Linux-Advocacy Digest #338, Volume #27 Sun, 25 Jun 00 21:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling
Too Harsh (Bob Hauck)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling
Too Harsh
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling
Too Harsh
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling
Too Harsh
Re: Comparing Windows NT and UNIX System Management ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling
Too Harsh (Loren Petrich)
LILO problems -- Any suggestions? (Tom)
Re: Comparing Windows NT and UNIX System Management ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server (Bob Hauck)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh (Loren Petrich)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Loren Petrich)
Re: Something wrong with linux :-( (Arthur Frain)
Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Lost Cause Theater!!! ("xxx")
Re: Do not like Windows but ... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 00:03:32 GMT
On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 17:22:59 GMT, MK
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Well, it just so happens that I lived and worked precisely that way --
>and worse, bc I worked illegal.
So, to summarize, you don't think a government ought to provide any
services for it's own citizens because it does not provide them for
illegals. You believe that legal residents and citizens of a country
are beneficiaries of an immoral government granted monopoly of
employment, housing, and other social opportunities.
An interesting, if self-serving, theory. I think it is simpler than
that though.
I think illegal immigrants are discriminted against simply on the basis
of their being in the country illegally, thereby breaking the law. I
am sure you have some argument based on Public Choice Economics to show
why immigration laws are immoral, but frankly I don't care.
As a legal citizen of my country I have my own self-interest to protect
you know.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.bobh.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 00:02:58 GMT
On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 17:15:50 GMT, MK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 22:17:56 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>>>>Yes, if there are other products using monopoly force to demand
>>>>bundling with outher products whether it is wanted or not, of
>>>>course they should be prosecuted.
>>>
>>>This argument can't stand the skeptical examination -- if enough
>>>people wanted to buy unbundled products, the market for
>>>them would certainly be created.
>
>> This is once again quite circular argumentation as
>> people have to be able to deal with the current
>> network effects present in the marketplace.
>
>This once again is circular argument about network effects -- network
>effects are there bc you claim that network effects are there. Economists
>working on network effects _deny_ there were network effects here.
Will I have to buy a copy of MSWord to successfully share a
copy of their work with them?
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 00:05:37 GMT
On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 17:22:53 GMT, MK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 22:20:35 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>>>>>Don't be silly. You are the one who wishes to use the armed agents
>>>>>of the federal government to interfere in a voluntary consensual
>>>>>contract.
>>>
>>>>The "voluntary, consensual" contracts have already been discussed. We
>>>> do not believe that they are substantially more voluntary and consensual
>>>> than anal rape at gun point.
>>>
>>>That's sheer lunacy to compare rape to things like "per-processor"
>>>license.
>>
>> It rather makes sense actually.
>
>It makes no sense -- rape is infringement on negative rights, the license
>is _granting_ positive rights.
Both situations amount to: do what we want or else.
>
>
>> Either you struggle and risk getting the suffing knocked out
>> of you or KILLED or else people such as yourself would most
>> certainly not take any subsequent accustations seriously.
>
>You're either insane or you pretend to be. Either way, you're not
>making serious arguments, only playing games of poetic flights
>of imagination.
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 00:07:28 GMT
On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 17:23:20 GMT, MK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 22:27:39 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
[deletia]
>> As far as technology and economics go: any system so dependent on
>> one entity that it's destruction would case a total collapse of that
>> system needs to be seriously revised.
>
>They thought in similar ways in 1913, too.
Technology is not quite as dynamic as some armchair economists think.
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 00:09:44 GMT
On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 17:23:18 GMT, MK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 25 Jun 2000 01:14:48 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>
>> Mr. MK seems to think that tax money goes into some black hole
>>somewhere. But soldiers and cops have to be paid somehow. Not to mention
>>government-bond holders, pensioners, road builders, and the like.
>
>Petrich twists the subject to fit the predetermined thesis, conveniently
>ignoring that taxes for national defense are only necessary for
>technical, not moral reasons -- I simply see no way of organizing
The same can be said of any expenditure that seeks to minimize
the total spending of a state to deal with problems of internal
security. There are prison wardens that would contradict your
position on social spending based on this.
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 00:10:30 GMT
On 25 Jun 2000 19:28:55 GMT, Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>MK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 22:25:00 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>>> ...and what about prisons and police?
>>> Are the construction and maintenance of those "theft
>>> practiced by hypocrites" as well?
>
>>No, but there is no other way whatsoever to organize them -- at least for
>>now. They're not services per se. They are much like national defense. Those
>>aren't products like education or housing.
>
> ROTFL. MK hasn't heard of guards and mercenaries, it would seem.
...or the privatization of prison adminsistration either...
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Comparing Windows NT and UNIX System Management
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 20:17:33 -0400
Cihl wrote:
> Tim Palmer wrote:
> >
> > http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/bin/nts/ntsysman.exe
>
> What's the point of this? It's a dead link.
But he spelled it correctly! This could be the start of something!
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 26 Jun 2000 00:19:17 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bob Hauck <bobh{at}haucks{dot}org> wrote:
>On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 17:22:59 GMT, MK
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Well, it just so happens that I lived and worked precisely that way --
>>and worse, bc I worked illegal.
>So, to summarize, you don't think a government ought to provide any
>services for it's own citizens because it does not provide them for
>illegals. You believe that legal residents and citizens of a country
>are beneficiaries of an immoral government granted monopoly of
>employment, housing, and other social opportunities.
That's a great one! Evidently, MK has the sense of entitlement of
a gate-crasher.
Furthermore, he seems to suffer from negative envy, like the
Russian peasant whose great wish was for a neighboring peasant's goat to
die. I picture him as a squatter who does not have any goats, but who is
surrounded by people with goats, and who wishes that all those poor
beasts were dead.
>I think illegal immigrants are discriminted against simply on the basis
>of their being in the country illegally, thereby breaking the law. I
>am sure you have some argument based on Public Choice Economics to show
>why immigration laws are immoral, but frankly I don't care.
And I find it curious that MK had not bragged of having gotten
fake papers, so he can have the appearance of being legally resident.
That would entitle him to all that he had claimed to have done without.
>As a legal citizen of my country I have my own self-interest to protect
>you know.
I agree.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: Tom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: LILO problems -- Any suggestions?
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 00:08:46 GMT
I have recently wasted a weekend trying to grapple with a problem
caused by:
1. Microsoft WindowsNT and a multi-os environment. I'll never do this
again. Fucking pain in the ass.
2. LILO (RedHat installer).
3. A bad hard drive.
Disk #1 is on SCSI ID 0. On that disk, I had installed WindowsNT 4.0 /
SP6. Disk #2 is on SCSI ID 1 (on channel B). There I had installed
Linux (RedHat 6.1). I **SWEAR** the RedHat installer DID NOT ASK ME if
I wanted LILO installed. I really didn't want it installed. But it's
there....
LILO, of course, appears to be installed on disk #1 (SCSI 0).
However, disk #2 is going bad. I first noticed it when in WindowsNT
with it failing to write to the master file table on the drive.
On reboot, the bios sometimes could not see disk #2. When this would
happen, and when disk #1 would attempt to boot, LILO would load part
way and then freeze. It literally would print to the screen:
LI
and then I could not boot either LInux (drive is unavailable, of
course) nor NT since I couldn't tell LILO to continue with the default
disk and partition, even though that disk (SCSI 0, if you recall) is
okay.
How does one get around this? I know, I know, I know: format /mbr or
uninstall LILO with dd if=/boot/boot.0300 (or whatever) when I am in
Linux. Problem: Can't run an OS to do that!! I'm forced to reinstall an
OS on another partition on another drive, even though my boot drive is
fine. When drive #2 DOES appear on the SCSI chain (yes, it's flaky), I
can't boot Linux. Kernel pannic trying to read past end of device...
If I were to succeed in installing LInux yet again on another drive, it
would backup the master boot record, but that backup would be the
*current* MBR -- not the one I want (archived to my existing but
damaged install on disk #2).
Most of my headaches this weekend were caused by trying to get
WindowsNT to boot, and then trying to get Windows2000 to run, and then
trying to reboot into my original environment. I'm not complaining
about RedHat Linux (except that I didn't like LILO being installed).
I'm complaining mostly about LILO. It seems to me that if LILO needs to
read from another hard disk drive other than the one it is installed
on, and that drive is bad or has been removed, you're completely fucked.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Comparing Windows NT and UNIX System Management
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 00:07:33 GMT
Reboot, reinstall, reformat. Can I have my MCSE now?
Ooops, I forgot refute...
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 00:20:06 GMT
On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 19:02:01 GMT, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I tried the following on Linux:
>
>while (1) fork();
The previous poster did qualify with "limits properly set". Try
"ulimit -u 32" first and see what happens. On this machine (a P-120
laptop with 48 MB), the fork program causes the system to slow down a
bit but I can easily get in to kill it with "killall".
Ulimit sets limits for all processes started from the shell where
ulimit was invoked. Limits can be set for all login shells via
login scripts. Or on most Linux distros you can use the limit
mechanism provided by PAM by making changes in /etc/pam.d/* and
/etc/security/limits.conf and have the limits apply to things like ftp
as well.
No, this isn't often set up by default. I think it is much less
harmful than not having file permissions set by default as NT does.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.bobh.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 26 Jun 2000 00:21:41 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Technology is not quite as dynamic as some armchair economists think.
I agree. Some designs have stayed remarkably stable.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 26 Jun 2000 00:24:05 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 25 Jun 2000 19:50:13 GMT, Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>* Starting some competition may be expensive, and it may not recoup its
>>investment if that price-gouger changes its tune.
> A small town might not have enough market to support more than
> one supermarket. There are small towns in the states where this
> is the case and quality suffers, I think, as a result.
In effect, the natural-monopoly problem.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Something wrong with linux :-(
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 16:19:59 -0700
Tim Palmer wrote:
> This just serv's as prove that Lie-nux isn't reddy for priam time.
Priam went out of business a number of years
ago, probably before Linux was even created.
They did make some nice hard drives, though.
Just thought you'd like to know.
Arthur
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS?
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 00:20:12 GMT
In article <zcB45.261874$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"KLH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[deletia]
> I guess I am asking, do you really think GNU/Linux is a great OS
Yes.
> or do you
> think there is enough room for improvement for work on a new, largely
> incompatible, OS be worthwhile?
Sure, why not? Where do you think UNIX came from? Or even WinNT?
> And if you are in the opinion of the latter,
> how would you build such an OS? What programming language would you
prefer
> it be built on? What other technologies would you want it to use?
Whatever you want. As long as its non-proprietary. And incorporates
and supports international industry standards. I'm tired of all that
proprietary bullshit whose only purpose is to lock me into a single
vendor. Like MS NGWS, MS C#, MS J++, MS VB, MS C++, MS-Kerberos, or
MS-fscking-anything.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "xxx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.admin.networking,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Lost Cause Theater!!!
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 19:37:53 -0700
Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> xxx wrote:
> >
> > Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:OlJ45.57180$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> >
> > > Give me a break. Do you guys have meetings and get together and
> > > say prayers to Linus every night? What is it with you guys and
> > > propaganda?
> >
> > So what? Freaks do this kinda crap daily (and lots of every fucking
sunday
> > mornings) to illusions like god, jesus, alah and similar shit. It's all
the
> > same propaganda principle.
> >
> > At least Linus exists - and created something real.
> >
> > Myself
>
> I wouldn't crosspost this message too much, if i were you. You just
> managed to insult about 2/3 of the world population with 3 lines of
> text. (Doesn't include me, but it's worrying nonetheless)
Damn it! I was hoping for more like 15/16 or such... Gotta improve my
record! :-)
Perhaps, then, the muslims will put a price on my head... I would write a
book w/ some bad poetry and get rich.
I'm sincerely much more worried about being OT. Much greater a sin, I think.
Cheers,
Myself
> --
> ¨I live!¨
> ¨I hunger!¨
> ¨Run, coward!¨
> -- The Sinistar
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Do not like Windows but ...
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 00:48:49 GMT
Oh good. I'm glad you posted this.
I just bought a new modem for this PC. I had an old slow EISA 33.6K
that really made surfing the web a huge pain in the ass. So I got a new
V.90 56k PCI this very afternoon. I unbuttoned the box, did the
surgery, and decided that since I got a Windoze install CD with the new
modem I'd try to install it under Windoze first.
To make a long story short, after loading the Windoze software (and the
mandatory six reboots) Internet Explorer and MS Outlook are now toast.
Sure, the dialer works, but Explorer and Outlook have no clue about how
to connect to the circuit opened by the dialer. All I get from Explorer
is some inane message about an internal error. I've reloaded the modem
CD and IE, and its still broke. I pissed away over two hours trying to
get it to work.
On the other hand, my modem manual had a two-page "how to install under
Linux" insert. I had to type three commands, edit one file, and it all
works perfectly. Took me five minutes, and no reboots. And everything
is exactly like it was before, except faster. Mail, browser, etc all
still work.
So tomorrow I get to look forward to re-installing Windoze again. For
probably the sixth time this year. While Linux hums merrily along. If
it weren't for just a couple of games, I'd junk the Windoze disk off
this box.
Linux is harder? Bullshit. Heaping, steaming, bletcherous wet soddy
mounds of bullshit. I may hate Windoze, but Windoze hates me worse.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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.advocacy) 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-Advocacy Digest
******************************
