Linux-Misc Digest #345, Volume #20 Tue, 25 May 99 17:13:09 EDT
Contents:
Re: RH 6.0 install with Adaptec 152x ??? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Fun things to do with an extra linux box (Gerritt Baer)
Re: A Capitalists view of freedom (Craig Dowell)
Re: A Capitalists view of freedom (Michael David Jones)
Aureal Vortex Sound Card not working ("Madhu")
Re: A Capitalists view of freedom (Ed Avis)
Re: How to make a crontab that will make an empty file (Robert Nichols)
remote-lp (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn?= Gerhart)
Re: Linux Winzip utility (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn?= Gerhart)
Bart or Lisa could keep the family running Linux (Gilles Pelletier)
Re: * * * Mindcraft offer to re-run Linux vs NT test (Philip Brown)
Re: RH 6.0 install with Adaptec 152x ??? (Walt Shekrota)
Re: Commercially speaking....? (brian moore)
Linux Winzip utility (Kevin Scott)
Re: how to kill a dead process? ("John Burton")
Re: SB PCI 128 under RH 6.0 (Alexandre Bustamante)
Re: Linux Winzip utility (John P Grimes)
Re: A Capitalists view of freedom (Michael David Jones)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: RH 6.0 install with Adaptec 152x ???
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 15:06:57 GMT
Last night I wrote:
> When the installer probes the SCSI card, it reports that the card
> cannot be found. When I switch to the console with logging output, I
> see that the insmod of /modules/aha152x.o has failed. When I open up
> a shell, I see that the module doesn't exist!
As an aside, I was able to install Debian 2.1 without any problems on
the machine. Without any scsi/module related problems that is. I
couldn't get a boot floppy to boot on the Dell, but loadlin from dos
did work ok. Then I skipped the boot disk only to discover LILO
didn't get installed in the MBR. Grrr... Time to grow a brain and
how to figure out how to configure loadlin to boot my install from 'doze.
I would still prefer to run RH 6.0, though...
-p.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gerritt Baer)
Subject: Fun things to do with an extra linux box
Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 18:23:18 GMT
Well, I've found myself with an extra PII/266, and can't find a real
use for the darn thing. I could install w95 on it to chain my pcs
together so I can play quake2 with myself, but I was hoping to do
something more useful/interesting with it. So i've installed SuSE 6.1
on it yesterday and I'm trying to think of some interesting/fun things
to do with the box. As, of now, it just sits there doing not much of
anything :) Anyone have any good ideas?
Gerritt Baer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Craig Dowell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: A Capitalists view of freedom
Date: 25 May 1999 18:51:15 GMT
>Yeah, tactical nuclear warheads and rocket-propelled grenades. Or were
>you thinking of something different?
I don't know what was meant, but I have to add my two cents whenever
people start proclaiming the omnipotence of the modern military.
>What do you plan to do when the tyrannical government you want to protect
>yourself from sends tanks to roll over you?
The idea is don't form a line of red coats standing out in a field with
shotguns waiting for the armored division to roll over you. Pick your
battles and keep at it. A rag-tag band of Vietnamese farmers did pretty
well against the mighty United States military. They just were a little
smarter than the people who think that wars should be fought as they were
in the eighteenth century.
>What will you do against an Apache helicopter?
There's a couple of things. Small arms fire air defense does work,
especially against slow-movers. Getting them on the ground is probably
the best bet -- sabotage.
>What will you do against an elite commando unit?
Nothing. The idea is to wait until they're a bunch of drunken grunts
screwing hookers and then quietly walk up and put a bullet in the back
of their heads.
>Any *sane* person knows they don't have a snowball's chance in hell.
History speaks otherwise. Perhaps all of those folks who fought against
huge odds were nutcases. They can and do win, though, if they are
more determined than their enemies.
>Then you don't think too well. An armed citizenry *cannot* withstand
>an organized army and anyone with more than a single functioning brain
>cell will tell you that.
Sorry, but they can and have.
>So instead of an armed citizenry, you must have a *dis*armed government.
That's a bad idea. What happens when the boys over across the river
notice you can't defend yourself. They come over and declare themselves
the government and you get to do the same thing.
I think the only answers are strong defense or *universal* disarmament.
Universal disarmament is unlikely.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael David Jones)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: A Capitalists view of freedom
Date: 25 May 1999 15:09:44 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Craig Dowell) writes:
>>Yeah, tactical nuclear warheads and rocket-propelled grenades. Or were
>>you thinking of something different?
>I don't know what was meant, but I have to add my two cents whenever
>people start proclaiming the omnipotence of the modern military.
>>What do you plan to do when the tyrannical government you want to protect
>>yourself from sends tanks to roll over you?
>The idea is don't form a line of red coats standing out in a field with
>shotguns waiting for the armored division to roll over you. Pick your
>battles and keep at it. A rag-tag band of Vietnamese farmers did pretty
>well against the mighty United States military. They just were a little
>smarter than the people who think that wars should be fought as they were
>in the eighteenth century.
Yeah, all they had were their wits and the Russian and Chinese
governments arming them.
>>What will you do against an Apache helicopter?
>There's a couple of things. Small arms fire air defense does work,
>especially against slow-movers. Getting them on the ground is probably
>the best bet -- sabotage.
>>What will you do against an elite commando unit?
>Nothing. The idea is to wait until they're a bunch of drunken grunts
>screwing hookers and then quietly walk up and put a bullet in the back
>of their heads.
Life's a lot simpler when you assume you're smarter than everybody
else.
>>Any *sane* person knows they don't have a snowball's chance in hell.
>History speaks otherwise. Perhaps all of those folks who fought against
>huge odds were nutcases. They can and do win, though, if they are
>more determined than their enemies.
Most of those folks who fought against huge odds are corpses.
Mike Jones | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm very good at integral and differential calculus,
I know the scientific names of beings animalculous;
In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a modern Major-General.
------------------------------
From: "Madhu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Aureal Vortex Sound Card not working
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 00:00:30 +0530
Hi,
My sound card brand is PCI-338 A3D. It uses the Aureal Vortex chipset.
OSS detected it as Aureal Vortex, but it says its not supported yet. I'm
really looking forward to using my Redhat 5.2 with the sound card installed.
My X and everything else is working perfectly well otherwise. Can somebody
please help me with this???
Thanks,
Madhu.
------------------------------
From: Ed Avis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: A Capitalists view of freedom
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 16:30:52 +0100
Marco Antoniotti wrote:
>You are not the lender. And an individual should be able to know what
>is known about him/herself. An information gathering agency,
>especially if private, should not have *any* right whatsoever to keep
>information about an individual, without allowing the individual the
>"right to know".
That's very much a matter of opinion. They aren't doing you any harm
- surely what they do, in private, behind closed doors is none of your
business.
It's a very short step from 'you shouldn't have *any* right to keep
information' to 'you shouldn't have *any* right to hold secret
meetings' or 'you shouldn't have *any* right to distribute damaging
information about a person'.
--
Ed Avis
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Nichols)
Subject: Re: How to make a crontab that will make an empty file
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 15:31:39 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, mike murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:
:I use Redhat 5.1 and want to login to my home machine at certain times
:only with mgetty. I would like to know how the command line would read
:in a crontab to:
:
: create the file /etc/nologin.ttyS0 at specific times and remove
:the file at the times that I wish to login.
:
:I do understand the time part, but do not know how to create the (new)
:file in the command line.
There are bunches of ways:
: >/etc/nologin.ttyS0 #favorite of efficiency freaks
touch /etc/nologin.ttyS0 #the standard way
cat /dev/null >/etc/nologin.ttyS0 #run a process that does nothing
cp /dev/null /etc/nologin.ttyS0 #a bit more work for the same result
It's times like this when I wish I were familiar enough with perl to come
up with a _really_ complex method.
--
Bob Nichols [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP public key 1024/9A9C7955
Key fingerprint = 2F E5 82 F8 5D 06 A2 59 20 65 44 68 87 EC A7 D7
------------------------------
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn?= Gerhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: remote-lp
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 21:06:51 +0200
Hello,
I have a small network running (1 server running Linux and 1 workstation
running Linux/WinNT). I set up a NIS-domain, and it works great.
I can print on the server directly, but when I try to print via the
workstation, there=B4s an error message:
your host does not have line printer access
although the workstation is "in" /etc/hosts.lpd and /etc/hosts.equiv
Any hints what could be wrong? Thanks in advance
Kind regards
Bjoern
-- =
Bjoern Gerhart e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
TFH-Berlin University of Applied Sciences
------------------------------
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn?= Gerhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Winzip utility
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 21:36:55 +0200
Hi Kevin,
> Is anyone aware of a utility for linux which understands ".zip" files?
If you run KDE there=B4s a utility called ark
It works fine :)
-- =
Bjoern Gerhart e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
TFH-Berlin University of Applied Sciences
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gilles Pelletier)
Subject: Bart or Lisa could keep the family running Linux
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 19:32:10 GMT
Gerald Willmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> écrivait/wrote:
>On Tue, 25 May 1999, Gilles Pelletier wrote:
>
>> I certainly realize this. No later than yesterday, I was telling a
>> friend that if you exclude Linux users who boot Windows by default,
>> there might be no more than 100,000 linux users left.
>
>and I'm one of them - how nice.
Indeed! And I'm glad to take your word for it: now I can say I know
one of those rare birds. Still 99,999 to find. That's a lot.
>You didn't try to convert him/her to linux
>with this argument, did you?
I figure I was talking to a convert. I'm just trying to keep the hype
down: Microsoft is much closer to offering a decent server than Linux
is to appealing to the everyday user. Comes Windows 2000, Linux might
end up being little more than a forlorn geeks' dream.
Do you really figure the average user will be amused having a
conversation about mount - umount - mtab - fstab - /mnt - /dev - etc.
just to read a CD, or that a graphical interface will solve all the
problems interfacing with Linux?
However zilch my contribution might be, did you take a few minutes to
read the interview with Eric Raymond, the "evangelist" of Cathedral
and Bizarre fame, who, just as M$ is facing the DoJ, contends that the
Linux community will be 750 million strong in five years and
encourages anarchic development to reach this goal? (Linux, as we know
it now, results mainly from efforts centered around Torvalds, Stallman
and the X Consortium. The outcome of Bob Young's feats remains to be
seen.)
So, how come you don't go after this moron instead? Isn't he much more
influencial than me? If I raised to say "Fear not! Forget your
concerns! In three days, even Chineses in the remotest confines of
Mongolia will use Linux." would you laud me as an even greater
prophet... well, at least for three days? Where's the rationale, Mr
"stanford.edu"?
>It seems as baseless a speculation to me as the subject promised.
Maybe you'd prefer to comment on your guru's figures? Where's your
Truth, your sound speculation? How do you figure Linux is doing?
What's the future of an OS with next to no users base? Oh! Your Boys
Scout association is throwing big installfests once or twice a year
with close to 100 participants! How many are still booting Linux after
a month? How does this feat compare with thousands of cheap internet
computers being sold everyday with only Windows installed, and every
member of the family striving to get its hands at it?
Hype might keep the morale up for a while and make people like me look
like doomsday prophets, but in the end, only the bare figures count.
For now, let's face it, Linux is loosing ground.
What is needed is good documentation and Linux's is definitively
rotten. Having to figure how to read a CD combining information from
man pages and HOWTOs is not the way to go. As I tried to explained in
"AutoInstall is for experts, not beginners!!!" (which finally turned
into a thread on Debian), an interactive course is: instructions in a
top Emacs window, the prompt in the bottom one, and there you go
mounting and unmounting your CD, adding users, changing permissions,
etc.
No doubt, this project wouldn't turn Homer Simpson into a hacker, but
maybe Bart or Lisa could keep the family running Linux.
GP
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Philip Brown)
Subject: Re: * * * Mindcraft offer to re-run Linux vs NT test
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 25 May 1999 19:41:48 GMT
On 25 May 1999 03:33:04 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On 24 May 1999 23:42:15 GMT,
> Philip Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> I would like to figure out WHY microemacs isn't included in any of the
>> distributions?!! It's great!
>> (jove is better, but uemacs would be good :-)
>
>Because the microEmacs license forbids it to the point that it is a
>license violation even to put it on a $2 CD from CheapBytes. (It's one
>of those evil 'anti-commercial' licenses.)
>
>I've vainly tried to discuss the matter with Dan Lawrence, microEmacs'
>maintainer, and he's adamant about how the 'evil' GPL is somehow
>depriving programmers of money.
Hmm. Okay, but debian could still distribute it without GPL.
Guess I'll send him an email.
--
[Trim the no-bots from my address to reply to me by email!]
[ Do NOT email-CC me on posts. Pick one or the other.]
--------------------------------------------------
The word of the day is sescaquintillion
------------------------------
From: Walt Shekrota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: RH 6.0 install with Adaptec 152x ???
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 15:34:25 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Last night I wrote:
>
> > When the installer probes the SCSI card, it reports that the card
> > cannot be found. When I switch to the console with logging output, I
> > see that the insmod of /modules/aha152x.o has failed. When I open up
> > a shell, I see that the module doesn't exist!
>
> As an aside, I was able to install Debian 2.1 without any problems on
> the machine. Without any scsi/module related problems that is. I
> couldn't get a boot floppy to boot on the Dell, but loadlin from dos
> did work ok. Then I skipped the boot disk only to discover LILO
> didn't get installed in the MBR. Grrr... Time to grow a brain and
> how to figure out how to configure loadlin to boot my install from 'doze.
>
> I would still prefer to run RH 6.0, though...
>
> -p.
I use this same configuration successfully!. The 1522 card got probed and
module was there. Perhaps part of your install failed look for messages in
the logfile.
Why would you loadlin from Doze :)
-Walt
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (brian moore)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,linux.help,linux.news.groups,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Commercially speaking....?
Date: 25 May 1999 20:14:59 GMT
On 25 May 1999 17:41:50 GMT,
Erik Olson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy brian moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Erik Olson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy brian moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> Now this is a nightmare scenario I hope never happens to any company, but
> >> >> the utter disreguard the GPL has for the commercial sector and their
> >> >> priorities will let this sort of thing happen. Freedom for the user my
> >> >> @$$, what about my freedom for my company to make a profit?
> >>
> >> > Why should you have freedom to profit from the works of others?
> >>
> >> That was my point, the GPL will allow the above nightmare scenario.
>
> > No it won't.
>
> Yes, it has, the xxgdb HP product shows that my above nightmare scenario
> did happen.
Um, Erik: xxgdb is not an HP product.
It's an example of a gdb wrapper that does much of what you claim HP's
product does. DDD is another one.
I would like to see an announcement of this HP debugger, though. HP has
its own debugger that isn't based on gdb at all (and in fact, they have
donated PA-RISC specific code to gdb), so it seems odd that they would
write a mere wrapper for gdb when they have their own tools.
> >> If you GPL your code you have just given me the right to hijack it.
> >> And hijack it, for profit as in the example of HP selling a debugger
> >> that is based on gdb. HP is not doing anything wrong, they just
> >> put a Motif front end which is closed source on top of gdb.
>
> > ala xxgdb? Who would want such a thing?
>
> That is not the point, HP sells it, it is proprietary, it is based on gdb,
> and gdb is GPL.
It isn't based on gdb at all.
> Now this has confused me, making system calls to the Linux kernel by non
> open source commercial programs should be illegal, or at least my
> interpretation of the GPL makes me think so. But apparently it is not.
> I don't understand. Can you explain why?
Why would it be?
> If indeed this is a special case, then this is just a tiny tear in the GPL
> which IMO is about to become a huge hole when big business challenges and
> relentlessly thrashes the GPL in court.
It's not a special case at all.
> Well, Stallman had his "use GPL for libraries, not LGPL" rant and it got me
> thinking, something seemed really unconstitutional about restricting
> usage of dynamic linkage of libraries. I've been at companies that have
> tried to patent their API's so that other companies couldn't legally clone
> their library or chip. As sleazy as it was and as hard as they tried I don't
> think they could. The GPL doesn't forbid someone from cloning a library that
> has the same API, harmony, ... So the actual existence of the clone seems
> like a technicality and irrelevant to me.
Of course not. It legally can't do such a thing even if it was desired.
> I'm not saying the GPL should be disobey'd and I'm NOT saying the GPL is bad
> or worthless, I'm just saying if it is of utmost importance to you, like the
> financial well being of your business depends on the GPL holding up in court,
> then you are a fool and you deserve to fail. For non critical uses, which
> is the case for most users, the GPL is fine.
If the financial well being of any company depends upon whether their
license is enforcable, then they're in the wrong business. That is true
whether you're talking the GPL or Microsoft's EULA.
> > Um, since when has sendmail been GPL'd?
>
> Sorry about that, I thought it was, I was wrong.
Indeed.
> > Hint: there is a HUGE difference between a GUI wrapper (such as xxgdb
> > and its role with gdb) and integration into one program (such as what
> > sendmail.com sells).
>
> Really? Other than a couple layers of OS and command parsing, please tell
> me what is this huge difference? And don't go saying speed or pointer
> manipulation or some rubish like that. Functionally a wrapper can be made
> to behave like a library. Imagine a futuristic OS and the speed and pointer
> issues go away. Don't some companies sell commercial perl scripts?
> And isn't there a perl or some other scripting language compiler?
A wrapper can not behave like a library.
It has nothing to do with speed, but everything to do with program
design. Regardless of how I invoke, say, xxgdb, it can't behave as
libc. If it did, it wouldn't be a wrapper, but a library.
And, yep, there is some commercial Perl. So what? The 'perl' program
is available under GPL, but that doesn't mean all works that use it are.
Can Craftsman come and demand a share of every building on the planet
because they used Craftsman tools to build them? There is nothing in
the GPL that requires all programs compiled with gcc or run with perl to
use any sort of license at all.
> From my point of view the whole LGPL vs libraries under GPL issue is blurred.
> It's not going to hold up in court.
And precisely what are your legal qualifications?
Considering your take on things is so blurry that you argue that
sendmail is somehow GPL'd, I would seriously question your ability to
reach any sort of sensible conclusion on what licenses mean.
> > I gather you've never done serious programming or
> > you'd understand the distinction.
>
> I gather a kiddie as yourself ought to show a little more respect to an old
> fart like me who has likely been programming since before you were even born!
> Take that flame baby.
Really? I've been using Unix since 1978. (Ah, the good old days of
Evans Hall at UCB with the excitingly named 'unixa' through 'unixe'
PDP-11's.)
And you?
--
Brian Moore | "The Zen nature of a spammer resembles
Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker | a cockroach, except that the cockroach
Usenet Vandal | is higher up on the evolutionary chain."
Netscum, Bane of Elves. Peter Olson, Delphi Postmaster
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 19:30:07 +0000
From: Kevin Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux Winzip utility
Is anyone aware of a utility for linux which understands ".zip" files?
It would be awfully convienent if I could unzip files created by Winzip
(in WinX environment of course) in linux.
Thanks in advance,
Kevin
------------------------------
From: "John Burton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: how to kill a dead process?
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 21:02:38 +0100
It's state is "D" (uninterruptable sleep) so kill isn't going to have any
effect on it
so there probably isn't any way to kill it.
26725 isn't all that high. My unix system reach that fairly quickly.
Steve wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>IMHO, 26725 is an extremely large PID. How come?
>
>Marc Mutz wrote:
>>
>> Sam Steingold wrote:
>> >
>> > how do I get rid of this process:
>> >
>> > USER PID %CPU %MEM VSZ RSS TTY STAT START TIME COMMAND
>> > sds 26725 0.0 1.3 4808 3532 pts/2 D 12:54 0:00
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/egcs-2.91.66/cc1 /tmp/ccgcQxbp.i -
>> >
>> > (except by rebooting the machine, of course).
>> >
>> > Thanks.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Sam Steingold (http://www.goems.com/~sds) running RedHat6.0 GNU/Linux
>> > Micros**t is not the answer. Micros**t is a question, and the answer
is Linux,
>> > (http://www.linux.org) the choice of the GNU (http://www.gnu.org)
generation.
>> > Daddy, why doesn't this magnet pick up this floppy disk?
>> in 'top' hit k(ill) and use KILL for the signal (normally it's TERM,
>> which only asks the process more or less kindly to terminate itself....)
>> Or on the command line you could type `kill -9 <pid>`, i.e. 'kill -9
>> 26725'
>>
>> Marc
------------------------------
From: Alexandre Bustamante <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,linux.redhat.install,linux.redhat.misc
Subject: Re: SB PCI 128 under RH 6.0
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 22:20:16 +0200
Anonym wrote:
> Jay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
> 7hm5gb$4sr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > How do I get SoundBlaster PCI 128 card to work under RedHat 6.0?
> >
> >
>
> I use my SB PCI 128 under Red Hat 5.2, sndconf has automatical find the Card
>
> (sorry for my bad english)
>
> cu
Normally the sound config properties should detect it.
Run from term sndconfig, and normally it will detect an Audio PCI card and
automatically configure it.
------------------------------
From: John P Grimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Winzip utility
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 19:50:04 GMT
Kevin,
Do you mean
unzip ?
Kevin Scott wrote:
> Is anyone aware of a utility for linux which understands ".zip" files?
> It would be awfully convienent if I could unzip files created by Winzip
> (in WinX environment of course) in linux.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Kevin
--
***************************************************************************
* The good ended happily, and the bad unhappily. That is what *
* Fiction means. *
* - Oscar Wilde *
***************************************************************************
John Grimes - Physics Grad Student at U of Chicago
Home [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5400 S. Ingleside Ave Apt #3 (773)363-4869
Physics [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lab for Astrophysics-Office#207 702-0162
http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/jpgrimes/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael David Jones)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: A Capitalists view of freedom
Date: 25 May 1999 16:00:41 -0400
Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Michael David Jones wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Craig Dowell) writes:
>> >>Yeah, tactical nuclear warheads and rocket-propelled grenades. Or were
>> >>you thinking of something different?
>> >I don't know what was meant, but I have to add my two cents whenever
>> >people start proclaiming the omnipotence of the modern military.
>>
>> >>What do you plan to do when the tyrannical government you want to protect
>> >>yourself from sends tanks to roll over you?
>> >The idea is don't form a line of red coats standing out in a field with
>> >shotguns waiting for the armored division to roll over you. Pick your
>> >battles and keep at it. A rag-tag band of Vietnamese farmers did pretty
>> >well against the mighty United States military. They just were a little
>> >smarter than the people who think that wars should be fought as they were
>> >in the eighteenth century.
>>
>> Yeah, all they had were their wits and the Russian and Chinese
>> governments arming them.
>>
>> >>What will you do against an Apache helicopter?
>> >There's a couple of things. Small arms fire air defense does work,
>> >especially against slow-movers. Getting them on the ground is probably
>> >the best bet -- sabotage.
>>
>> >>What will you do against an elite commando unit?
>> >Nothing. The idea is to wait until they're a bunch of drunken grunts
>> >screwing hookers and then quietly walk up and put a bullet in the back
>> >of their heads.
>>
>> Life's a lot simpler when you assume you're smarter than everybody
>> else.
>>
>> >>Any *sane* person knows they don't have a snowball's chance in hell.
>> >History speaks otherwise. Perhaps all of those folks who fought against
>> >huge odds were nutcases. They can and do win, though, if they are
>> >more determined than their enemies.
>>
>> Most of those folks who fought against huge odds are corpses.
>>
>> Mike Jones | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> I'm very good at integral and differential calculus,
>> I know the scientific names of beings animalculous;
>> In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
>> I am the very model of a modern Major-General.
>Mike,
> It's pretty amazing that you tell of how a small band of armed men
>can't win against bigger force, but your signature tells different!
You have a remarkably low threshhold for amazement.
>You have a QUOTE from "The Pirates of Penzanze". In that show didn't
>the Pirates, a small band of armed men, defeat the Cops, a bigger force
>and better backed????
Bigger, yes. Better backed? Hardly. Less well trained, less well
armed, not terribly inclined to fight in the first place.
>Yes, it is a musical, but one would think that your views are reflected
>by what you sign your responses with!
I generally hope that one would think clearly enough to separate light
entertainment from serious argument, but perhaps not.
Mike Jones | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
One of the problems I've always had with propaganda pamphlets is that
they're real boring to look at. They're just badly designed. People
from the left often are very well-intended, but they never had time to
take basic design classes, you know?
- Art Spiegelman
------------------------------
** 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 (and comp.os.linux.misc) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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-Misc Digest
******************************
