Linux-Advocacy Digest #394, Volume #28 Mon, 14 Aug 00 10:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Rock and a hard place. (mlw)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: news article (Ed Cogburn)
Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous Wintrolls
and Authentic Linvocates) ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Reinventing Mexican food... why should anyone be so silly?! (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Rock and a hard place.
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 08:01:23 -0400
I have been trying to use Windows 98SE as a media box. (I still use
Linux do do my important stuff.)
I figured, surely Windows would be fine enough if I just used it for one
thing at a time and only seldom.
OK, the Windows box has a 3dFX card, Hauppague TV, RadioTrack, DVD,
Crystal Sound card, DLink nic, 19" monitor, Astra Page Scanner, and
modem.
So far I've had to re-install Windows twice. I have had about 3 blue
screens at startup. All this in about a week and a half. I have all the
latest drivers, and the machine has a new hard disk. This is just the
way Windows is. I have successfully played two DVD movies on it, however
three others locked up the box requiring a reboot. IMHO this is not a
working machine.
The Linux advocacy: We need a LinDVD player. We need some good gnome/kde
tv programs, and I can live without the scanner. I would like the media
box to be linux, then I could depend on it.
Any ideas? I know xawtv, it is a bit crude. I have not seen any DVD
players (I know about all the DeCSS crap, so perhaps we will not see
such a player.)
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
I'm glad we disagree, it gives us a fantastic opportunity to be totally
honest.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 08:57:49 -0400
On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> I'm still fuzzy [...]
We know.
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 09:04:43 -0400
From: Ed Cogburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: news article
David Punsalan wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am a hobbyist Linux user. And although I enjoy using Linux, I often
> wonder about its longevity.
>
> I just read a news article about Linux that states that according to Bug
> Traq, Linux is "one of the worst OSs" in history. This is the url:
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/sections/tech/FredMoody/moody.html
>
> My question is this:
>
> Is this so-called "BugTraq" a good measure of an OS's quality? And if so
> - what does the Linux community have to say about this?
The difference is, with Linux, no one is trying to hide the known
problems. Would someone please tell David about the "Windows has
<insert-huge-number-here> 'defects' story"? I can't remember the
details of it anymore.
====== 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: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 13:15:05 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Shocktrooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:oaHl5.20620$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Mark Ritchie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:knowbodies-64B715.17223713082000@[192.168.1.1:119]...
> > > In article <4aEl5.20600$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > "Shocktrooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >"Jack Troughton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> > > >message
> > > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >eo
> > > >tron .net...
> > > >> >> There would be no need for "Datacenter Server" if the other
> > > >> >> products were reliable.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >There would be no need for Datacenter server if the other
> > > >> >products
> > > >> >supported 32 processor machines with 64gb of ram, instead of (up
> > > >> >to) 8 processors for Advanced Server and 8gb of ram. It has
> > > >> >nothing
> > > >> >to do with reliability, it has everything to do with hardware
> > > >> >scale.
> > > >>
> > > >> That's interesting, considering that IBM's entry in the PC-based
> > > >> server arena (Warp Server for eBusiness) scales up to those
> > > >> numbers
> > > >> and beyond... and it has been out for over a year.
> > > >>
> > > >> You mean that Datacenter has not yet caught up to an IBM product
> > > >> that is a year old? Yeah, way ahead of the curve, those MS guys...
> > > >
> > > >And of course this "warp server for eBusiness" also handles near
> > > >Unix
> > > >performance for 3D applications for CaD/CaM?
> > >
> > > Here's a hypothetical situation for you, shock boy:
> > >
> > > You're sitting down at the company's high volume web server playing
> > > Quake. The IT admin comes in and starts beating you.
> > >
> > > Why?
> > >
> > > Think about your answer carefully; your credibility is riding on this
> > > answer.
> >
> > If our IT admin can beat me in Quake.. then I am drunk.
> >
> > :-P
> >
> >
> > The point is: the reason why there are different versions of
> > Windows2000
> is that they have emphasis on different performance. If
> > "warp server for eBusiness" is a single solution OS.. then it better
> > have
> just as good performance in the area's that Win2K Pro and
> > Win2K server have.
> >
> > Win2K DC isn't there to be "more stable" than Win2K S or Pro.. it is
> > there
> as it is optimized and directed for different
> > applications.
>
> Once again Shocktrooper hits the nail on the head!
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/platform/overview/default.asp
>
>
I see. Win2K DC isn't more stable than Win2K Pro......
Now _that_ is a scary thought. Let's see. Gates says that Win2K Pro will
crash once a month. Let's even forget for a moment that he's being
optimisitic.
You're telling me that a user can expect Win2K DC to crash once a month
(or more since it's going to have a vastly heavier load)? And you're
happy with that?
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 10:49:02 -0300
"Colin R. Day" escribió:
>
> Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> > >
> > > I've never eaten anyone, I've never killed anyone over religion, and
> > > I've never tortured anyone for his or her beliefs. So how am I ethically
> > > equivalent?
> >
> > Ok. I see I failed to communicate. Let's define what actions are
> > ethical.
> > Actions are ethical when they agree with the actor's ethics. When they
> > agree with the actor's scale of values.
> >
>
> Wrong.
Ok. Why?
> > If you define what actions are ethical in a different way, then we are
> > talking about different things, and of course we will disagree.
> >
>
> But what you mean by ethics would make it trivial.
Ok. How do YOU define ethics? If your definition is better, I will
be happy to adopt it.
> > However, if you are, would you be so kind as to explain what definition
> > you are using?
> >
> > And, to follow your example: you say you have never eaten anyone, and
> > say you are morally superior to a cannibal for it. Why is it immoral to
> > eat a dead person?
>
> You said that I was ethically equivalent to a cannibal, I said that I
> had never eaten anyone. Whether cannibalism is correct or not,
> how do you get the equivalence?
So, you accept you are ethically equivalent to a cannibal, or not?
> > And since you ask what rational basis the judges of
> > Galileo had, what are yours?
> >
>
> > >
> > > Funny how the other ancient civilizations with slavery never
> > > had such philosophic achievements.
> >
> > Necessary != Sufficient.
> > Many other civilizations without inquisition didn't get there,
> > either.
> >
> > Fine wheather also had a great influence in the brilliance of
> > greek philosophy.
>
> How was the weather better in Greece?
Depends on what you are comparing with. Better than Norway? In many
ways. Think about it. If Greece didn't have a warm climate, and
slavery, what are the chances of finding a numerous group of
adult healthy men wandering around olive groves discussing nature
for days and years?
> > > > For a medieval, or renaissance, devote christian, the choice between
> > > > greek philosophy and the will of god was obvious, and there was
> > > > only one moral and ethical choice. Which we, of course, don't share,
> > > > but we are not them.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Nope, if they must blind themselves and others in order to maintain
> > > their faith, then they are evil.
> >
> > Who is "they"?
> >
>
> The inquisitors.
Ok. Now, you said "if they must blind themselves". You assume that the
inquisitors knew first that the acts of the inquisition would be wrong,
and then blinded themselves. That would indeed be evil. That is also
probably something that didn't happen.
If that had happened, I would agree it was unethical, because they
would KNOW they were doing something bad. We kinda agree here, really.
> > > > (any?) meaningful way, and that, yes, they were wrong, but
> > > > error is (IMHO) not a basis for censure.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Threatening someone with torture over an astronomical
> > > issue is more than an error.
> >
> > Torture was a standard legal investigation step almost
> > everywhere in Europe at the time. Threatening with
> > torture was done every time someone was accused of
> > anything, more or less.
> >
>
> As the alleged source of medieval/early Renaissance morality,
> the Church should have done a better job of restricting torture,
> not encouraging it.
Torture was not considered bad. Why restrict something not bad?
> > > > Being "right" in the way you are now would have been
> > > >
> > > > a) Unthinkable.
> > >
> > > No. The Venetians, for example, would never have tortured
> > > anyone over such a dispute. Galileo had lived in Venice,
> > > but didn't like his teaching duties there.
> >
> > Blah. Venetians tortured just as much as anyone else at the
> > time, AFAIK. Galileo may have had a better protector there,
> > however.
> >
>
> But would they have tortured over that issue? And if not, then
> it wasn't unthinkable..
I have no idea.
> > > > b) Immoral.
> > >
> > > Only by a flawed morality.
> >
> > Flawed compared to what? Our morality?
>
> Obviously, but also flawed to what the clergy could have
> achieved if they had viewed ideas as means of cognition
> rather than means of social control.
Hindsight is 20/20, I guess.
[snip]
> > > > d) Inconvenient (because they would go to hell!)
> > >
> > > Then the Church deserves censure for brainwashing.
> >
> > Sure. Are you sure they were not right? Based on what?
>
> Based on astronomical data, such as observations of the
> moons of Jupiter. The clergy who visited Galileo refused
> to sully their minds with such "profane" awareness of
> mere reality.
How does astronomical data prove you will not go to hell?
Or you meant brainwashing for something else?
> > > > Why censor them, then?
> > > >
> > > > The difference between martirdom and justice is often one
> > > > of perspective.
> > >
> > > One may as well say that about Auschwitz.
> >
> > Low blow. Do you want to start arguing the ethics of the
> > holocaust? It's a very complex subject.
> >
>
> What's the complexity? Millions of people were killed for very
> little reason.
Oh, the shallowness.
> > > I'm not saying that the Church is more guilty than Islam, I'm only
> > > saying that in terms of human life, the Crusades were more
> > > destructive than the persecution of Galileo.
> >
> > Ok. I agree with that. And much less destructive than WWI. What point
> > are you trying to make?
> >
>
> You said that the Church prosecuted Galileo to defend the faith, and I
> pointed out that one of the reasons for the Crusades was to defend
> holy places, and that the latter was far more destructive than the former.
Ok. So, what point are you trying to make?
> > > > > > That was a sin against GOD, who they believed would condemn them to
> > > > > > hell. They believed NOT burning the heretics was immoral!
> > > > >
> > > > > And what basis did they have for such beliefs?
> > > >
> > > > Beliefs often lack adequate rational basis. They wouldn't
> > > > be beliefs otherwise.
> > >
> > > Oh great, let's take people with no rational basis for their
> > > beliefs and give them weapons and political power.
> >
> > Well, we do that all the time. Take the second ammendment, for
> > instance. The US gives weapons (and political power) to just
> > about everyone, regardless of their beliefs.
>
> Perhaps I should have said a monopoly on bearing arms.
The church had hardly a monopoly on bearing arms!
> So the would-be victims get to fire back. This is a problem?
Weapons were extremely unregulated in the renaissance.
Anyone could own a cannon, if they could pay for it, AFAIK.
> > For instance: militias who believe the UN is out to get them,
> > and a variant of islam who believe the white race was created
> > by an evil mad scientist.
> >
> > Are you against the second ammendment? (I am ;-)
>
> No.
Ok, then. So your "Oh great, let's take people with no rational basis
for their beliefs and give them weapons and political power." was
kinda strange.
> > > > > > Galileo's trial, no matter how awful it seems from our porspective,
> > > > > > was really a honest mistake
> > > > >
> > > > > > A terrible one? Sure. But was the church
> > > > > > acting unethically? Probably not. Illegally? Surely not.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course not illegally, as secular governments generally
> > > > > went along with the church.
> > > >
> > > > Ok. Now, was it unethical? Keep in mind that most theories of ethics
> > > > require you consider only the coherence of the actions against
> > > > the value system of the person commiting the action.
> > >
> > > Yes. One is responsible for one's value system, and if one's
> > > value system demands such censorship, then such a
> > > system is wrong.
> >
> > Well, that's where we part.
>
> Then people may do whatever they want, as long as they
> value the results of such action?
Quoting you "judge and prepare to be judged"?
> > > Hitler's "value system" demanded the extermination of the Jews,
> > > and his actions were coherent with it. Should he be held blameless?
> >
> > At one point, a value system where the jews were human was replaced
> > by a value system where they were not. If you want to find the moral
> > blame, find who changed it and why.
>
> The Nazis, to some extent, although they exploited rather than created
> anti-Semitism. But the Nazis were the ones not only advocating mass
> extermination, but performing it.
Ok, then. They are morally guilty.
> > > > A murder can be ethical. That's why cops have guns.
> > >
> > > No. In that case it isn't murder, but only killing.
> >
> > What's the definition of murder? Sorry, I am reaching a limit
> > in my english.
> >
>
> In legal terms, murder is deliberate, premeditated, illegal killing.
>
> Government execution of criminals and acts of self-defense
> are not murder.
Ok, bad choice of words. "Killing can be ethical, that's why
cops have guns".
> > > > > > Who knows what of what we do today will make us monsters in the eyes
> > > > > > of the 25th century?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll take that chance.
> > > >
> > > > Ok, how about this: we may be destroying the world for the future
> > > > generations.
> > > > In a way, that's a genocide much larger than anything in the crusades or
> > > > whatever, since it may destroy ALL humanity, and no human moral system
> > > > that I know of considers that evn remotely ethical.
> > >
> > > We may be, and if we are, we deserve such censure.
> > >
> > > Unlikely to destroy all of humanity, but yes much more than the
> > > Church did.
> >
> > Then who are we to censure them, when they were comparatively
> > less evil?
>
> But we haven't destroyed the world yet. Our deserving of censure
> is conditional on that.
We have destroyed considerable chunks of it.
[snip]
> > > > It's useless
> > > > except to keep you comfortable. It's almost navel gazing.
> > > >
> > >
> > > And not making moral judgment is any less navel gazing?
> >
> > I make moral judgements all the time, they lead everything I do.
> > I even act against the people whose morality doesn't agree with
> > mine. I try to convince them that mine is superior, and
> > react to their actions when they go against my moral and ethics.
> >
> > However, I don't hate them for it.
> >
>
> And when Galileo tried to convince people that his astronomical
> theories were better?
Well, he failed in the short term, I'd say. However, notice that
I was writing about convincing on the superiority of a morality,
not of a astronomical theory.
> > If I had lived at the time, and I had my current set of beliefs,
> > I hope I could have convinced someone that their beliefs were
> > inferior, thus improving (in my view) their moral status.
> >
>
> But given the Church's alleged moral authority, should it not
> have done a better job promoting toleration?
That would be promoting something evil in their eyes. You can
not tolerate the proponents of something ungodly :-P (in
inquisitional terms, mind you).
> > > > And who are you to judge people you don't know, on facts you know
> > > > only through the haze of history 400 years later, who acted based
> > > > on a morality you don't share.
> > >
> > > I am a human being. Who are you to apologize for the Church?
> >
> > Who said I'm apologizing? They apologized themselves.
> >
> > > > That's, let's say, a tad messianic.
> > >
> > > As opposed to being militantly ignorant?
> >
> > I have not been called ignorant very often. What am I supposed to
> > ignore?
>
> You're not supposed to ignore centuries of censorship and torture.
I am not ignoring that. Why do you say I am?
> > Anyway, ignorance is no shame. The things I ignore are legion.
>
> But some of them are important, as well.
Sure.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 10:51:42 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >Actions are ethical when they agree with the actor's ethics. When they
> >agree with the actor's scale of values.
>
> I disagree. Actions are moral when they agree with the actor's values.
> They are ethical when the present no conflict to any other affected
> individual's values.
Ok, I kinda like that.
> >If you define what actions are ethical in a different way, then we are
> >talking about different things, and of course we will disagree.
>
> And your position will be shown to be cultural relativism, just as the
> alternative might be seen (by you, at least) as moral absolutism.
Indeed. The advantage of moral relativism is that we can accept the
existance of moral absolutism and integrate it into our systems ;-)
> Perhaps we're both mistaken. If all it takes to be ethical is that you
> be convinced you are acting ethically, then there are no ethics. Only
> opinions.
Well, if you expect something else, you believe in the existence of a
moral
canon independent of the individuals, which is a very extraneous
construct
with no rational basis, AFAIK.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous
Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 23:55:38 +1000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8n89ur$jpu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8n7vaa$f3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8n7tf6$7ls$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:8n7qma$3eb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <8n77s7$8kj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > >
> > > > >When I do run X as you have described, still less than 16Meg RAM +
a
> > > > >couple of Megs of swap is consumed.
> > > >
> > > > So the difference is by a margin of about 2MB. That is rather
small,
> > > > and EXPLORER.EXE does arguably offer more "switches, lights and
knobs"
> > > > than X + a typical wm does.
> > >
> > > Point of confusion:
> > >
> > > Are you suggesting that ( <16MB RAM + 2MB Swap ) == 40MB RAM,
give
> or
> > > take 2MB?
> >
> > What WM+X combo are you using to consume so little RAM ?
>
> FVWM and Xfree86 3.x.x, compiled with -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer
> options -m386. I compiled a few years ago when my primary workstation of
> the time which was a 386DX 16MB RAM machince.
Ah, so you're cheating ;).
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Reinventing Mexican food... why should anyone be so silly?!
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 08:46:16 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Another Lino-Nut Net-Cop....Don't you geeks ever tire of looking at
> headers..
>
> Are you planning on visiting me?
>
> You will be quite shocked if / when you do.... That's a clue......
>
> Maybe you should consider GETTING HEAD, instead of LOOKING at them,
> headers that is.
>
> Ooops... I forgot... You are geeks, nerds and misanthropes (you better
> look that one up [EMAIL PROTECTED]), sex is not an option.
>
> It's no secret I live on the North Shore of L.I right on the
> waterfront in a newly constructed home....I've said it before, are you
> jealous yet?
> Bet you live in a trailer park or rental house in San Fransisco....
>
> Yes the good life...Retired and set for life.
>
> Work?
>
> What is that?
>
> I USED to work, but now I just consult now and again......I do however
> have quite a few friends. Phisor (of PhisoDerm fame) in fact is one of
> my neighbors and I am right down the street from the FORMER IBM
> Cuntry, oops I meant Country Club...Too bad they had to sell it when
> Gerstner wanted to boost the stock.......
>
> Yes mjcr while you go and play with your TCP stack I am sipping pink
> drinks with umbrellas in them and relaxing by the pool all the time
> replying to you on my laptop and thanking God I am not like you....
>
> By the way nobody has figured out my riddle/joke that II have played
> on all you idiots over the last 1.5 years or so....
>
> I don't expect a second rate programmer like you mcjr to figure it out
> but maybe, just maybe someone of intelligence like mlw or jedi or
> Hallock will be able to figure it out. But not you mcjr, you are just
> not bright enough. A wannabe in the Linux land of wannabe's.
>
> So............................
>
> Keep your feet on the ground and reach for the stars. You never know
> when they might be singing to you.....
>
> Nanooo' Nanooooo'
>
> Claire.
>
Whatever your 'riddle' is I am quite sure that only you and your
multiple personalities have the slightest clue about it. And as far as
how intelligent you are? Hmm, not even worth bothering.
I am quite tired of listening to you wine about how none of us 'geeks'
have the ability to get laid, or have friends, or any other social or
relationship type of thing. It's pure bull. And I'm not quite sure
what your problem is, but I suggest that you take a pill, get some
therapy, or otherwise eradicate yourself. It would make usenet
(especially COLA) much, MUCH more enjoyable for the rest of us. Of
course, you wouldn't want that now would you? For some reason, the idea
of letting people enjoy themselves at all seems to be completely against
everything you hold dear.
Every time that you start to sound reasonable in one of your
personalities, you crank up the nuts in another one. Or you create
another one. Please, just leave it alone. If it really bothers you so
much that we have something to talk about (we as in us 'Linux people'),
then you are far more deeply disturbed than I thought. But if it is
really just that pathetic need to conquer that you seem to display on a
daily basis, then please, get help. It would be far easier for you than
spending the rest of your life droning on and on about how STUPID we all
are because we don't agree with you.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 08:50:20 -0500
Christopher Browne wrote:
>
> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Nathaniel Jay Lee would say:
> >Christopher Browne wrote:
> >> There was an interesting email on the kernel mailing list the other
> >> day concerning an extra filesystem "accidentally" slipping in during
> >> the 2.4 freeze that could lead one to believe that there's a fair
> >> bit of politicking... (The language was _quite_ profane, and one
> >> of the more dramatic harangues that I've ever read...)
> >
> >Then do you understand my concern? I know at times I come across like a
> >radical on this subject, but I'm really saying, "Don't let this happen
> >in the base system!" I personally don't give a rat's ass about Corel,
> >but if they somehow give enough other distributions, which somehow give
> >the base developers, the idea that they are 'kewl' and picking up steam
> >because of their 3l33tn35s, then I would assume a feature that would
> >overall be detrimental to the group effort could just 'slip in' and
> >eventually become *important*.
>
> Yes, I understand the concern.
>
> >Not to sound alarmist, but we should at least pay attention to the
> >*possibility* that it could be a problem. Always keep your eyes open
> >for what *may* happen. Cause if you ain't watchin', they'll 'slip'
> >something thru on you.
>
> In my "heart of hearts," I _think_ that the situation in question
> probably _was_ an accident. It just so happens that it is easy to
> come up with Evil Conspiracy Theories that would implicate that it was
> _not_ an accident.
Oh, I'm sure it was an accident. But saying accidents happen and
shrugging it off doesn't curtail the problem, or keep it from happening
again. I'm not looking for the 'cospiracy behind the problem'. I'm
just looking to make sure that everyone keeps their eyes open, and that
if we see a problem starting to shape up (even an accidental one) we all
say something about it. The general concensus seems to be to just shrug
and go on when we see a problem. If that happens enough, Corel's screwy
way of doing things could creep into the base system. I don't think
anyone would be happy with that.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
