Linux-Advocacy Digest #651, Volume #33 Mon, 16 Apr 01 21:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: fail in configuring LILO (Brent R)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: To Eric FunkenBush (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: To Eric FunkenBush (Roberto Alsina)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Chad Everett)
Re: To Eric FunkenBush (Chronos Tachyon)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: So much for modules in Linux! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Linux = CHOICE! (Ed Allen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: fail in configuring LILO
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 23:34:04 GMT
scli wrote:
>
> when i try to configure lilo by the following command, error happens
>
> -> [root@ACEnet /root]# /sbin/lilo
> -> Warning: device 0x0303 exceeds 1024 cylinder limit
> -> Fatal: sector 29610212 too large for linear mode (try 'lba32'
> instead)
>
> Can anyone tell me what is the problem? and
> How can i configure lilo?
>
> Thanks a lot
Yeah, you're trying to boot a partition that's beyond what Wintel Bios'
will allow (1024 cylinders, or about 2 gigs).
You'll have to fit a /boot partition in there somehow (use Partition
Magic or some other utility... although PM is the best).
--
- Brent
http://rotten168.home.att.net
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: 16 Apr 2001 23:39:14 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 16 Apr 2001 22:17:54 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>, all of you.28 This is my blood of the covenant,
>>>>>>>which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." He, of course,
>>>>>>>was referring to the cup ("drink from it"), as in when he later asks God:
>>>>>>>"if it be your will, take this cup from me".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So, you say that the important thing was not drinking, but drinking
>>>>>>from a specific cup?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No. The important thing was eating and drinking in remembrance of the sacrifice
>that
>>>>>Christ was making of his body and blood. What you eat and drink made/makes little
>>>>>difference to the "sacrament" that he introduced.
>>>>
>>>>Well, he seems to be specific about the eating and drinking being of bread and
>>>>wine. Where does he say that it doesn't matter if you do it with broccoli and
>>>>orange juice?
>>>>
>>>>If you gonna take it seriously, you can't just ignore stuff. He gave them wine
>>>>and said "this is my blood". Why do you believe any other fluid would do?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Follow your own advice. Matthew doesn't quote him as saying "this is my blood"
>>>he quotes Jesus as saying "this is My blood of the new covenant". Not the same
>>>thing, now is it?
>>
>>What's the difference? BTW: I saw "my blood of the covenant" not "of the new
>>covenant".
>
>"new covenant" is in all translations I am aware of.
It's not in the New International Version, the New American Standard Bible,
the King James (this one says "my blood of the new testament"), the Revised
Standard version, in the Worldwide english ("of the new agreement"),
or in the 21st Century King James Version (same as original King James).
It is in the New King James and in Young's Literal translation.
In the Darby translation it is between brackets, making it an optional
argument, I guess ;-)
>Christ was establishing a NEW covenant between God and Man. He said "this is My
>blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sin."
I see you are using the New King James version.
>He was referring directly to Jeremiah 31:31 and to Exodus 24:8. His disciples
>would have been very familiar with both of these passages and understood
>immediately the signigicance and symbolism of what he was saying.
I don't.
Jeremiah 31:31 simply says "the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will
make a new covenant"
Regardless of them taking a while in coming, what is the connection to
wine and bread?
Exodus 24:8 And Moses took the blood, sprinkled it on the people, and said,
"This is the blood of the covenant which the LORD has made with you according
to all these words."
Apparently the "blood of the covenant" was not meant to be drunk, but
sprinkled?
The blood of the first covenant is simply blood. Why did Jesus use wine?
Isn't Jesus actually saying that he is the sacrificial lamb, and then the
blood of the new covenant actually *is* his blood, or represents his
blood? In that case, isn't my simple "is my blood" actually right?
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Subject: Re: To Eric FunkenBush
Date: 16 Apr 2001 23:40:32 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chronos Tachyon wrote:
>On Mon 16 Apr 2001 06:06, Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
>Odd. My GCC is 2.95.2, what's yours? I used -O2, BTW...
Who told you -O2 produced smaller binaries?
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
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: 16 Apr 2001 23:41:51 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 16:29:06 -0700, Gunner © <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 16 Apr 2001 21:00:34 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina) wrote:
>
>>>
>>>Sliverdick forgets that THE ENTIRE FUCKING PLANET WAS IN A DEPRESSION
>>>(INCLUDING HIS BELOVED SOVIET UNION!!!)
>>
>>Depression? Maybe you meant recession?
>>Roberto Alsina
>
>Not in 1925-34
Oops, sorry, I missed context.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Subject: Re: To Eric FunkenBush
Date: 16 Apr 2001 23:42:57 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chronos Tachyon wrote:
>On Mon 16 Apr 2001 06:21, Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> [Snip]
>>
>> Anyway: I've heard rumours that precompiled headers are coming to g++,
>> and that they improve compilation speed almost by an order of magnitude.
>>
>
>Woohoo, if the PCH's follow some sort of binary standard and people who
>write C++ code get into the habit of including them in the source tarball.
We can always hope :-)
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 16 Apr 2001 18:33:03 -0500
On 16 Apr 2001 22:46:11 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>That there was no standard in 3000BC of massive rape of women of the defeated.
>
>I am not conceding that yet. Let's work a little more in that.
>
Either you can support that assertion or you can't. Here we are about 20
ridiculous posts later and you still have not to come up with ANY shred
of evidence that your assertion is not an absurd fact that you just made
up in your head.
Either provide some evidence or give it up.
>[below things were edited for clarity]
>
>>>Hell, that's such a collateral issue it makes no difference whatsoever
>>>to the real argument: does god allow war?
>> Yes
>
>Where does he allow war? I see him ORDERING war. Not the same thing.
>
God does not order something that he doesn't allow.
You answered your own question.
>>> does war go against the commandments?
>> No.
>
>Are you implying that any act occuring in a war is not against
>the commandments?
>
That wasn't the question. There you go again. Endless new questions.
But no.
>>> Is the commandment about any kind of killing or a
>>> specific kind?
>>A specific kind.
>
>What kind? It doesn't seem to forbid killing babies after the war
>is over. It doesn't seem to forbid human sacrifices. It doesn't
>seem to forbid slaughter of defenseless prisoners.
>
I don't know what human sacrifices you're talking about. Moses was
a murderer. God was clear about that. The passages you provided
say nothing about God ordering anything other than the Israelites
to go to war. There are also passages about Moses ordering things,
but that's different, now isn't it?
>What kind of killing IS forbidden?
>
Murder.
>>You were trying to make your false assertion a supporting point in your
>>argument about the above.
>
>Parse error.
>
>>>Heck, let's start another digression: do you believe this massacre was a
>>>holy endeavour?
>>
>>I don't know.
>
>How can you not know what you believe?
>
>You may not know if it was, but that is not what I am asking.
>
Well, you'd better define "holy endeavour" for me then.
>Are you a worshipper of a brutal deity that requires the mass
>slaughter of babies under penalty of plague?
No. There you go again, more absurd statements. God never "required the mass
slaughter of babies under penalty of plague". You need to read more carefully.
There are instances, however, of God killing men, women, and children. Heck,
men, women, and children die everyday and have been for thousands of years.
------------------------------
From: Chronos Tachyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Eric FunkenBush
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 00:10:04 GMT
On Mon 16 Apr 2001 06:40, Roberto Alsina wrote:
> Chronos Tachyon wrote:
>>On Mon 16 Apr 2001 06:06, Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>>
>>Odd. My GCC is 2.95.2, what's yours? I used -O2, BTW...
>
> Who told you -O2 produced smaller binaries?
>
My experience with C did. I ran another experiment:
-rwx------ 1 ... 11648 Apr 16 19:06 hello-c-std
-rwx------ 1 ... 11616 Apr 16 19:06 hello-c-opt # -O2
-rwx------ 1 ... 11772 Apr 16 19:06 hello-c++-std
-rwx------ 1 ... 51358 Apr 16 19:06 hello-c++-opt # -O2
-rwx------ 1 ... 11660 Apr 16 19:06 hello-c++-xpt # -O2 -fno-exceptions
Wow. 8-/ I wasn't expecting a size increase (much less a fourfold one).
--
Chronos Tachyon
Guardian of Eristic Paraphernalia
Gatekeeper of the Region of Thud
[Reply instructions: My real domain is "echo <address> | cut -d. -f6,7"]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: 17 Apr 2001 00:10:57 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 16 Apr 2001 22:46:11 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>That there was no standard in 3000BC of massive rape of women of the defeated.
>>
>>I am not conceding that yet. Let's work a little more in that.
>>
>
>Either you can support that assertion or you can't. Here we are about 20
>ridiculous posts later and you still have not to come up with ANY shred
>of evidence that your assertion is not an absurd fact that you just made
>up in your head.
>
>Either provide some evidence or give it up.
Well, I had something going on above, but you deleted it.
Recapitulating: you agree that at 1300BC, the israelites did rape the women
of the defeated?
If yes, you also said "thousands of years of contact with god made them no
good, their fault not god's". So you seem to agree that israelites were no
better before?
If yes, how long before would that be. Maybe 1700 years before?
Or are you saying the years of contact with god made them worse,
and they wouldn't have acted like this before meeting god?
>>[below things were edited for clarity]
>>
>>>>Hell, that's such a collateral issue it makes no difference whatsoever
>>>>to the real argument: does god allow war?
>>> Yes
>>
>>Where does he allow war? I see him ORDERING war. Not the same thing.
>
>God does not order something that he doesn't allow.
>You answered your own question.
He ordered specific wars, not "go and make war" in general.
Apparently he also ordered the slaughtering of babies, but
slaughtering of babies in general seems to be forbidden by
the commandments.
>>>> does war go against the commandments?
>>> No.
>>
>>Are you implying that any act occuring in a war is not against
>>the commandments?
>
>That wasn't the question.
Of course not. That's why it's another question.
> There you go again. Endless new questions.
Well, usenet would be empty otherwise.
>But no.
In particular, you believe slaughtering babies is an acceptable
act of war according to god, but not any act is, right?
>>>> Is the commandment about any kind of killing or a
>>>> specific kind?
>>>A specific kind.
>>
>>What kind? It doesn't seem to forbid killing babies after the war
>>is over. It doesn't seem to forbid human sacrifices. It doesn't
>>seem to forbid slaughter of defenseless prisoners.
>
>I don't know what human sacrifices you're talking about.
Are you saying god never requested human sacrifices?
However, in this case I misinterpreted "given to the lord". It just
meant they became the priest's share of the loot.
>Moses was a murderer. God was clear about that. The passages you provided
>say nothing about God ordering anything other than the Israelites
>to go to war.
Uh? Moses instructed his army to "kill all the boys. And kill every woman
who has slept with a man,". Penalty for that: "stay outside the camp seven
days" and they were purified.
> There are also passages about Moses ordering things,
>but that's different, now isn't it?
Are you saying god told him to do war, but didn't find anything
reprehensible about the other orders he gave? Or that he did find
them reprehensible, but it just is not in the bible?
If it was so bad, why was the punishment so weak?
>>What kind of killing IS forbidden?
>
>Murder.
Define murder, as you apply it here. Apparently the penalty for
killing a baby is being grounded for a week. I thought the
commandments were serious stuff. Perhaps I am just overestimating
this commandment stuff. "thou shall not murder or thou shall stay
outside the camp for a week" sounds like a very lenient law, does
it not?
>>>>Heck, let's start another digression: do you believe this massacre was a
>>>>holy endeavour?
>>>
>>>I don't know.
>>
>>How can you not know what you believe?
>>
>>You may not know if it was, but that is not what I am asking.
>
>Well, you'd better define "holy endeavour" for me then.
Something approved by god, for example.
>>Are you a worshipper of a brutal deity that requires the mass
>>slaughter of babies under penalty of plague?
>
>No. There you go again, more absurd statements. God never "required the mass
>slaughter of babies under penalty of plague". You need to read more carefully.
There was a plague. The solution was a slaughter of babies (among others).
Apparently god finds more reprehensible the adoration of baal than the
slaughtering of innocent infants.
>There are instances, however, of God killing men, women, and children. Heck,
>men, women, and children die everyday and have been for thousands of years.
Indeed.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So much for modules in Linux!
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 00:57:23 GMT
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:VJwC6.4655$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> > If you need a module loaded, why don't you just add
> > insmod module_name
> > or
> > modprobe module_name
> >
> > at the point where you want it? Or rename the script so it will
> > execute later if that accomplishes the same thing? This is
> > approximately as difficult as knowing when to right-mouse instead
> > of double-click in a GUI.
>
> I moved DHCP to after the network loaded. It still loaded DHCP before
> loading the network modules.
That doesn't make much sense. Running a dhcp client should be embedded
in one of the network-starting scripts if you are assigning the address
via dhcp. Maybe you are moving the startup of a dhcp server instead.
I don't know enough about Suse to tell you where to look, but if
you have any question about what a startup script does, insert
set -x
at the top to see the steps it is taking. If you can find the equivalent
of Redhat's /etc/rc.d/rc script you can do the same there to follow
the order of execution.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux = CHOICE!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Allen)
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 01:01:04 GMT
In article <N%wC6.4733$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ed Allen wrote:
>> I does mean that crapware will fail but most of us look forward to
>> that.
>
>Ah, the old argument, "we've done it that way for years". Does that make it
>right? What's wrong with change?
>
We are looking forward to changing away from monopoly crapware.
It is only the Win32 development parasites who are afraid of the
change.
>>>Is that why we see a KDE 2.1 RPM for Mandrake, SuSE and RedHat? Why
>>>doesn't one work for all? Is this what choice brings us to?
>>>
>> It could be that they each have different administration tools.
>>
>> Why is it a big deal ? Are you planning to try loading the SuSE one
>> on Mandrake as your next Linux failure ? Don't bother none of us
>> will sympathize.
>
>You miss the point. If I want to release a RPM for systems, it appears I
>need one for SuSE, one for Mandrake, one for RedHat etc. etc. This is where
>'choice' works against you.
>
The only difference is where the code and libraries get placed.
You write a post install script putting links to where the real
code was placed.
Like I said, Unix vendors worked out ways around your boogeymen
years ago. Only Windows people live with DLL-hell.
>> Easy times for developers are about to end.
>
>They ended a long time ago from what I can see.
>
Obviously we see different parts of the elephant then.
Vendors getting money for crap is what I call easy times and it
has to stop.
They have gotten fat and lazy. They need to work to earn our money.
>> Only smart ones who are willing to try providing more than their
>> competitors will survive more than a few months.
>
>How are they 'smarter'? Try 'more determined'.
>
Because the stupid ones will attempt to coast along without
providing anything more than 'features' which hardly anybody uses.
Offering software which makes me more productive is the only way
they can tempt me and that means it has to consist of things that I
use every day not some marketing buzzwords.
>> Profiteering is no longer acceptable. A vendor who does not work
>> hard to please me and lots of others does not deserve our money.
>
>Seems to working for Microsoft.
>
Robbing banks and other criminal activities can be very profitable
before a conviction.
They are not tolerated afterwards.
>>>There's no terror here! With Windows it becomes rather easy to configure
>>>things, there in one place. Is that true of Linux? Let me see:
>>>
>> Unlike you many people like to decide for themselves what they want.
>
>Yes, I want a system that works. I've tried Linux + KDE, oh dear, it's not
>as stable as it's hyped up to be. I choose Windows instead.
>
Yes you seem to be one of the very few who cannot do anything which
requires you to think before you charge off ignoring the directions.
Funny how you seem not to remain in your Windows cocoon though.
After a short while you come back here with another tale of how you
just cannot manage to do what eight year olds have been reported to
have few troubles doing.
All of the regulars here know how difficult thinking about and
making choices are for you.
Your repeated tribulations are entirely at your own volition. Do
not feel that we will think less of you if you elect to forgo the
pain and just stick with Windows.
>> Most Linux advocates do not want to turn off our brains. We prefer
>> to do the thinking and leave Redmond to their own criminal
>> activities which the courts will soon put a stop to.
>
>Do you seriously believe I turn off my brain when I use Windows? Ever tried
>programming it? Oh yeah, you don't need a brain for that? HAH!
>
Whatever you do with your brain it is not what we Linux people call
thinking.
>The courts appear ready to throw out the case. As for 'soon' are you a
>Christian? They've been waiting for 2000 years.
>
Different opinions are what makes horse races.
Just as with the horses we can only wait to see what the outcome
will be.
>>>Mandrake:
>>>/etc/rc.d/init.d/smb restart
>>>
>>>SuSE:
>>>/etc/init.d/dhclient restart
>
>> There is a symbolic link which makes SuSE respond to
>> /etc/rc.d/init.d as well.
>
>No there isn't. I did check.
>
>> What has a DHCP client got to do with Samba ?
>
>Woops! Slipped up in the example. Try:
>
>Mandrake:
>/etc/rc.d/init.d/smb restart
>
>SuSE:
>/etc/init.d/smb restart
>
The newer versions of RedHat have the link so they are in compliance
with the Linux Standards Base.
So I had it backwards, RedHat an soon Mandrake, get the link so they
become compliant although the newer versions of SuSE have a similar
link inside /etc/rc.d which is init.d -> ../init.d
No big deal either way. Your "great failing' only happened because
the marketing folks at each company wanted the other company to have
to put in the link.
They both put one in so now both paths work on both distributions.
Not a problem for those of us who don't think like marketeers.
>>>Microsoft _is_ a monopoly. The only people who aren't seeing this the last
>>>time I looked was the court.
>>>
>> You are the first WinTroll to admit that in this forum that I
>> recall.
>
>I've said it before. Did you miss it?
>
Apparently I did. Congratulations on being more honest than most
Windows supporters.
>> The court of Judge Jackson has convicted them and they are appealing
>> the remedy he proposed not the monopolization charges themselves.
>
>And the current court is upholding this? Last time I looked that was
>unlikely.
>
If you agree that they wield monopoly power then you must agree that
they are guilty of monopolization under the Sherman Act.
They are objecting to being broken up not the conviction.
Whatever the courts decide on for remedies the monopolization cannot
be allowed to continue. That would be allowing criminal acts to
continue in spite of the law.
>> The conviction will stand and we will be finding out about the
>> remedies before summer.
>
>It looks as though there will be _nothing_ done.
>
The courts have a duty to see that the laws are obeyed so the
monopolization will be stopped.
It may not happen quickly but it must stop or the law must be
repealed.
>>>And how does supporting Linux help work for a living? How do you get paid?
>>>Selling distributions? Not enough! Writing software - most of it is free!
>>>
>> Most of the software programmers are paid to write is customization
>> of generic packages and in house stuff to support their business.
>
>And the other guys writing Linux itself? Or other packages and tools? How
>are they paid?
>
>The fact is they are _not_ paid. You need another job if you want to
>release Open Source software.
>
Several of them are working for RedHat, SuSE and other Open Source
companies.
Linus works for Transmeta. Writing their customized version of
Linux.
Open Source is a great way to demonstrate to an employer exactly
what you can do.
Even the ones not being paid to develop their projects full time have
the very best of resumes.
>> Having sales people soap them up prior to their next screwing will
>> not survive so most of the "software" vendors of today are looking
>> forward to bankruptcy I think.
>
>HAH! Really! I work for a company that doesn't follow your model and we're
>doing rather well than you. As are most of the other companies. I don't see
>this ending any time soon.
>
Preying on the ignorance of your customers is profiteering at best
and could extend to fraud charges if you are keeping them ignorant
on purpose.
>My last company, Digital Equipment Corporation latested longer than twelve
>years before they were swallowed by Compaq.
>
DEC started out as a hardware company but somewhere along the way
they decided they should sell software but they have made a poor
showing of it because they were not willing to fleece the ignorant
masses.
I hope their hardware sales will flourish again.
>> That is what scares the WinTrolls, that the victims are wise enough
>> not to submit to abuse a second time and that they must keep coming
>> up with new things because many of their most lucrative scams have
>> been cloned under the GPL.
>
>Most 'victims' (your word, not mine) are not bright enough to even
>understand how software works, let along ring up with a solution to a bug!!!
>
They are at least bright enough to know better than to pay money for
crap when they are not forced to by preload contracts.
Each successful, as opposed to any of your, installation of Linux
opens the eyes of more people as they see that the successful ones
are free of the crapware.
Once they taste that freedom they will not meekly submit to the
chains of monopolization again.
The pool of Linux users keeps growing every year.
This year or maybe next more will join the Linux community than fall
under the oppressive yoke of Emperor Bill.
>> The "software production" profiteering is wheezing its last gasp.
>
>I think not. You're in a dream world.
>
I see the group of enlightened people growing each year and none of
them seem eager to take up the burden of Windows again.
Perhaps you can point us to some who willingly return to the Windows
fold.
I see no alt.destroy.linux only alt.destoy.microsoft
The closest you can come is alt.linux.sux where crybabies whine
about how they cannot get it to work.
Windows has lots of those.
>> W2K has proven to be the biggest flop since MS Bob.
>
>Still selling though, isn't it.
>
Selling fewer copies than NT 4 is selling a few I grant.
Still selling a few does not mean that it is not a failure. Some
suckers never seem to learn.
>> I hope we see the start of another antitrust trial the week it is
>> released.
>
>Another one that gets lobotomised out of existance like the current one?
>
The Supremes are waiting in the wings to sing their version if the
Appeals Court fails to uphold the law. That is their job,
straightening out the lower courts.
They cannot ignore or repeal laws. Only see that they do not
continue to be broken.
I think that the AC will want to avoid being chastised for ignoring
the law so they will not uphold the breakup order but they will send
the case to another judge to look for remedies. The conviction will
stand.
--
Linux -- The Unix defragmentation tool.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
