Linux-Advocacy Digest #216, Volume #29 Tue, 19 Sep 00 20:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Unix rules in Redmond ("Drestin Black")
Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge (Richard)
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years (Steve Mading)
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years (Steve Mading)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform (IE for Linux) (Steve Mading)
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) (WickedDyno)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (WickedDyno)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (WickedDyno)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Steve Mading)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 23:12:17 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
jabali <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When IBM tried
> to produce a non-clonable prodcut - PS2 (sic) - they lost out and
> virtually had to get out of the PC market.
The PS/2 was not unclonable, and IBM did not get out of the PC market.
IBM offered to license the MCA, but their lawyers convinced them to
require terms that noone in his right mind would accept unless he was
the new boy on the block. Specifically, in order to get a license for
the MCA you had to agree to pay IBM a hefty fee for prior use of the
ISA.
BTW, there was at least one clone of the ABIOS for the PS/2. But, as I
said, if you had been selling clones of the old PC, PC/XT or PC/AT then
the license terms for the MCA were prohibitive.
--
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
"A BIND is a terrible thing to waste"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: 19 Sep 2000 18:24:15 -0500
Great - a totally unsubstantiated rumor spread by Cringley - and people
actually replied?
ANYONE who has been to the Redmond campus KNOWS that 99% of this is entirely
untrue. The only unix running there is NOT running the infrastructure. I
challenge anyone to prove otherwise. Hows that "Hotmail runs 99% on BSD"
stand up today? MSN on apache/solaris? hahahaha
This is pathetic - how low does cringley have to go to prove he's a MS
hater.
"petilon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8pu3pp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/00/08/28/000828opcringe_cto.xml
>
> Excerpts:
>
> Unix in Redmond
>
> I was going to avoid writing about Microsoft this week, but how could I
> resist sharing these tidbits from ex-Microsofties? These former Microsoft
> employees have written in to set the record straight about what's really
> going on behind the scenes at a few of the software giant's subsidiaries.
>
> When Microsoft acquired Linkexchange (now bCentral), company officials
> tried to get rid of Oracle databases in favor of the company's own SQL
> Server.
>
> "Some of the best folks from Redmond came down to make the change, but
> after two or three months they gave up and switched back to Oracle on
> Solaris, where it remains today," this reader wrote.
>
> Another former bCentral employee says Microsoft mentions Linux in its
> help-wanted ads for bCentral just to lure unsuspecting enthusiasts to
> come work there. The OSes in place were primarily FreeBSD, BSD/OS, and
> Solaris. That is, until Microsoft tried to migrate more of the systems
> to Windows NT and 2000.
>
> According to this source, Microsoft had to quadruple the number of
> servers when it moved to its own operating systems.
>
> For the most part, according to our ex-Microsoftie, the company's money-
> making Web properties are all based around Unix, with Hotmail 99 being
> 99 percent FreeBSD, MSN using some Apache on Solaris, bCentral ad servers
> on 100 percent FreeBSD, and WebTV pretty much entirely Solaris.
>
> "Internally when Windows 2000 was announced, people were told not to
> even think about using it for production because it was too unstable,"
> says this ex-Microsoftie.
>
> So much for mature software written by professionals. It seems that,
> internally, Microsoft prefers the stuff "written by college kids in their
> basements."
>
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 23:26:48 GMT
Brian Langenberger wrote:
> If one ignores all the current file naming conventions, there are
> two problems at need to be solved:
>
> 1) The system needs to know what programs can act upon a given file.
But this is wrong. You aren't doing typing, you're doing type CHECKING!
The system most emphatically does *not* need to know what can act on
what. The system only needs to know what the user *wants* to act on
what.
If the user wants to give garbage input to a program, why the fuck do
you
want to stop him? And people still claim programmers aren't on power
trips?? Sheesh! (And if the only reason you don't want your program to
run on random input is because it will cause it to crash and expose it
as
bug-ridden ...)
I've said it before and I'm saying it again; you have had your brain
fried
by C/C++.
>2) The user would like to organize his files in a logical way.
>
> My assertion is that adding extensions to the names of files is
> not the best solution to either problem, though it is the simplest
> and will likely remain in use for some time.
>
> In the case of the first problem - what a file actually contains -
> the system has little need for an extra tag to tell it what it can
> already figure out quite easily.
Correct. But irrelevant and antisocial.
> By simply examining the actual
> file contents it can tell what sort of file it is and what can
> open it. That makes the tag redundant and obsolete for file typing.
>
> In the case of the second problem - keeping our files organized -
> a mere tag doesn't go as far as it could. For example, if I have
> a bunch of vacation pictures I'm not really interested as to
> whether they're saved as PNGs or JPEGs; I just want to be able
> to sort out my files by "vacation" and "picture" and get the
> list of them. The conventional method is to stick them in
> directories. But if I also have movies, do I use:
>
> .../vacation/pictures/...
> .../vacation/movies/...
>
>or:
>
> .../pictures/vacation/...
> .../movies/vacation/...
You use both if you want. But sorry, not in Unix because Unix
doesn't have multiple logical containment. Another fuckup in
the design.
> or do I append -photo and -movie tags to the ends of my files
> and stow them in a single directory?
>
> What I'd like is some many-to-many metadata on my files to
> sort them better and make organizing them easier. A list
> of the files and tags might look like:
>
> beach1 [JPEG] picture,vacation
> sunset1 [PNG] picture,vacation
> party1 [MPEG] movie,vacation
>
> So that with the metadata in place, I might only have to:
>
> % tar cvfz #vacation# | uuencode | mail
>
> in order to send them out.
>
> Anyway, the point of all this is that there are better ways
> to store file information than merely appending letters
> to the ends of them. We should look for better solutions
> to these sorts of problems. But in truth, I doubt we'll see
> the file extensions vanishing anytime soon.
Typing information is a unique kind of metadata, vastly
different from any other kind of metadata. For one thing,
types are likely to be reused again and again, and they have
to be portable across components in a machine and even
across machines. Directories are not so portable.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 23:23:20 GMT
In article <HTOx5.1724$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Yannick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now consider someone working with his computer for interactive tasks
> (wordprocessing, drawing, multimedia, etc...). What the job is about
is
> communicating with the machine, so one of the major quality
requirements
> will be a rich user interface. I personnally prefer (for interactive
tasks)
> software that has a rich interface (for instance Windows apps using
the GUI
> intensively) to software that I can run for three days without a
crash,
There are several problems with that. First, for an end user, a major
part of quality is being able to figure out how to do his job. If the
help data are useless nad the hardcopy manuals are a joke, then it
doesn't matter how pretty or rich the interface is. Not that I agree
that the m$ interface is either; it isn't.
Another problem is that a crash often loses the user's data, and even
when it doesn't it disrupts his train of thought. I doubt that you would
get a user looking at the BSOD to agree that it is quality.
--
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
"A BIND is a terrible thing to waste"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years
Date: 19 Sep 2000 23:25:49 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Rich C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Every window has a title bar with buttons to minimize, close, etc, right?
: How about adding a button to pull up the task list? Then you wouldn't need a
: task bar or access to the bare desktop to find your icons.
This idea pre-dates Kde and Enlightenment, et all. I was doing something
like this back in the days of using fvwm, heck, I've even seen it in twm.
(Except that the menu isn't tied to the window frame, it's something you
get by clicking in the background root window. I forgot which of the
three cardinal buttons you used to bring it up.)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 23:30:25 GMT
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> And the reason that most stores carried primarily MS based systems
> is because that's where the demand was.
Not quite; the reason that most stores sold machines bundled with
windows was that microsoft used predatory tactics. Specifically, if they
wanted a discount then they had to agree to pay a license fee per
machine shipped, even if the customer didn't want windows on that
machine. That's hardly news; it was publicized in the prior antitrust
suit, and Ann Bingamon let them off the hook with a nearly toothless
consent decree that wasn't enforced.
--
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
"A BIND is a terrible thing to waste"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years
Date: 19 Sep 2000 23:30:12 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
: In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Steve Mading
: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 15 Sep 2000 23:32:09 GMT:
:>
:>Irrelevant, since Windows copied the start menu idea from X windows'
:>root menu in the first place, and it copied the taskbar idea from
:>the iconbox available with so many X window managers.
:>
: Uh...pedant point, X doesn't *have* a root menu; that's
: a function of the window manager the user is currently running.
: The X Windows System proper might have an example window manager
: (I'd have to look), but doesn't require it for operation, although
: from the user's point of view it might look very crippled
: as windows would not be movable under user control.
True, but I have yet to encounter an X window manager that
*didn't* have such a menu. Technically, X windows can't
resize windows either without a window manager, but I wouldn't
go around saying "X can't resize windows". The window manager
is sort of assumed to be included when you say "X windows"
(note I didn't say "X server".)
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform (IE for Linux)
Date: 19 Sep 2000 23:35:07 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Steve Mading wrote:
:> Linux can do Java just fine, as evidenced by the Blackdown
:> port of the jdk. It's just that *Netscape* can't figure out
:> how to make a working Java engine on Linux.
: Java's just not that important to AOL. Although Case and McNealy et.
: al. banded together against a common enemy (Microsoft) they would just
: as soon cut each other's throats.
The bad Java on Linux Netscape problems predate the AOL
purchase of Netscape. It's been screwed up for quite
a while now.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 23:35:34 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
jabali <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You are mixing up hardware with software. All operating system
software are
> proprietary (excepting Linux of course) - single source product.
Not true. Originally most operating systems were free, and came with the
source code.
> Moreover, if
> you have a copy of a software and can use it successfully, it is not
that big a
> problem if the company disappears. Well, you won't get any more
updates - but
> you can get an equivalent software from another source more or less at
the same
> price as an upgrade. For hardware it is different. If a single source
hardware
> company disappears, you are left with a problem of compatibility.
Replacing
> software wholesale is much cheaper than hardware.
You've got it backwards; most companies have a far larger investment in
their data, especially in their programs, than they do in their
hardware. Moving to new software can be extremely expensive.
--
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
"A BIND is a terrible thing to waste"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 19:51:55 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Joseph T. Adams" wrote:
> >
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote in part:
> >
> > : The Earth is a system of balances. If one thing gets out of whack,
> > : 10 other things compensate to restore the balance.
> >
> > This is true of market economies also.
> >
> > The problem is that it can take a really long time (from our
> > perspective at least) for the damage to be corrected.
> >
> > : This has been happening over billions of years. Many more catastrophic
> > : things have happened to the ecosystem that Humans could ever cook up
> > : and the ecosystem restored itself in a geological second. The amount
> > : of data we, as humans, have collected scientifically over the past
> > : 1-200 years is nothing. It's not even a nano-second in geological
> > : terms. To conclude or attempt to draw anything from these statistics
> > : is meaningless and absurd to say the least.
> >
> > We've collected substantial evidence of the earth's geological
> > history.
> >
> > The catastrophes of earlier geological ages did not destroy the earth,
> > nor will our activities, but they *did* change the climate in ways
> > that would have been horribly destructive to human civilization had it
> > existed at the time. The fear is that our far smaller, but still
> > potentially significant, activities might similarly cause destruction
> > to human (and other) habitats in the relatively near future.
> >
> > I'm not convinced that it will. I'm convinced that it might, though,
> > and that the chance that it might is sufficient reason for us to
> > continue to study and to evaluate our activities to make sure that we
> > aren't creating any potentially avoidable problems.
> >
> > : Dinosaur populations excreted more methane and CO/2 than humans
> > : could ever hope to generate.
> >
> > Yep. But most of the sites of today's cities were under water then.
> > Later, most of today's lakes and straits and mountains were under
> > thousands of feet of ice. Neither of those outcomes would be
> > particularly desirable today.
> >
> > : It's rather arrogant and self-important
> > : to think that humans are so powerful that we could permanently change
> > : or destroy the ecosystem and have it stay permanently dead.
> >
> > I don't think anyone is alleging that we could permanently destroy the
> > Earth. Only that our activities, if continued unchecked, could alter
> > climate substantially enough, and for long enough, to have a
> > detrimental impact on human and other habitats.
> >
> > : We will
> > : kill ourselves with war or accidentally releasing a deadly virus
> > : into the world before we'll ever hope to destroy this planet.
> >
> > Very possible. We've come damn close, more than once. Closer than
> > most people are willing to believe.
> >
> > : Granted, we shouldn't try, I agree we need to control ourselves
> >
> > That's all I'm saying. It's all that responsible environmentalists
> > are saying too. (There are a lot of very *irresponsible* folks
> > pretending to be environmentalists that are saying a lot more.
> > Mostly, those are folks with political agendas, usually of a leftist
> > variety, who *use* well-meaning but naive environmental activists to
> > promote that agenda.)
> >
> > , but
> > : this world has been through huge floods, all sorts of geological
> > : disasters (giant earthquakes, massive volcanoes spewing millions of
> > : tons of CO/2, methane, and all other sorts of noxious gasses into
> > : the atmosphere) and look where we are today, paradise.
> >
> > We have an environment that is in many respects better than it ever
> > has been (more free from infectious disease, for example).
> >
> > The challenge is keeping it that way.
> >
> > And in spite of the progress we've made, there still are serious
> > problems such as air pollution in large cities, both air and water
> > pollution behind the former Iron Curtain, rapid deforestation in
> > certain areas (mostly South America and Latin America), and, to be
> > blunt, unsustainable development in certain parts of the world where
> > there simply is not enough guaranteed fresh water to sustain life.
> > (The wealthy oil states of the Middle East, and the urban areas of the
> > southwestern U.S., are prime examples of this).
> >
> > Preventable diseases still kill tens of millions in the poorest
> > countries. Wars and famines caused mostly by statist political
> > ideologies claim many more.
> >
> > We're doing better than we did in the past in many ways, but there is
> > still much work left to be done.
> >
> > As a libertarian I hope it can be done the way it should be, namely,
> > by voluntary cooperation and consent.
> >
> > But it does need to be done.
> >
> > I don't know if global warming is something we can control, or should
> > attempt to. But I certainly would like to know. And I certainly
> > suggest caution in the meantime.
> >
> > : We're do for
> > : another ice age here in about 25-50,000 years or so, we're probably
> > : just seeing the cycle repeat itself and seeing the ecosystem building
> > : up and building up for the next ice age when it'll all start over
> > : again and the same thing will happen 100,000 years after that like
> > : it's done for the past several million years.
> >
> > Probably.
> >
> > But in the meantime I'd like those who will come after me to be able
> > to enjoy the same, or better, environmental AND economic conditions
> > that we have today.
> >
> > To ensure this, we must avoid both extremes. We must not destroy
> > people's livelihoods in a vain attempt to meet arbitrary or
> > unrealistic goals that might not be necessary or even worthwhile. At
> > the same time, we must not ignore the mounting evidence that warming
> > *is* occurring, that human activities *may* be contributing to it, and
> > that the costs for dealing with it *will* be staggering.
> >
> > : Humanity is not even a blink of an eye in the Earth's history and
> > : it's not about to be destroyed by us.
> >
> > Unlike some of my more left-leaning peers, I'm not concerned about the
> > destruction of Earth, so much as I am about the destruction of human
> > (and other) life on it.
> >
> > Joe
>
> Paging Chicken Little
> Paging Chicken Little
>
> The Sky is Falling!
If someone tells me the sky is falling, I at least look up.
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
------------------------------
From: WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 19:55:16 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> WickedDyno wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > WickedDyno wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Jason Bowen wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > > > Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > >Jason Bowen wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Bob Germer wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > On 09/18/2000 at 05:54 AM,
> > > > > > >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > See your showing your bias. Have I mentioned the ozone
> > > > > > >> > > hole
> > > > > > >> > > once? You
> > > > > > >> > > mentioned Copernicus being persecuted and yet you'd do
> > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > >> > > same
> > > > > > >> > > for
> > > > > > >> > > people looking for answers as to what is happening with
> > > > > > >> > > out
> > > > > > >> > > world
> > > > > > >> > > today.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > Ah, but Copernicus PROVED his theory by verifiable,
> > > > > > >> > repeatable
> > > > > > >> > measurements which eliminated all other possibilities.
> > > > > > >> > Einstein's
> > > > > > >> > theories
> > > > > > >> > have been proven by repeatable experiments which preclude
> > > > > > >> > any
> > > > > > >> > alternate
> > > > > > >> > possibilities.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > But until the econuts PROVE their theories about CFC's,
> > > > > > >> > they
> > > > > > >> > are
> > > > > > >> > junk
> > > > > > >> > scientists and not to be trusted. And until the theories
> > > > > > >> > are
> > > > > > >> > PROVEN, I
> > > > > > >> > refuse to sanction actions based thereupon.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Oh man this is rich. So unitl it is verifiable you will
> > > > > > >> call it
> > > > > > >> a
> > > > > > >> lie and not support looking
> > > > > > >> into it? You would've been right their lynching Copernicus.
> > > > > > >> What
> > > > > > >> an asshole.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >What is the concentration of CFC's in the upper atmosphere, oh
> > > > > > >ignorant
> > > > > > >freshman.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Last reading I saw was 3.6ppb billion, already referenced it.
> > > > > > Plantlife
> > > > >
> > > > > In other words...negligible.
> > > >
> > > > Because you say so?
> > >
> > > 3.6 ppb = 0.00036 %
> > >
> > > Please explain how a 0.00036% concentration of CFC's is going to
> > > wipe out a >1% concentration of O3
> >
> > It's a catalyst. Catalysts can be present in very small quantities and
> > still have an appreciable effect on the rate of a reaction.
> >
> > Argument from personal incredulity just plain doesn't work.
>
> Aactually, we know that 03 levels drop significantly in the absence
> of sunlight.
Irrelevant.
> We ALSO know that CFC are extremely heavy molecules that really
> don't make it into the upper atmosphere.
Wasn't the 3.6ppb the concentration IN the upper atmosphere? So we know
they ARE there.
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
------------------------------
From: WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 19:58:29 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> WickedDyno wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > WickedDyno wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bob, that sort of logic reminds me of the gun nut's arguments,
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > know, the
> > > > > > fact that the US has a very high % of houshold firearm
> > > > > > ownership ,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > it also has an extremely high death by firearm rate, but that
> > > > > > these
> > > > > > two
> > > > > > statistics are not realted!!!!
> > > > >
> > > > > Switzerland and Isreal have even higher rates of firearm
> > > > > ownership.
> > > > > Not only that..but FULLY AUTOMATIC RIFLES* and yet, BOTH have
> > > > > lower
> > > > > rates of death by firearms.
> > > >
> > > > Both also require military service and so have a much larger number
> > > > of
> > > > people who are highly trained in gun usage and safety.
> > >
> > > Which should, by your argument, RAISE criminality, as they all
> > > criminals know how to shoot straight.
> >
> > Umm, whose argument?
> >
> > It would definitely reduce the number of accidental gun deaths.
> >
> > > > (FWIW, I wouldn't feel unsafe living in such a society, despite the
> > > > number of guns around. I do feel unsafe living in a society that
> > > > has
> > > > fewer guns but even fewer trained, disciplined gun owners.)
> > >
> > > So...bring back the draft.
> >
> > That brings other problems, at least in our society.
> >
> > > > > Britain recently outlawed handguns. Murder rates have tripled
> > > > > since.
> > > > > Australia outlawed ALL firearms. Murder rates have quintupled.
> > > > >
> > > > > So...quite obviously, the correlation between gun ownership and
> > > > > murder is tenous at best.
> > > >
> > > > Except of course that the issue is correlation between gun
> > > > ownership
> > > > and
> > > > gun-related deaths.
> >
> > You don't have an answer for that, do you?
>
> There is no correlation between gun ownership and murder rates.
Did you read what I wrote? Do you deny there is a correlation between
gun ownershi and gun-related deaths? (Which includes accidentals,
suicides, etc.)
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: 19 Sep 2000 23:54:22 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: On 18 Sep 2000 23:55:47 GMT, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>finding out that I have to use a scsi emulation driver. Find
:>out that this means recompiling the kernel - do that, then
:
: Game over troll.
:
: You've just amply demonstrated that you don't know what the
: HELL you are talking about and simply like to regurgiate the
: bad FUD of others.
Sorry, I forgot that you assume any time someone says something
less than stellar about Linux that they are lying. I should
have remembered that. I forgot that you have ESP and know everything.
Sorry about that. (Hint, I wasn't using redhat, so it doesn't
matter that you didn't have to recompile on redhat, that has no
bearing on the kernel I got installed by default. *My* kernel
had "no" for the "scsi emulation?" question, where the answer
can be yes, module, or no, so yes I had to make a new kernel.)
I am very glad you are not typical of most Linux advocates. I just
hope you haven't scared off too many potential newbies with your
typical tones. You aren't helping.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
