Linux-Advocacy Digest #133, Volume #34 Wed, 2 May 01 20:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: MS should sue the pants off linux-mandrake (was: Re: Winvocates confuse me -
d'oh!) ("Tom Wilson")
Re: XWindows loading on startup ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft (Bengt Larsson)
Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Intel versus Sparc ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Performance Measure, Linux versus windows ("Edward Rosten")
Re: OEM Windows licenses not transferable to charities ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: My Favorite Linux APP!! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Linux is a steaming pile (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Donn Miller)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (Chad Everett)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Greg Cox)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop ("Edward Rosten")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS should sue the pants off linux-mandrake (was: Re: Winvocates confuse
me - d'oh!)
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 22:48:31 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9cpg7o$7vv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:pURH6.6163$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:9com3m$40k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > <Snip>
> >
> > > > The only MS-like thing I'd really like to see is a VisualStudio-ish
> IDE
> > > with
> > > > workable completion. (A real plus when working with heavily
subclassed
> > > > objects) If I ever find the spare time to program for *myself*
again,
> > I'll
> > > > write the damned thing! EMACS is fine for the simple stuff, but
damn,
> > > > VisualStudio with Whole Tomato's VisualAssist installed is a dream
to
> > work
> > > > with.
> > >
> > > I agree completely. I now hope that VS.NET will support that for all
the
> > > languages that it will have. (Including the add on languages. Oh, to
> > program
> > > in Ada with this...)
> >
> > Arrrgh! ADA...<g>
> > I can remember when that was the "Next Big Thing" and I had to help come
> up
> > with a synopsis for a Community College wanting to offer an advanced
> course
> > in it. My first thought was that it made Modula II look downright terse
> and
> > functional. I got stuck porting to it once, as well. I still have
> > nightmares.
>
> When was Ada the next big thing?
> I agree that the syntax can use improving, but the ideas on the basis of
Ada
> are *very* good.
This is back in the late eighties when a Wirth-ish language was considered a
novelty. The ideas, I agree, are sound but the designers went through
aesthetic convultions and bloated it too much.
>
> > As for VS.NET, I really hate what MS is trying to do with their new OS
> > platform just for the inconvienience aspects as well as for the
potential
> > for bugs. I really hate having to suffer for losers bootlegging software
> and
> > I don't like ANY vendor having that much information. Once a product is
> > bought and paid for, I have no further use for the vendor outside of
> > technical support.
>
> I won't comment about the activision feature, mainly I agree with you. But
> bugs exists in any software, do you rather have a standstill? And what
open
> source platform is MS at?
Open source is something in the future for me. My paychecks come from
hacking the proprietary stuff. There are some ActiveX controls we'll GPL for
the Windows brethren eventually. This is more out of frustration over a
major control publisher (who shall remain nameless) and their utterly
horrible and monsterously expensive data-bound control library. (In the time
it took our "support person" to figure out how to compile a sample program
illustrating the major bugs we found, we had written our own replacements,
MFC-free, fully functional, and half the size to boot. We plan to name the
GPL'd library after this tech person as soon as we have time to finish the
data grid control.)
> > > I had used a VS-like interface for Ada, it's a nice clone, but it
> doesn't
> > > cut it *close* to VS abilities as an IDE.
> >
> > Hmmm, what was it called?
>
> ObjectAda, there is a free trial version.
I may just take a look at it for old time's sake. Thanks.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: XWindows loading on startup
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 00:50:56 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Mart van de
Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <WeYH6.2956$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "O'Banion"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I'm new to the whole linux world, and I installed XWindows and Gnome
>> during the initial install. I am running Debian 2.2. The problem that
>> I am having is that XWindows loads automatically on boot. I've been
>> trying to figure out how to keep it from loading, but haven't figured
>> it out. Can anybody point me in the right direction?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
> Ok, that's easy. It seems you installed a grapical login manager. Debian
> offers you 3 choices: xdm, kdm and gdm. Given that you say you installed
> Gnome, I'd guess it's gdm. Getting it out is easy: open a terminal
> window, or go to a virtual console (Ctrl-Alt-F1), login as root, or use
> su to become root, and type 'apt-get remove gdm'. Replace gdm as
> necessary with
> 1 of the others mentioned above (it might be xdm, as gdm is not
> installed
> by default). Be warned, you have posted to an advocay group, not a help
> group, you might have gotten flamed to a crisp :) Try linux.debian.user
> next time, I tend to hang out there as well, and the people are really
> friendly and helpful.
I don't think you want to do that, unless you're really short of disk
space.
The best option is to (as root) etic /etc/inittab and change the runlevel
to 3, instead of 5. The file is sually very well commented and it has a
good man page as well.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bengt Larsson)
Crossposted-To: comp.theory,comp.arch,comp.object
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:47:32 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In comp.arch, I wrote:
>In comp.arch, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>[on scalable network routing based on separating endpoint from
>'locator']
Oops, I came up with the same analogy that you did ;-) But that you
don't need much routing memory in the core routers if packets contain
a route seemed trivial. The critical part was the endpoint->route
lookup.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 17:49:37 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >I appologize again, I was in kind of a bad mood and I saw quite a few
> >responses from you that seemed quite closed minded. I suppose I should
have
> >put them in the context of who you were responding to. However, part of
> >what irked me was that you seemed to be painting all pro-windows people
in
> >the same light.
>
> Prepare to be irked. The only excuse for ignorance is ignorance.
Max, you don't inspire my irk, you inspire my pity.
> >I don't consider myself to be trolling either, though apparently to many,
> >simply arguing against Linux or for MS no matter what the circumstance is
> >trolling.
>
> Pretending to argue for MS; there is no argument "for" MS, save being
> victim of illegal activity which prevents free market competition from
> getting rid of crappy products.
>
> Terry was right, though, you are not a troll, Erik (though, yes, you
> look like one when you have 'bad days', just like I do.) You're just a
> sock puppet.
Sock Puppet is a term to describe fictional personalities. I am precisely
who I am. I use my real email, my real name, and I have been on usenet for
nearly 10 years (off and on). Now that Deja goes back to 1995, i'm sure you
can find some of my older posts if you desire.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Intel versus Sparc
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 22:55:10 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Tom Wilson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 02 May 2001 11:43:09
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Tom Wilson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 28 Apr 2001 15:48:27
> >> >"Eddie Dubourg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:9c6r2n$26p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> > > Please, do you have any more valuable opinions you would like to
> >share
> >> >> > > about Linux or UNIX? We'd all love to hear more deep thoughts
from
> >> >the
> >> >> > > "Enterprise Engineer" who doesn't know what a core dump is.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I'm quite sure James Doohan and LeVar Burton know nothing about
core
> >> >dumps
> >> >> > either.
> >> >>
> >> >> Unless its the warp core (dumped by 1701-D on many an occasion)
> >> >
> >> >Hmmm...And right you are!
> >> >
> >> >Seriously, what exactly IS an "Enterprise Engineer".
> >>
> >> "Enterprise systems" are what you get when you replace traditional
> >> corporate backbone technology (mostly mini-computer based) with Unix
> >> system or, if you're incredibly stupid, Microsoft systems. An
> >> application like SAP or PeopleSoft are called 'enterprise-wide', and
> >> thus an "enterprise engineer" is a technologist who is familiar with
> >> such systems.
> >
> >I'm familiar with the terminology, actually. I just find such terms
silly.
> >The "Sanitation Engineer" as opposed to garbage collector quality of it.
> >And, yes, I agree that applying a Microsoft Solution to a
mission-critical
> >backbone is "ill-advised" in most cases.
>
> That's the point; an enterprise engineer is not a fancy name for
> something, as alternatives to garbage collector might be. Not that any
> use of the term 'engineer' in combination with another word is entirely
> free from this kind of connotation.
As usual, we'll agree to disagree, eh?
I just find a lot of misplaced self-importance in this field. Particularly
in the Windows end of things. Gurus are few and far between - The rest of us
are just hacks who work for a living. (Could just be my cynicism...Who
knows...)
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Performance Measure, Linux versus windows
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 00:58:01 +0100
> The only amazing thing is that this IBM guy does not know the correct
> way of reading time ticks on a Pentium PC. In MS Visual C++ all you do
> is execute the following inline assembler:
Then that's not testing Windows2K versus Linux, is it? Besides, both 2K
and Linux are meat to be portable, but this would render the application
pregram very non portable.
-Ed
> // read the Pentium Time-Stamp Counter (RDTSC)
> __int64 nTickCountNow;
> __asm rdtsc
> __asm mov dword ptr[nTickCountNow] ,eax
> __asm mov dword ptr[nTickCountNow+4],edx
>
> .. and you have the result in the 64-bit integer nTickCountNow.
>
>
> Mikkel
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: OEM Windows licenses not transferable to charities
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 17:59:07 -0500
"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9coouq$op1
> >So you're saying that the mere concept of charging for something should
> make
> >it fit for any possible purpose the end-user might put it to?
> >
> >So, if you buy a Yugo, you should expect it to be able to haul rocks in a
> >quarry?
>
> No, there is a step in between. MS (and others - MS typifies this type of
> EULA, but they are not alone) says that even though you paid for the
> software, they don't guarentee that it is fit for anything. I think that
> standard consumer laws should apply to software.
The EULA also says "the the extent allowed by law". Which means that if you
aren't happy with your states laws concerning consumer protection, call your
lawmaker.
> I just think that if a company has charged money for some software, then
> they should accept a certain degree of responsibility and liability for
it.
Why accept liability if the law doesn't require you to? That's not good
business practice.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: My Favorite Linux APP!!
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 01:03:25 +0100
>> Have you found Linux software to be generally unstable Eric?
>
> Depends, really. I've found most window managers to be very unstable.
> There are a few that are quite good, but most are buggy at best.
Well, my fisrt distro was RH5.2 It had not one unstable windowmanager.
Most WMs shipping with major distros are very stable. Hell, FVWM (my
favourite) is up to version 2.x>0 now.
> Generally speaking (with a few exceptions, such as TeX), the more
> complex a piece of software is, the higher the incidence of bugs and
> instability. To my knowledge, TeX (not LaTeX) is the only piece of
> generally available non-trivial software that can claim to be bug-free.
> (Knuth fixed the last bug many years ago and has some kind of reward if
> you find a bug).
You get $2.56 for finding an error in the book and $163.84 for finding a
bug in the program.
> But in any event, the frequency of bugs is irrelevant to this
> conversation, which is that lots of Linux software sits behind 0.x
> version numbers for years.
And lots of Windows software pretends to be above 1.0, but isn't by any
stretch. Your point?
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Linux is a steaming pile
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 23:10:41 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Wed, 02 May 2001 00:33:27 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Linux is just a freaking pile of steaming crap!!!!!
OK...which makes Windows a liquid running brown stream of
diseased, disgusting digestive remains, I guess....at least Linux
holds its shit together.... :-)
>
>I spent 2 days trying to install some piece of garbage called Susa and
>despite finally getting the mutha installed, now I don't have a clue
>as to what I should do with it?
Look at it until it BSOD's? Have a lot of sandwiches and
drinks handy.... :-)
>
>It just sits there looking at me with a command prompt?
I take it you prefer pretty icons on the bottom or left side
of a gorgeous blue screen?
>
>The book says I have to read the How-To's, but is there a How-To on
>how to read the How-To's?
Try 'cd /usr/doc', then 'ls'.
That's an interesting point for the Compleat Novice, who doesn't
have a clue on tools such as 'less', 'zless', and even 'cd'.
Not sure if this is covered anywhere. Of course, one does have
the little problem of setting up the network prior to the
reading of the howtos, if one doesn't already have the desired
howtos on the disk (most Linux CDs have them, however).
>
>I tried typing in #"read How-To's" but it didn't work (minus quotes of
>course).
Nope, it wouldn't. Most likely, it'll change your prompt from $
to > (because the shell thinks "'s" is the start of a multiline string),
but that's about it. If you're lucky and type the following:
$ read How-To's
> '
at this point it will issue *no* prompt. Type in something:
bleah
sh: read: `How-tos
': not a valid identifier
$
Read is trying to read into a variable named "How-Tos\n"!
Of course, this is not a valid identifier. 'man read'
explains what read does, after scrolling down a bit
(it's a shell builtin, it turns out, designed to be used in
things like:
cat datafile | while read name date time
do
echo "Run started on `date` for name=$name date=$date time=$time"
program.exe $name $date $time
echo "Done."
done
A bit intimidating, mind you. But does one expect to properly
fly a high-speed jet fighter when first put in the cockpit?
At least read the manual; that's what it's for. :-)
>
>I can't believe that a program that takes 1.9 gig of space does
>nothing, but according to people I have talked to Linux really sux the
>big one, so who knows.
Um...Linux is not one freaking big 1.9 gig program. What you're
probably referring to is the totality of the kernel, all executables,
scripts, libraries, data, and other such stuff. It's *huge*.
However, it's more manageable than Windows, in some respects,
especially with tricks such as PATH and LD_LIBRARY_PATH.
>
>Thank god I ran a driveimage before installing this virus because the
>mutha destroyed my Win98 partitions and all my data. What a nasty SOB
>this Linux thing is.
Good for you. Of course, next time you might try using Partition
Magic, or backing up and repartitioning.
One nice use of Linux: defragging a Win95 hard drive. :-) Probably
would work well on Win98 and WinME, as well; might even work on
Windows NT if the "NTFS write" option in the kernel ever gets
properly debugged. (Assuming Microsoft doesn't do something
peculiar in Windows XP to make Linux-written NTFS volumes incompatible.)
>
>So anywhow, how the hell do I find these How-To things and where do I
>find one for AOL because that's me ISP of choice...
AOL? Good question. Personally, I'm not sure I'd touch AOL, but
I don't know if they do anything special underneath that deliciously
(disgustingly?) pretty connection management client of theirs.
Mind you, what's wrong with Earthlink?
>
>Spike
Hi Spike! Seen any plus-marked flounders lately? :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random alias here
EAC code #191 2d:16h:10m actually running Linux.
Linux. When Microsoft isn't enough anymore.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 19:13:40 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> Fair enough, but Windows 98 SE appears to be running at the same speed as
> icewm, but not KDE/GNOME, which indicates how far behind those two
> desktops are.
For me, disabling the KDE sound daemon (artsd) gave me a decent boost in
speed. For the desktop environments, you can just disable whichever
daemons you don't need, and maybe you'll get a boost here and there.
You don't have to use every feature of the desktop environments, which I
like.
====== 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2 May 2001 17:43:13 -0500
On Wed, 02 May 2001 22:12:45 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 30 Apr 2001
>>
>>This is where Linux should concentrate it efforts, but sadly the
>>people in charge are just too stupid to see the light.
>
>There are no people "in charge" of Linux, moron.
>
I don't think anyone could argue against the fact that Linus Torvalds
is "in charge" of the Linux kernel.
------------------------------
From: Greg Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 23:15:52 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Said Greg Cox in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 01 May 2001 22:40:26
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 25 Apr 2001
> >> >Actually, IBM offered three OSes originally: MS-DOS, CP/M,
> >> >and one other- I think it was Xenix or something like that.
> >
> >Actually, IBM sold IBM-DOS (basically the same as MS-DOS), CP/M-86, and
> >the UCSD P-System, but not Xenix.
> >
> >> Xenix was Microsoft's repackaging of SCO, so that would have been years
> >> later.
> >
> >As usual, Max, you've got it backwards. Microsoft developed Xenix in-
> >house with SCO as one of its biggest distributors. This was underway
> >when I joined Microsoft in late 1980 and predates the contract with IBM
> >for PC software. Later, Microsoft sold Xenix to SCO. I believe part of
> >the price got Microsoft a minority position in SCO.
>
> I didn't realize this had begun so early. Nor did I realize that the
> actual facts (Xenix is Microsoft's repackaging of SCO) could be so
> warped, even by those who believed all the MS press releases.
>
> >> >MS-DOS was the early favorite because it worked, it was cheap
> >> >in both money and memory, and most importantly, it was
> >> >available immediately.
> >>
> >> Mostly, it was cheap. In price; MS gave IBM a single fixed price for
> >> unlimited licenses; that's how they managed to get IBM to agree to
> >> include BASIC on every system, even if they didn't include MS-DOS on
> >> every system. The agreement obviously didn't last long, and was
> >> replaced within a few years by the standard cliff's-edge, per-processor
> >> licensing scam which most directly secured the illegal monopoly.
> >
> >Wrong again Max. IBM paid a royalty to Microsoft for each copy of IBM-
> >DOS sold. I believe it was somewhere in the $4 to $7 per copy range.
>
> Not initially, no. Initially, it was a bulk license costing a couple
> hundred thousand dollars, with the requirement that IBM would bundle
> MS-BASIC with every PC. This according to the biography GATES, which
> has a great wealth of details on this period. The per copy licensing
> must have come later, after BASIC was trashed. But DOS was licensed the
> same way, originally.
I don't know what you mean by "after BASIC was trashed" since ROM BASIC
was shipped in every IBM PC and IBM XT box. Or are you talking about
the MS-BASIC that shipped with every version of DOS?
I wouldn't be that surprised if IBM got a flat fee license for ROM BASIC
from Microsoft but I believe IBM always paid a (very low) royalty on
each copy of IBM-DOS sold. You have to realize that Bill Gates wanted
every contract for Microsoft products to be on some kind of royalty
basis and all contracts for products Microsoft bought (QDOS for example)
to be on a flat fee basis.
>
> >It was so cheap compared to what other OEMs paid for MS-DOS because IBM
> >participated in the development of IBM-DOS/MS-DOS from the beginning
> >through the development of OS/2 version 1.0.
>
> Such vague and obviously carefully neutral bullshit terms as
> "participated in development" lead me to believe that you are unaware of
> what really happened to begin with.
Well, since Microsoft's development on DOS 1.0 occurred in the office
across the hallway from my office I really do have a better idea than
you do how it happened. By "IBM participated in the development of IBM-
DOS/MS-DOS from the beginning through the development of OS/2 version
1.0" I mean that IBM developers worked on parts of all versions of DOS
and OS/2 1.0 while Microsoft developers worked on other parts with daily
communication between them to coordinate development. It was completely
a joint development effort.
>
> >> It's all the same story, I'm afraid. Microsoft has never been
> >> competitive, though some of their products might have accidentally had
> >> to compete at some point. Windows certainly wasn't one of them.
> >
> >Strike three. When IBM released the PC and until sometime after the IBM
> >AT was released, you had to buy the OS seperately.
>
> Because MS-BASIC was in the PROM, according to the information I have.
So what? The ROM BASIC was very limited and only used if you bought a
PC without floppy drives or a hard drive and loaded BASIC programs
through the built-in cassette tape port. As it turned out, virtually no
IBM PCs were ever purchased in this configuration.
> I don't see what this has to do with my comment, though. Are you saying
> having to select the cheapest from a list of three entirely unknown
> alternatives means that DOS "competed"? You're a pretty incredulous
> guy, you know that?
Yea, right. No one ever heard of CP/M before it was released for the
IBM PC. And if I remember correctly, the UCSD P-System had a magazine
devoted to it prior to 1981. Of the three OSs, IBM-DOS was the only
unknown one.
IBM releases a PC with no OS included, says "Here are three operating
systems for it that you can buy from us if you wish.", and you think
that's not competition? You really are a blind fanatic.
>
> >Well, Windows competed directly against OS/2, the Mac, Amiga, and GEM.
> >There are probably some others in there that I've forgotten about... It
> >wasn't until version 3.0 that Windows finially started to sell well.
>
> You don't seem to understand the use of the term "compete". Your
> ingenuous perspective aside, Windows never had to compete against any of
> these, because MS had a DOS monopoly to leverage, and did so without
> reservation, and only moderate restriction (since they knew it was
> illegal, they had to maintain plausible deniability).
You really don't have clue one, do you?
So when did this "DOS monopoly" start that magically prevented all the
other GUI based OSs of the day from competing with Windows 1.0 through
3.0?
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 01:16:28 +0100
>>You seemed very much of the opinion that homosexuals would try to
>>convert all other men to be homosexuals, simply because they are
>>homosexual.
>
> Wrong. Your illogic getting the better of you again. I merely
> pointed-out Chronos' false arguements and illogic. I never implied that
> "homosexuals would try to convert all other men to be homosexuals"
That's what you seemed to be saying. Before spouting about how I'm
illogical, mabey you should post a little more carefully.
>>You maid broad, sweeping and unkind statements about homosexuals. If I
>>misinterpreted, please correct me now because you didn't at the time.
>
> Unkind? Sorry Mr PC, the truth is not always "kind." No one is
> perfect, not even homosexuals.
I didn't claim they were.
> Your "correction" is below. Now remember, Mr PC, I'm not attacking
> homosexuals, I'm attacking his illogical arguements. For example, if
> you tell me that you don't recruit others, fine. But don't tell me that
> the
> "reason" you don't is because you didn't personally prefer to be "part
> of
> one of the most widely disliked minorities in today's society." BS!
You appear again to be assuming I'm homosexual simply because I'm
defending them against what appeared to me to be some unkind comments.
> Chronos Tachyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Y'know, it never ceases to amaze me the degree to which some people seem
>>to believe that gay people are trying to recruit others. Do they
>>think, given the choice, I would PREFER to be a part of one of the most
>>widely disliked minorities in today's society, much less drag more
>>people into it?
>
> Chronos claimed since gays are disliked, he wouldn't want to recruit
> people into that lifestyle, even though he's gay. This is clearly a
> false arguement.
It is not a false argument. the guy clearly has the moral sense to
realise that it is palin wrong to try to change a person in that way.
> If a person is gay, then "more gays" is good for that
> person,
> _period_.
And if a person is straight, then "more gays" is better for that person
because there is less competition, _period_.
> This is not bigoted. When a person (gay OR straight) is attracted to
> someone else and would like to have sex with them, they are obviously
> hopeful that the other person has reciprical feelings! They SURE as
> hell ain't gonna try to talk them out of it!
They wouldn't try to talk them out of it, but would you try to convert a
lesbian just for that purpose? Do you not consider that simply to be a
bad thing to do?
> Chronos then responded with more illogical gibber:
>
>>Hint: even if I did have some sort of "magic fairy dust" to make
>>arbitrary men turn gay, that doesn't mean that they would suddenly find
>>me attractive, much less a potential lifemate.
>
> SO what? A small chance is better than ZERO, is it not? If a person is
> gay, then "more gays" is good for that person, _period_.
If a person is straight, more gaye is better (less competition). However,
would you try to change someone like that just to suit yourself? Probably
not, so why do you assume homosexuals would? Just because they're
homosexual?
> Desparate, Chronos gets more ridiculous:
>
>>I suppose, in the same sense that rohypnol is a "good thing" for
>>straight
>> guys trying to pick up women in bars.
>
> At this point I basically cut off the discussion. How can I argue with
> someone who feels that drugging people to rape them is equivalent to
> "recruiting" them?
He's illustrating very well that trying to change someone for your own
ends is a fundamentally wrong thing to do. You would not do it, yet you
seem to thing he would simply because he's gay. Mabey he could have
argued the point better, but at l;east now you should get what he's on
about.
> And based on all this, you essentially call me racist, anti-semitic,
> and
I was making a point by taking an example of the ridiculous. If you can
not see that, then you need to get out more.
> any other dirty word your little politically-correct mind can think up.
> You, sir, are an a-hole.
You are the first person ever to accuse me of being politically correct.
I find that amsuing, but mildly insulting.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
