Linux-Advocacy Digest #324, Volume #33 Tue, 3 Apr 01 15:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Communism ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing? (Wilbert Kruithof)
Microsoft should be feared and despised (Chad Everett)
Re: Communism (WesTralia)
Re: Communism (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.
Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing? (Wilbert Kruithof)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: 3 Apr 2001 18:31:34 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 14:21:51 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 14:04:38 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 13:05:05 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Sun, 01 Apr 2001 01:14:16 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> >Roger Perkins wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Don't confuse the little dweeb. He wants to set up a dictatorship in this
>> >> >> >> country along with Hdlskdjfloser. He sees "anti-government" as
>> >> >> >> "anti-whateverI want".
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >If I'm so "anti-government", porker, then why am I *IN* the government.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You seem to enjoy taking trips paid by taxpayers to foreign countries
>> >> >> where you can use shiny toys to kill people.
>> >> >
>> >> >That's not my decision...see: CONGRESS.
>> >>
>> >> Are you having drafts these days? I thought the US had a volunteer
>> >> army.
>> >
>> >Yes. I volounteered to uphold my DUTY, as an American citizen, to
>> >protect the Constitution of the United States. I held up my right hand
>> >and swore an oath to do exactly that.
>>
>> If it's a duty, it's not volunteer.
>
>Wrong. It's a MORAL duty, as opposed to a legal obligation.
So, it's not a real duty. I find there is a stronger moral duty not to kill
other people.
>> Are you saying that everyone who
>> didn't volunteer to kill everyone the generals deem unworthy of living
>> is a traitor?
>
>I like Heinlein's idea that only those who give service to their
>country should be allowed the full rights of citizenship.
>
>it would limit the political power of the parasites.
It would make being a bully a requirement. Well, you surely would
like that.
And you REALLY didn't understand Space troopers at all. It flew right
over your head.
>> >Exactly *HOW* and *WHERE* it is done is not my decision to make....I
>> >merely make the decision to be part of the solution rather than part
>> >of the problem.
>>
>> You are the problem. Or rather, mindless drones willing to kill without
>> remorse or thought are the problem.
>
>Actually, there are all sorts of rules and limits placed on soldiers.
>Geneva Convention, Theater Commander's and local commander's rules
>of engagement, international law, etc.
Blah. Your commander says "kill him", you go kill him. That's not
thinking.
>> You are just pretending to be the
>> problem.
>
>The power to declare war is SOLELY in the hands of Congress.
And you are eager to follow them wherever they decide to send you.
You are a mindless executioner of the politicians you despise.
You are a waste of a human.
A pity. If you had not been so thoroughly brainwashed, you could
have been a person.
>Congress is elected according to the laws of the US Constitution.
>
>If you don't like a war that we get into...then the source of the
>problem, ultimately, is your neighbors.
Sure. I seem to have missed the border between the US and Colombia,
though. And between the US and Grenada. And panama. And Chile.
Not too close, those neighbours. And of course, the US NEVER
would start a war because it fits the US, right? The US was just
defending themselves. EVERY TIME. Yeah, right.
>Hope that helps.
Not even close.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 14:46:50 -0400
billh wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>
> > > PFC! Really big deal. You're hilarious. Stop before you make a
> COMPLETE
> > > ass of yourself. LOL!!!
> >
> > Yes, that is correct.
>
> You're a dolt.
You're just jealous that I was personally invited to dinner at the
Theater Commander's quarters as a lowly PFC...and YOU'VE NEVER BEEN, EVER!
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
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....
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
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"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
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.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: Wilbert Kruithof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing?
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 20:51:30 +0200
Beth "Basically, I see the difference between open source and closed
source would be effectively the notion of asexual and sexual
reproduction respectively..."
OK, an very bright comparison, also to the laity ;-)
But that hanky-panky is not very clear to me :-)
Kind regards,
Wilbert (Who has to learn his preliminary examination and examination,
but is still thinking about all which is said(written) in this
discussion)
--
Linux Prometheus 2.4.2 #1 Tue Mar 20 20:42:22 CET 2001 i686
Homepage: http://home.hccnet.nl/wilbert.kruithof/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Microsoft should be feared and despised
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 3 Apr 2001 13:48:46 -0500
******************************************************
By Chuck Mead on Monday April 02 2001 @ 11:55PM EDT
http://www.moongroup.com/stories.php?story=01/04/02/0156291
Microsoft should be feared and despised!
========================================
After taking the time to read the Microsoft Passport Web Site Terms of Use
and Notices I have had a belly full of them. The potential damage they can
do with this license is staggering. I encourage everyone to take the time to read it,
particularly the section entitled "LICENSE TO MICROSOFT". If you've ever
had any doubts about the nature of that company reading that section should
put them to rest for good and all!
I don't know how many times I've heard Microsoft described as "evil" by
Linux zealots and open source supporters (which I am both) and thought,
"They're losing it... Microsoft is just a company!" but now I'm forced
to agree with them. This license is heinous, and more, it's frightening
because I know that some people won't read it and will lose the rights
to their own data/content without knowing. Add that to the fact that
the license is clearly attempting to gain the rights to *ALL CONTENT
WHICH PASSES OVER ANY SERVICE THEY PROVIDE*. For example... this
article could be copied by someone and sent to someone else who uses
the hotmail email service. According to the license Microsoft would then
own the rights to this article! Unbelieveable you say? Go read it and see
for yourself.
Most of the time when confronted with things like this I may rage for
a while but I usually conclude that there is little that I can do to
cause the policy to change so why bother doing anything at all but not
this time!
Effective with this posting the following blocks are in place against
email inbound to MoonGroup.com or any of it's domains. If you truly
understand what their license means you will do the same on your mail
server.
msn.com 550 Microsoft licenses are unacceptable. No mail from their services will be
accepted.
msn.net 550 Microsoft licenses are unacceptable. No mail from their services will be
accepted.
microsoft.com 550 Microsoft licenses are unacceptable. No mail from their services
will be accepted.
microsoft.net 550 Microsoft licenses are unacceptable. No mail from their services
will be accepted.
hotmail.com 550 Microsoft licenses are unacceptable. No mail from their services will
be accepted.
hotmail.net 550 Microsoft licenses are unacceptable. No mail from their services will
be accepted.
As this is clearly a pre-cursor of what Microsoft's .Net initative is
all about I will be watching very closely to see where it goes. I had
thought that SOAP might be something very useful which would help to
open them up a bit but after reading this license it's clear to me that
all that .Net and Hailstorm are going to be is just another sad example
of "embrace and extend".
I fear them for what they are doing! I despise them for doing it!
Good luck to all of us... we're going to need it!
Here are some related links:
The Register.COM article:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/18002.html
Troubleshooters.COM new copyright and other articles:
http://www.troubleshooters.com/cpyright.htm
http://www.troubleshooters.com/tpromag/200104/200104.htm#_new_copyright
http://www.troubleshooters.com/tpromag/200104/200104.htm#_three_articles
LEAP Thread (first article in thread):
http://lists.leap-cf.org/pipermail/leaplist/2001-April/011248.html
By Chuck Mead on Monday April 02 2001 @ 11:55PM EDT
******************************************************
------------------------------
From: WesTralia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 13:50:14 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> billh wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> >
> > > > PFC! Really big deal. You're hilarious. Stop before you make a
> > COMPLETE
> > > > ass of yourself. LOL!!!
> > >
> > > Yes, that is correct.
> >
> > You're a dolt.
>
> You're just jealous that I was personally invited to dinner at the
> Theater Commander's quarters as a lowly PFC...and YOU'VE NEVER BEEN, EVER!
>
Aaron, your posting times and patterns have changed on me. Has your
mom made you go out and start looking for a job?
--
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 19:01:52 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, T. Max Devlin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Mon, 02 Apr 2001 22:07:29 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Said The Ghost In The Machine in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 02 Apr
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, T. Max Devlin
> [...]
>>>>(Side note: as I understand it, communism in its pure form is
>>>>an economic system, always (at least, when done at the country level)
>>>>implemented by some sort of authoritarian rule as it is not compatible
>>>>with the "natural human state" of being greedy -- or, as a friend of
>>>>mine once put it, "having enlightened self-interest",
>>>>which sounds better and is more accurate.)
>>>
>>>Well, that's the problem. For a country to be "communist", "communism"
>>>needs to be defined as a political system or it becomes a
>>>self-conflicted concept. You can't run a country with capitalism,
>>>regardless of how important capitalism is to running a country. Your
>>>point is valid, as communism is often seen as a social philosophy
>>>indicating an economic model (socialism), and whether a communist or
>>>socialist country uses one or the other label is relatively meaningless.
>>
>>Agreed, from an operational standpoint. It'll be interesting to see
>>how the Chinese experiment holds out (they're trying for the combination
>>of an authoritarian government and a capitalist economy, apparently), but
>>it's clear that communism and authoritarianism/socialism track very
>>closely in actual implementations.
>
>To be honest, I think that's misstating the case. It is more consistent
>to say that representational democracy tracks capitalism very precisely,
>both in theory and in practice. The link between communism, an inferior
>political system to representational democracy, and socialism, likewise
>in practice an inferior economic system in comparison to capitalism, is
>simply a perception, and a mistaken perspective if taken
>philosophically, I think.
>
>If it weren't for the fact that I cannot condone "experimentation on
>live human beings", I'd agree with you about the Chinese scenario.
I'l merely note that the US is a grand experiment, as well -- and has
been for 230 years. :-)
>
>>>But I was trying to illuminate, by simply pointing it out, that for
>>>Aaron to berate both Marx, who was simply a philosopher, and the USSR,
>>>simply because both were communist, is to indicate that certain thoughts
>>>are not aloud to be thought. This seems to me to ironically mirror
>>
>>Or maybe not allowed to be expressed aloud. :-)
>
>To support one is to require the other, regardless of which one comes
>first. If Aaron's apparent position (I say that because I believe it
>isn't really a coherent position to begin with, as he exhibits many of
>the indications of being a paranoid schizophrenic) were merely an attack
>on the principle of free speech, it might at least be possible to
>communicate with him. As it is, he's launched a private war on all
>concepts of reason.
>
>>>Marx's own work, of course, and makes clear that Kulkis is about as
>>>close to a fascist as you can get and still live a responsible life.
>>>
>>>I do think its just playing with fire giving him a gun, of course. But
>>>only as a military person; as a private citizen, I'm afraid he should be
>>>as free to own a firearm as any other person. Now isn't that a scary
>>>idea?
>>
>>No more than some of the others I can think of, admittedly. If a
>>country has to protect itself from its own citizenry, it will have
>>some nasty problems.
>
>Which devolves, I'm afraid, into the primordial ooze of philosophical
>consideration: does have a majority of citizens still willing to kill
>the rebels make such a government moral or just?
Agreed.
>
>>I do not buy into the "let's get the guns off
>>the street" arguments of HCI, although I'm not sure how to reduce
>>the carnage at this time (ideally, the citizenry would shoot them
>>dead, or threaten to, and they'd think twice about shooting their
>>rivals -- of course, the gangsters might also shoot the citizenry,
>>but then other citizenry might step in!).
>
>What is "HCI"?
Handgun Control, Incorporated. I'm not sure if that's a real group,
or a strawman created by the more rabid pro-gun crowd, but the idea
of HCI is apparently that guns must be kept off the streets, that gun
purchases should have a background check, felons should not have guns,
assault rifles aren't legal, they don't like concealed carry laws, etc.
I'll admit I could be misrepresenting their position, but that's
what I remember. On the surface, they seem reasonable -- but then,
so do _1984_'s "telescreens". Look further down and one gets a
nasty agenda -- does the US Constitution require that convicted
felons can't have a firearm, for example? (There might be a
court case somewhere; I'd have to look.)
>Personally, I'm as moderately radical in my thinking on
>gun control as I am in public education.
It would seem that nowadays anyone who advocates gun ownership
at all is "moderately radical". :-) (Personally, I'm ambivalent.
I don't like the idea of guns, but recognize that others may
feel the need for self-defense and that there is no rational reason
to outright ban them; in this respect, my position parallels that of
abortion, which is another can of worms. In any event, if there are
no guns in the citizenry, what's to prevent the police, or any other
duly designated arm of the government system, from confiscating everything?
Admittedly, that's a bit black-and-white, but that's one reason
Amendment II is there in the first place, along with III, IV, V, ... :-) )
>Bizarrely, Aaron would agree
>with my stance on firearms, but would put me in front of a firing squad
>for my stance on public education (which is, incidentally, that it is
>the only thing worthy of the description "education", all private
>education being indoctrination, by definition.)
>
>Though it certainly isn't a short-term strategy, I believe that the way
>to prevent "gun violence" is to stop pretending that the issue is how
>convenient it is to be violent. Almost all of the most shocking recent
>incidents involved lengthy planning and preparation. Making guns less
>convenient, or even all-together illegal as private property, wouldn't
>have any effect, from the looks of things.
Nor would it really do anything regarding criminal activity, either;
it'll just make the citizenry more defenseless.
I for one agree with you there.
>
>>It has already been noted elsewhere that Hitler disarmed
>>the citizenry first. I think the US government hasn't quite gone
>>that far, but it's possible we're being seduced into giving up
>>a primary line of defense against a tyrannical organization.
>>
>>Paranoid? Perhaps. But "it can't happen here" can happen here.
>
>The sentiment is certainly not paranoid; it is the basis of much of
>America's wisdom, this idea of needing to be "ever vigilant". There's
>no argument nearer and dearer to USAian's hearts than the "slippery
>slope" argument.
>
>The only time it becomes delusional, or an indication of paranoia or
>paranoid schizophrenia, is when you believe that there is a
>consciousness behind this "attempt" to "seduce" people.
I'm not sure there isn't, admittedly! Yes, that sounds slightly
strange, but I'm a believer in the "wolfpack" or "follow the crowd"
principle: "everyone else is doing it so it must be OK".
Of course, that doesn't mean that it's all that directed, or that
there's a conspiracy of, say, the Bavarian Illuminati running things;
that would just be ridiculous. But man is a social animal,
and we see things and copy them.
One might call this a "meta-consciousness", or perhaps a societal force.
It's similar to the "forces" "driving" the stock market -- there is no
force driving the stock market (to be extremely pedantic, a force
implies that an object is impelled to move), but there is some
sort of aggregate consensus and/or notion to buy or sell. Why, I
don't really know; there are time I wish the stock market reflected
more accurately a company's predicted fortunes.
I'd suggest this sort of thing lies in ourselves, not in an outside
agency. It's very hard to be an individual nowadays.
>Its the very
>forces of nature which inevitably cause government to oppress the
>citizenry, and requires no evil mastermind. Whenever someone's
>political discussion requires a non-abstract evil mastermind (or an evil
>scapegoat), you know they're getting close to the edge.
If one calls one's opponent an idiot, one has effectively lost the
argument. Unfortunately, this has two consequences:
[1] If the opponent does not understand the sender's argument, then
the sender has failed to convey his case; the sender subsequently
calling the opponent an idiot may be a self-failing.
[2] If the opponent cannot understand the sender's argument, no matter
how cogently produced, then it's clear the discussion will evolve
into a less useful direction.
These are why peer review is important in science; the maverick is at
a bit of a disadvantage, unfortunately. (These also explain why I
try to refrain calling my opponents idiots. Sometimes, I succeed. :-) )
>
>--
>T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Looks like we more or less agree. :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 57d:06h:51m actually running Linux.
No electrons were harmed during this message.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 19:01:06 GMT
>>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
Aaron> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
>>
Aaron> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
>> >>
Aaron> Mathew wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Mon, 2 Apr 2001, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > >>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > Aaron> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> >> > > >>
>> >> >> > > >> >>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
>> >> >> > > >>
>> >> >> > > Aaron> Mathew wrote:
>> >> >> > > >> >>
>> >> >> > > >> >> For a person who constantly calls people"little dictators"
>> >> >> > > >> >> and "fascists" , Aaron certainky takes the cake for
personifying
>> >> >> > > >> >> his own words.
>> >> >> > > >> >>
>> >> >> > > >> >> A product of fascist military indoctrination ,no doubt.
>> >> >> > > >>
>> >> >> > > Aaron> So, protecting your constitutional rights is fascist now.
>> >> >> > > >>
>> >> >> > > >> You have repeatedly threatened to kill people for their political
>> >> >> > > >> beliefs. That is not protecting their Constitutional Rights.
>> >> >> > > >>
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > Aaron> No, I have not.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > Yes you have. You have said that people should be killed for
>> >> >> > > merely being democrats.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > No. They should be punished for committing treason.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The most egregious, such as Clinton, should be executed.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And the the totalitarin regime in Afghanistan,that happnened because Bush
>> >> >> Sr. sold their freedom down the drain?
Aaron> [Note that once again, Matthew is advocating for the Communists...and
Aaron> he *still* claims he's not a weaselly Marxist bastard].
Aaron> What freedom? When?
Aaron> Afghanistan has *NEVER* had any freedom....and in fact, has never had
Aaron> ANY force which represents freedom fighting for it.
>> >> This is true, and clearly shows Reagan to have been lying
>> >> when he called the thugs he armed "Freedom Fighters".
Aaron> Freedom from Communism to go their own way.
>> Unlike you, I do not play favorites among totalitarians.
Aaron> No..the United States did *NOT* choose any totalitarians in Afghanistan.
Correct, it supported all of them except the communist totalitarians.
As you point out above, when you said "Afghanistan has *NEVER* had
any freedom....and in fact, has never had ANY force which represents
freedom fighting for it."
I agreed with you. (Actually there were some small more freedom
oriented movements during the Great Game of the 19th century, but
they never lasted long). Certainly during the time Reagan called
the various non-freedom oriented factions "Freedom Fighters" there
were no forces representing freedom for Afghans.
Aaron> At the time we were giving support to the Afghans, there were 8 MAJOR
Aaron> factions opposing the Soviets, and numerous lesser ones.
None of which were fighting for freedom.
Aaron> NOBODY knew which faction would consolidate when the time would come
Aaron> that the Soviets would leave.
Correct, but one could be sure that whoever ended up in power would
be totalitarian.
>> Unlike you, I think all totalitarians suck.
Aaron> So do I.
Nonsense, you are a totalitarian.
>> But then, unlike you I do not wish to be a totalitarian.
Aaron> At least not openly....but you keep pushing for public policy which
Aaron> DEMANDS a totalitarian state for the policies to get implemented.
Stop lying. I do not do that, you just made that up.
If it were true, you would be able to prove it. But since
you are lying, you cannot. Unlike the proof I have of your
cowardly lying forgery.
>> And of course, unlike you, I am not a cowardly lying forger.
Aaron> blah blah blah
The coward shows himself.
--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)
------------------------------
From: Wilbert Kruithof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing?
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 20:55:13 +0200
Karel said:"Probably we will still evolve, but how and according to what
mechanisms is at the moment impossible to say."
This is also an very interesting problem!!
"Evolution tends to pick the first solution that can solve a particular
problem. Rarely this is the best possible solution, because if the
_better_ solution works, there is no reason to keep investing to come up
with the _best_ solution."
OK, without the intention to insult someone (or the whole OSS
community), that's also happening in OSS!! In closed software
developement (or the mechanism of capitalism if you want), you try to
sell a product, independently of the fact if it has worth, or it's
useless. This is also happens in OSS, but the chance other people join
in programming in something which is not useful is much smaller. So,
like science OSS is more pointed at put into practice.
"But you have convinced me; I will now spend my waking hours to come up
with a philosophy based on the Russell-Herzsprung diagram."
OK, but what kind of diagram is that?? Something like the diagram's made
by Darwin about the (Gapalogos) islands? ;-)
--
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
******************************
