definitions,
> that you lied at least once.
(chuckle) Your word games are only attempts to obfuscate the obvious
fact you're defending an undefendable position. You need to study these
things, you're very misguided on some real basics.
> Of course...the real truth is that you lied twice. Every time
> you try to weasel in the word "democracy" to describe our system
> of government, your are LYING.
>
> Remember, Asshole, several MILLION American took an oath to defend
> the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES against *ALL* enemies, both
> foreign and domestic.
> People like you, claiming to have a PhD in Political Science, who
> then go around telling lies like such as above, qualify, in no
> uncertain terms, as ENEMIES OF THE CONSTITUTION.
>
> Make no doubt about it.
>
> Some day...when they you're lined up against the wall, and you
> feel the hot, searing pain of bullets ripping through your body,
> literally turning the very cells around the entry wound into
> a worthless pool of slime in the wound cavity....just remember,
> that I warned you.
Yet by your definition, all our recent Presidents
who talk about our democracy, all our legislators, all our supreme court
justices, all who interpret the constitution and our system more like me
than like you are just as guilty. In fact, by your definition, about
95% of the country is an enemy of the constitution!
The rest of your inane babble snipped. You discredit yourself with your
tirades and pathetic attempts at threats.
------------------------------
From: "Brian Turner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 19:00:49 GMT
> why do you use refer to him as "Gorby"...are you and him, like, secret
> homosexual lovers or something?
actually, it was because of laziness not wanting to type it out, or think
about the correct spelling. But nice smear, it always is a good substitute
for a rational point.
------------------------------
From: Wilbert Kruithof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing?
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 20:59:45 +0200
Evolution in software compared to biological evolution: two points of
discussion
1: There are *many* people developing on OSS, and with different
cultures, languages, and, very important, ideas. Guaranteed good
discussion about what's the best solution for many of things, i.e.
critical and different attitude towards implementation of problems. So,
much variation, if one idea fails when putting in practice, there is a
chance another one will overtake it. If this happens in a company,
another one will overtake his position, but it may not have any idea
what was going wrong with the previous company. So, each time it's
falling back, while evolution builds on the past, so does OSS.
2: Biological evolution codes their program in four-letter-language,
ATCG (adenosine, thymine, guanosine and cytosine (last one is in Dutch))
in DNA, and of course uracil instead of adenosine in RNA. And then, with
a three-letter-word, for example (GCC:), it codes a protein. And in the
ribosomes, they are connected to each other. And this builds for example
a human.
Software codes their program in 2-letter words, 0 and 1 or A and B or...
And this all is developed on a "protein" level, or higher one.
So, the main difference between biological and software coding is their
level on which they are encoding. If you're writing VB, you are on
relative high level, but you can also code on machine language, lower
than DNA.
OK, coding is done. And what do we do with this source?? Biological
evolution is based on competition for reproduction (Thanks Mark:). So
does OSS. But what does closed source software?? It's based on making
money, not on making a good job. *Their* work produces money, money to
better fit in competition for reproduction.
There will be more reasons, but I am a little tired at the moment, so if
you have one, please react.
With kind regards,
Wilbert
Wilbert Kruithof wrote:
> The only thing I am asking for is an answer to above question. *What* way is
> Open Source developing?
>
> And is there a connection between Darwins theory and the way Open Source is
>developing??
--
Linux Prometheus 2.4.2 #1 Tue Mar 20 20:42:22 CET 2001 i686
Homepage: http://home.hccnet.nl/wilbert.kruithof/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
