Linux-Advocacy Digest #243, Volume #31 Thu, 4 Jan 01 18:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Why Hatred? (J Sloan)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Big government and big business: why not fear both - www.ezboard.com (.)
Re: Linux can be made unstable, too. (David Steinberg)
Re: Why Hatred? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Almost 60% Surveyed Plan To Install Windows 2000 ("The Phantom Poster
\(bwahahaha\)")
Re: Why Hatred? (Pete Goodwin)
Archie Bunker argument (was Re: Could only...) (Stephen King)
Re: Why Hatred? (J Sloan)
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code (Form@C)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: 4 Jan 2001 20:15:39 GMT
On Tue, 26 Dec 2000 14:19:00 -0700, John W. Stevens wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>>
>And if I ever indicated, in any fashion, that I viewed this as a
>decisive win for George . . . I apologize.
OK
>> Whatever.
>
>And here *YOU* seem to be ignoring, dissing, or simply side stepping
>"rule of law" . . . which was exactly what I was complaining about.
You've snipped the context, so I can't comment. Maybe I misinterpreted
what I was responding to here.
>> >Denying alternate parties a political voice would be reprehensible. They
>> >have as much right to campaign and lobby as the major parties do.
>>
>> If you really cared about the right of smaller parties to campaign, you would
>> advocate an instant runoff system,
>
>In a single statement, you switch from "campaigning", to elections.
>
>Try again.
I see -- so the poster was trying to say that they have the right to
"campaign and lobby" as long as they do not participate in elections ?
Well I don't think they'd sabotage the system if they didn't compete in
elections (-;
>> I'm talking about instant runoffs. I still don't believe that third parties
>> should sabotage elections. And I don't believe in a two-party duopoly.
>
>Third parties *don't* sabotage elections.
They do -- they siphon of votes from the major parties, so that it's possible
for a party that doesn't have majority support to win the election. For
example, if there was one party with 40% of the support, and two similar
parties one with 35% of the support, and one with 20%, the one with 40%
would win, though 55% of the population absolutely loathe them.
The problem is that the naive throw-your-vote-away system doesn't work
very well when more than two parties are running. Instant runoffs
http://www.fairvote.org/irv/index.html are
designed to be robust enough to behave fairly even when third parties
are involved. In an instant runoff system, the third party can participate
or not without changing the outcome, which seems fair to me -- I don't
think the third party running should impact how the major parties do
relative to each other.
A major problem with this is that it makes it very hard for third parties
to obtain any momentum, because voters move away from them over "wasted
vote" concerns, which led to various "vote swapping" scams among other
things. The wasted vote issue is created by a poorly designed electoral
system that breaks when third parties are added to the game.
>You may not believe in the two party system, but it has it's merits, not
>the least of which is that most of the time, the winning candidate has
>the support of the majority of the people.
Quite often, they don't especially if third party candidates run.
With an instant runoff system, (again, http://www.fairvote.org/irv/index.html)
you *CANNOT* win without an *absolute
majority* (that means strcitly more than 50%) of the vote. IOW, an instant
runoff system is better at ensuring the winning candidate has more than
50% of the votes than the current system.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 20:22:04 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> So, in one case, Microsoft are doing the right thing. In another, the wrong
> thing. So what the hell should I believe? The Linux zealots all baying for
> Microsoft's blood and portraying it as a company one shade less of Nazism
> or a drug dealer, or one that has been caught and ought to change its ways,
> but is not as bad as they make it out to be?
For any good moves they make, I applaud them.
For the harm they have done to the industry, they
need to be regulated.
As for your inflammatory and malicious mention of
"linux zealots all baying for microsoft's blood", look
around - most microsoft haters don't even use Linux.
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: 4 Jan 2001 20:32:52 GMT
On Tue, 26 Dec 2000 14:09:06 -0700, John W. Stevens wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>> On technicalities.
>
>No. There were no techincalities involved. Florida was a dead tie, and
>the only clearly correct and legal procedure was for the Florida
>legislature to choose the electors. Do you have any doubt at all, that
>those electors would have been promised to George?
No, I don't. But my point is that when you have a dead tie, the result
boils down to the fine print.
>But, if we grant for a moment (as an arguing point) that George won on
>technicalities, then the same point holds true for Al: he would have won
>on technicalities.
Fair enough.
>That said: why characterize this election as having been decided based
>on "technicalities", when *ALL* elections, everywhere, are *ALWAYS*
>decided on the basis of technicalities?
No, it's usually pretty clear who won and doesn't boil down to fine
print. For example, a candidate with 52% or more of the popular vote
will almost always win (bar very uneven voting patterns or heavily rigged
electoral boundaries) in any reasonable system.
>I've never understood this disdain for following the rules that
>complaints about "technicalities" indicate.
I don't have a problem with "following the rules". The election would be
won on technicalities whether or not the rules are followed.
>> That's if you're prepared to accept the machine's definition.
>
>Since no standard *except* the machine standards had been established
>before the election, then what other choice was there?
I'm just pointing out that you're using circular logic.
>The Republicans were not trying to supress recounts . . . they were
>trying to supress *illegal* recounts.
Whether or not the recounts were illegal was a matter for the courts
to decide, and judging by what the courts said, they were not black
and white cases.
The republicans were pushing for an interpretation of the law that
favoured them, the Dems were pushing for an interpretation that
favoured the dems. I don't find this surprising.
>Which point the Supreme court pretty much agreed with. It simply isn't
Not unanimously.
>reasonable, or fair, to make the rules up as you go along. The
I don't see where the democrats or reps "made up rules". It's the legislature
that "makes rules". And the courts interpret them. When there are
disagreements as to what is legal and what isn't the courts have to decide.
>Republicans stepped over the line at one point, and only at one point:
>when they tried to insist that what recounting that had been done, in a
>legal and timely fashion, should not be included in the certified
>election results. They shouldn't have done that.
Was this referring to the hand recounts ? I'd say if they thought that
the hand recounts were unreliable, they were within their rights to
try this.
>> BTW, IMO Gore should have won, not because of the popular vote, but because
>> he was ahead on the two-candidate preferred (meaning that I think it's stupid
>> that third party candidates can syphon votes of a major candidate)
>
>And that statement is precisely the thing I am complaining about: Gore
>SHOULD NOT HAVE WON, and he DID NOT!
>
>To claim otherwise is to imply you do not support the rule of law, but
>that instead you are willing to bend, re-interpret, or simply ignore the
>law.
You are confusing "disagrees with the law" to "disagrees with the rule
of law". There is a difference, and you as a self-described pedant
are no doubt aware of this.
>claim that he wasn't my President, as some Democrats have re: George W.
I haven't claimed GWB "isn't president", I'm not what all the dems are
saying but Gore and Clinton have done the proper thing and accepted the
defeat graciously (after a long fight)
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 20:29:47 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> > "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > "Functionality". Is the ability to perform tasks in simple maners
> > > that don't involve complicated steps.
> >
> > Oops. Sorry, I thought we were speaking english around here.
> > That's "simplicity", not functionality. You want your operating
> > system to be easy, not functional. Your choice, of course.
>
> ahh. but nowhere does it say that what is functional cannot also be
> simple. or as i prefer, intuitive.
And nowhere does it say the opposite, either.
> it is a concept i think, that linux developers have had difficulty
> grasping for the longest time.
Then again, the concept of orthogonality seems to escape you.
Let's try an example. Width is orthogonal to height.
So, if you want to build a tall building by saying "I want it to be
narrow" or "I want it to be wider", you go nowhere.
Replace width with functionality, height with complexity, and you will
understand why this discussion has no future until everyone decides
to use words in a more or less rational way.
--
Roberto Alsina
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Big government and big business: why not fear both - www.ezboard.com
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 10:11:56 +1300
> Worst of all, they *lock* you into Microsoft.
> I wonder where the idea for WinModems came?
Well shit, I wonder too!
For people to use Winmodems, people must use Windows (at least at
first...). What kind of crappy company would try and lock consumers into
one OS?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: Linux can be made unstable, too.
Date: 4 Jan 2001 21:27:11 GMT
Aaron Ginn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: I've since converted all my partitions to ReiserFS (with the exception
: of the boot partition, of course). If I ever have to power off
: again, I know that the subsequent reboot is fast and reliable.
I know this is changing the subject, but when I read statements like this
I worry just a little. I have less confidence in ReiserFS than you, due
to a strange problem that I experienced with it a few months ago: I had a
small ReiserFS partition in which one directory went loopy. Doing an "ls"
of that directory led to an unending harddrive-grinding noise and no
output. Eventually, I gave up on that. The ReiserFS fsck (I don't
remember its name) reported that the file system was clean. I tried "rm
-rf" on the directory (it wasn't anything of vital importance), and it
ground for a while, then aborted with an error message.
I've never before experienced this with any other type of file system: an
obviously broken file system that is claimed to be clean by the utility
that checks it. It seems pretty bad to me; how could you ever hope to fix
such a file system?
Anyways, I copied all of the directories somewhere else, and then used
mkfs to make a new filesystem...ext2, of course. :)
By contrast, I've never had a problem with an ext2 filesystem that
e2fsck could not find and fix. I know: anecdotal evidence. I'm sure
someone else has had exactly the opposite experience.
My desire is certainly not that you stop using ReiserFS, rather to remind
you not to be TOO confident in it or any other software: always make
backups.
--
David Steinberg -o)
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 16:50:17 -0500
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> >
> >Unix *IS* object oriented. It has been so ever since its inception.
> >
> >The only thing is, back in 1970, the term "object oriented" didn't
> >exist.
> >
> >So...in Unix, objects are called "files". Every file in Unix is
> >actually an object.
> >
> >
>
> Well. Microsoft is object oriented also. Their object is appearently
> to remove little green peices of paper from your rear end and insert
> something else.
>
> And this brings us to the term "STREAM" which was also first invented
> to describe dataflows in C during the same 1970 time frame.
>
And remember, to create a child, you have to fork().
> Charlie
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "The Phantom Poster \(bwahahaha\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Almost 60% Surveyed Plan To Install Windows 2000
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 14:06:43 -0800
"Larry R" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I don't know who they surveyed, but I don't believe them.
Why not?
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 22:11:22 +0000
J Sloan wrote:
> For any good moves they make, I applaud them.
> For the harm they have done to the industry, they
> need to be regulated.
Agreed.
> As for your inflammatory and malicious mention of
> "linux zealots all baying for microsoft's blood", look
> around - most microsoft haters don't even use Linux.
I was referring to recent posts by some Linux zealots.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Stephen King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Archie Bunker argument (was Re: Could only...)
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 22:23:15 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Guns are freedom and safety.
>
> Look at Australia...they banned guns, and the murder rate TRIPLED.
>
> This indicates that private ownership of guns PREVENTS more murders
> than it causes.
Archie Bunker had a method for prevent airline hijacking, "Arm all the
passengers"
Peronally I would feel safer in an airliner full of armed passengers
than I would using Microsoft products to access the 'net ;-)
Now for something completely different ...
If there had never been a computer virus many many computers would now
be extremely vulnerable.
Comments?
--
Porsche Boxster 88,295,285 Club-Z points away
Stephen J King :: RR2 Utopia Canada L0M 1T0
--
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 22:25:45 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> J Sloan wrote:
>
> > As for your inflammatory and malicious mention of
> > "linux zealots all baying for microsoft's blood", look
> > around - most microsoft haters don't even use Linux.
>
> I was referring to recent posts by some Linux zealots.
ah - well that's understandable I guess..
jjs
------------------------------
Subject: Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Form@C)
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 22:40:27 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
<snip>
>
>shows where his priorities are...."avoid thinking at all costs"
>
Shows where *whose* priorities lie, Aaron?
It's just that "avoid thinking at all costs" should be "avoid thinking
about how the computer works at all costs" and is generally exactly what
seems to be required by employers when looking for "data entry technicians"
and by many members of the general public!
As a home computer user, I do take some security precautions but nowhere
near what would be required by a business. The reason for this is that my
livelihood doesn't depend on me even having a computer, never mind a
working one. We have different priorities.
Businesses also tend to fall into the low security trap in their effort to
provide a simple to use system for their (often minimally trained)
employees. Have you seen what it costs a business to send one employee on a
training course for a single application? They have to pay through the
nose. Do you think they would welcome the additional costs incurred by
training people to use something even as simple as KDE when they can have
as many Windows users as they want walking in through the front door? Their
accountants wouldn't like it! Note that even with completely free software
the training would still be necessary and would probably still be charged
at silly rates. Did you know that many small businesses do not offer their
employees *any* training as they firmly believe that, once an employee has
been trained, they will either ask for more pay or leave to get higher paid
work elsewhere?
At the end of the day, something is going to have to give if Linux is to
succeed on the business desktops (not servers note, Linux is already
there!). Business, as a whole, will *not* switch over to Linux unless
certain things happen: Linux has to gain a lot of compatibility, and keep
it updated as new software packages are released on other platforms. Linux
also needs a severe "dumbing down" to the point where the abilities to
load, remove, maintain & run applications easily take a far higher priority
than they have at present - even if this is at the expense of other things.
Both of these, and others which I have mentioned in previous posts, *are*
being addressed at present. Once again, as I have previously mentioned, the
answer may be in using the Linux kernel as the base for what appear to be
completely different OSs for different types of users. Once Linux is
established on business desktops *then* you can start to wean them onto
better, more stable and secure versions. The initial problem is to get
Linux there to start off with - at present it is simply not acceptable.
If all this is seen as "avoid thinking at all costs" then so be it. If it's
what the customer wants, then he will attempt to get it. If your product
doesn't fit his specification the he will use someone elses. It doesn't
matter in the least how much you go on at him about Linux being "better"
than the alternatives - that would probably only make it even harder to get
your product accepted in the future. It probably doesn't even matter very
much if your product is appreciably cheaper if it is *any* harder to use
than others. The cost of your competitors product would simply be offset
against the cost of training for yours.
--
Mick
Olde Nascom Computers - http://www.mixtel.co.uk
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
