Linux-Advocacy Digest #227, Volume #33 Sat, 31 Mar 01 14:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Kulkis not Chad, Gates (was Re Unix/Linux Professionalism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Kulkis not Chad, Gates (was Re Unix/Linux Professionalism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Communism (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Communism (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Communism (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Communism (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Communism (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Microsoft abandoning USB? ("Michael Allen")
Re: Communism (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Communism ("Brian Turner")
Re: Communism (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Multitasking (The Ghost In The Machine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 18:39:55 GMT
Said Roger in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 31 Mar 2001 00:53:42 -0600;
>On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 04:40:13 GMT, someone claiming to be T. Max Devlin
>wrote:
>
>>Said Roger in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 29 Mar 2001 14:52:26 -0600;
>
>>>On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 16:36:11 GMT, someone claiming to be T. Max Devlin
>>>wrote:
>>>>And made assumptions about the variables that are entirely unsupported,
>
>>>>and in fact ridiculous, no doubt. Like my old buddy Roger, who had to
>>>>replace his video *hardware* to get *IE* to work, and acted as if it was
>>>>a hardware failure.
>
>>>1. Not now, nor never was your buddy
>>>
>>>2. Never made such a claim.
>
>>Yup, all happened, just like I said. We even reprised the discussion a
>>couple times over the last year or so. You posted the whole story
>>yourself, to illustrate why Windows failures can be blamed on
>>"hardware". You got IE5, and installed it, and your computer crashed,
>>so you got a new video card, and that "fixed" the "problem".
>
>Nope. Never happened. You're confused again -- perhaps it was your
>imaginary friend that you had such an exchange with?
You're my imaginary friend, Roger. Actually, it does turn out that it
was JS/PL.
>Or maybe you can produce a message ID from either exchange? (What am
>I saying? That would be * way * to much like supporting an assertion
>with facts for Max to ever consider it ... )
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!
>>>Of course, what can you expect from a person with so much Internet
>>>experience that he once berated another poster for using his
>>>postmaster's IP address. Said address being 127.0.01.
>
>>No, that's 127.0.0.1, and it is not "his postmaster's IP address".
>
>That was rather my point -- you made the claim that it was your PM's
>IP, and that claim formed the basis for your little rant vs. that
>poster.
Look, I really don't see any need to explain it to you again, its
obvious you're not ever going to be smart enough to understand it. Go
read a book on TCP/IP, maybe you'll get lucky.
>>>Or that MS had a monopoly on OS before the IBM PC.
>
>>Depending on whether you consider a monopoly "successful" at less than
>>100%. The vast majority of all microcomputers developed in the early
>>80s used Microsoft's ROM BASIC, largely "successful" because of the same
>>kind of business strategies they later used with DOS, and now Windows.
>
>So perhaps you can list these "vast majority" which used MS-BASIC as
>the sole OS (or even as a standard feature) along with sales figures
>to show that they comprise such a majority. Or you can admit that
>your rhetoric was overblown once again and you got called on it.
Who said it needs to be a "vast majority"? Who said it had to be the
sole OS? You haven't even looked into it, have you? You certainly
don't have any facts to dispute the issue, or I assumed you'd have
posted them. So, other than pointing out your *complete inability* to
refute my statement (which is both sufficient and necessary to account
for observable facts), you're just pissing in the wind, aren't you,
Roger?
>>>Or...
>>>
>>> ... but you get the idea.
>
>>Yea, I think they do. Thank you *very* much for your time, Roger.
>
>When I have nothing else to do, I'll hand you the shovel to dig
>yourself deeper -- no thanks needed.
Guffaw.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Kulkis not Chad, Gates (was Re Unix/Linux Professionalism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 18:39:56 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 31 Mar 2001
02:51:29 -0500;
>chrisv wrote:
>>
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >> Translation into Chinese: Kulkis has lost all face, because his BLUFF
>> >> was CALLED.
>> >>
>> >> OUTED! LOL!
>> >
>> >Chris can't jump
>> >
>> >100% OUTED!
>> >LOL!
>>
>> Hey, YOU OFFERED to discuss the Linux kernal stuff, and when your
>> bluff was called? ....... OUTED! LOL!
>
>Qualifying the speaker as legitimate is just that, you moron.
Yes, it is your being outed, and proving yourself a wannabe, that's what
it is, all right. You "qualified" the speaker, and then ran like a
scared little bunny, lest your own lack of qualifications become even
more evident than they already are.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Kulkis not Chad, Gates (was Re Unix/Linux Professionalism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 18:39:57 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 31 Mar 2001
>GreyCloud wrote:
>>
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>> >
>> > Fred K Ollinger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >
>> > Notice how most of the communists hide out in academia...
>>
>> I seem to remember a catholic saying "Give me your children to educate
>> and they will stay catholic". The NEA (National Education Association)
>> which supports the democratic party, seem to have the same goal. Makes
>> one wonder if the GOP will last or even be around in another 20 years.
>> Its only my assumptions of course.
>
>Most people with a control-the-masses agenda try to maximize the
>percentage of children put into their hands.
>
>This is why the NEA is so afraid of non-government schools...
>
>I mean..the opening of more schools should HELP the typical NEA
>member, as this creates a demand for MORE teachers...
Never occurred to you that maybe it was the people who non-government
schools who want to control the masses, eh? Not very bright, eh?
>Yet...if they are private schools, beyond the reach of NEA's
>political control...well, that's a cause for concern...regardless
>if the resulting market forces actually raise teacher's salaries
>due to increased demand.
What a shmuck.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 18:39:58 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 30 Mar 2001
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 19:21:36 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 30 Mar 2001
>> > [...]
>> >>If someone attempts to enter your country, unanounced, without making
>> >>proper contact with the appropriate authorities (customs officials,
>> >>border patrol, air traffic control), then they are a legitimate target
>> >>for those personnel charged with the DUTY of defending the border.
>>
>> Ok, then you support the right of the Cuban government to shoot down
>> Cessnas.
>>
>> >>What's the difference between "illegal immigrants" and "invading
>> >>army" other than numbers?
>> >
>> >Nothing, if you're a paranoid schizophrenic.
>>
>> Indeed.
>
>That's not what I asked
>
>How about for those who are not paranoid schizophrenics.
>
>What's the difference between "illegal immigrants" and "invading
>army" other than numbers?
Well, for rational people, its generally an issue of weapons and
strategies; armies have them, immigrants don't.
>Be sure to account for the fact that when Germany invaded Norway,
>the German soldiers entered the country without weapons or uniforms.
Notice the strategies. Believe it or not, a very very large number of
such determinations require some theory of intent. Perhaps a bit
dubious, philosophically, but since paranoid schizophrenics can't really
deal competently with philosophy (and many other mental tasks), it
shouldn't matter at all to you.
>They simply met in warehouses across the country one night, broke
>open cases of uniforms and weapons...and when the sun rose, they
>greeted the Norwegian populace with the news that they had just
>be annexed by the German Army.
So they *did* bring weapons, they just didn't carry them, is that what
you're saying?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 18:39:59 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 31 Mar 2001
>Bob G wrote:
[...]
>> I love my country ! It's the politicians I don't
>> like or trust.
>
>Not only that...but the old saying
>"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" is false.
>
>The CORRECT saying is this:
>
>"Power attracts the corrupt, and absolute power ATTRACTS the absolutely corrupt".
After all, presuming that people have the ability to change makes Aaron
very nervous, for reasons both obvious and unobvious.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,misc.survivalism
Subject: Re: Communism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 18:40:00 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 31 Mar 2001
>Roger Perkins wrote:
>>
>> Again you illustrate both your stupidity and your ignorance. Ignoring your
>> childish use of caps, show me that law that makes democracy illegal? I
>
>Let's see...Roger swore to uphold and defend the Constitution from all
>enemies, foreign and domestic...and even claims to teach at a college,
>and the old fuckhead doesn't even know what the Constitution says.
>
>Care to cite ANY section or sections of the US Constitution which
>supposedly establish the US as a "democracy" ???
[...]
>Note that there is NO provision for the people to directly vote on
>anything. Therefore, the US Federal government is *NOT* a democracy.
What about the one where we elect representatives? Since every citizen
has a right to vote in these elections, the US Federal government is a
democracy. A democratic republic, in fact.
[...]
>See above. Any STATE government which attempts to practice "Democracy"
>will be struck down.
In which state does a citizen not have a vote? Besides Florida, I mean.
>Case in Point: Colorado recently passed a law regarding homosexual rights
>by "popular referendum". It was struck down the US Supreme Court on
>the basis of Article IV, Section 4--that the law was (supposedly) passed
>using 'democratic' methods (which are illegal) instead of the Constitutionally
>mandated republican procedure of getting the law passed in the LEGISLATURE.
>
>Any State or Federal "law" which is not passed by the legislature is,
>in fact, not a law.
Nor is any state or federal law which *IS* passed by the legislature,
but then later, as in this case, struck down by the courts.
And, yes, referendums are proof that the US is a democracy.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.survivalism
Subject: Re: Communism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 18:42:17 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 31 Mar 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 30 Mar 2001
>> >Jarno Nurminen wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>> >> > Ah yes, anybody who doesn't support Communism is a "nazi"
>> >>
>> >> How would you feel if majority of US citizens would select communism as
>> >> their new ideology? If the answer is "kill them all" then one could call
>> >> you a nazi. Modern society, at least in here, in build on the foundation
>> >> of everyone having their own oppinion heard. If you someone doesen't
>> >> like what their neighbour is thinking, it's fine, but judging people
>> >> just because of what they think is something I would call nazism. Of
>> >> course, this definiton of "nazism" is not so far away of the way USSR
>> >> worked...
>> >
>> >Your definition of nazism is extremely sloppy.
>> >
>> >Nazism is a brand of fascism. Fascism is a form of SOCIALISM.
>> >(what part of National SOCIALIST Party do you not understand?).
>>
>> Fascism is an idealogy, neither economic system (socialism) nor
>
>Wrong. Fascism is a specific form of socialism, marked by
>
>a) vertical integration of major industries within the economy.
>For a good representative example, look at Japan. Japan has had
>a fascist economy since the 1920's.
It is simply not possible to have a fascist economy; fascism has no
bearing or applicability to an economic system. Get a dictionary, for
crying out loud.
>b) Government is run primarily for the benefit of industrial big-wigs.
>In the United States, it is ironic that the majority of "favors"
>done for "big business" (i.e. "corporate welfare") were passed
>by....the DEMONCROOKS in Congress.
Ironic, or simply incorrect?
[...]
>Do you have another word for taking from one group of people (the
>productive), under the threat of imprisonment, violence, or even
>death....for the benefit of others (the parasites)...
"Civilization".
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 18:43:35 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 31 Mar 2001
>Roger Perkins wrote:
>>
>> Oh, Jarno, he really isn't a nazi. He's just ignorant and stupid. He
>> couldn't tell a communist from a cappuccino and most of the adults here know
>> that. My guess is he's a 15-year old trying out his intellect for the first
>> time. And not too successfully. Don't judge us by this kid. He really
>> isn't a contender here.
>
>When you can't win an argument on facts, go for the ad hominem attack.
>
>Thanks for admitting that you're failing, Roger
Everybody fails with you, Aaron. Like saying that someone can't win a
football game, because the other team doesn't have any idea how to play
football. You are that other team, Aaron, and you are _clueless_!
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Michael Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft abandoning USB?
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 18:47:49 GMT
"JS PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Shocker. Let me ask you something: how much can an author ethically
> > charge for something that costs him nothing, and has no functional
> > value?
>
> The author can ethically charge whatever he wants, it's the beauty of
living
> in a free society. I realize you wish producers of intellectual property
> were slaves of the state and must give away their creativity to anyone who
> wants it or sell it at a rate which you can best afford but the world
> doesn't work like that anymore. Maybe a hundred years ago perhaps, but
it's
> a whole new world today.
> If I write a song and want a trillion dollars for it, it's my right.
> Communism is dead Marx.
>
>
That is perfect!!! T. Marx Devlin. Now it all makes sense. The problem
with most Communists is they aren't willing to admit what they are. You can
honestly debate the economic theories of communism vs socialism vs
capitalism, nothing wrong with that. But what I find so cowardly are
communists or socialists who parade as capitalists because they don't have
the spine to admit what they truly believe in.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 18:49:19 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 31 Mar 2001
07:35:43 -0500;
>billh wrote:
>>
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>>
>> > > > Americans weren't going around telling everyone that their primary
>> > > > political goal was to spark bloody revolutions.
>> > > >
>> > > > the Soviets were
>> > > >
>> > > > Spot the difference
>> > >
>> > > America supported insurgencies and counter insurgencies quietly. Little
>> > > difference. Our record in South America speaks for itself.
>> >
>> >
>> > And this supports the typical communist-advocates "the government
>> > can do no wrong" line of thinking how, exactly?
>>
>> Try to stay on track and keep a line of thought, would ya. It's a simple
>> fact that in the support of insurgencies and counter insurgencies, there was
>> little difference between the USSR and the USA. You contend above that
>> there was a difference and imply that the difference was significant.
>
>
>You know, Bill, for someone who claims to be an officer in the United States
>Army, you really are a thick-head mule. (*)
>
>
>
>A) The USSR supported insurgencies whose primary goal was to "liberate"
>the people into enslaving themselves under the yoke of Communism
>(name one Communist country which isn't a totalitarian police state),
>
>B) the US supported insurgencies to overthrow totalitarian police states.
>
>
>Compare and contrast.
>
>
>(*) Of course, this is to be expected from a supposed combat-arms officer
>who remains studiously unaware of the widespread practice in the 20th
>century of shooting at well-marked (**) American medics and medical
>installations, specifically the Germans and Japanese in WW2, the North
>Koreans and Chinese in the Korean War, and the Viet Cong and North
>Vietnamese in VietNam
>
>(**) with proper Red Cross on a White Field insignia
Can you say "hook, line, and sinker?"
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Brian Turner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 18:53:57 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Barry Manilow wrote:
> >
> > Craig Kelley wrote:
> > >
> > > Barry Manilow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > China is practically a capitalist country right now.
> >
>
> Yes, they are beginning to see the light.
>
> However, the brutal ways of their Communist Revolution and
> subsequent Cultural Revolution are still with them.
Another "way still with them" is that Mao is still a hero to most Chinese.
A 'National Review' reporter was recently shocked and apalled by this, he
couldn't explain this bizarre situation. It couldn't possibly be that he
had his facts wrong...it had to be that they are brainwashed idiots or
something.
> > I would venture to say that the Cuban system kills few. Certainly, in
> > the rest of Latin America, capitalism is a killing machine. At least
>
> No...that would be socialism.
Who killed the 100,000 Guatemalans (1980-92), the 60,000 El Salvadorans
(1981-94), 30,000 Nicaraguans (1977-79)? Commies? No, sorry, it was US
puppet military dictators.
> I can make pronouncements till I'm blue in the face about how I am
dedicated
> to providing food, shelter, medical care, and sanitation to all the people
> I'm locking up as prison labor in a [Cuban] gulag.
yeah, all 200 of them. MAJOR gulag huh?
Re: your claim that communism cannot exist without totalitarian states,
please see Israel in the first 30 years or so after their founding
(kibbutzim, moshavim, urban co-ops). Also read Orwell's 'Homage to
Catalonia' or any thing else about the Spanish anarcho-syndicalists
pre-Franco.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Communism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 18:56:11 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 31 Mar 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 30 Mar 2001
>> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Said GreyCloud in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 28 Mar 2001 16:42:52
>> >> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Said GreyCloud in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 28 Mar 2001 01:56:28
>> >> >> >[...]Eventually,
>> >> >> >capitalism will slowly topple the communist system.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Didn't they teach any of you little boys in school that capitalism is an
>> >> >> economic system, as is socialism, while communism is a political system,
>> >> >> as is democracy? Please, no one-dimensional thinking to explain the
>> >> >> error: just admit it is an error and think harder about your opinion.
>> >> >> Just because your own carefully learned bigotries prevents you from
>> >> >> seeing the two distinctly doesn't mean you should encourage the same
>> >> >> prejudice in others.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> T. Max Devlin
>> >> >> *** The best way to convince another is
>> >> >> to state your case moderately and
>> >> >> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
>> >> >
>> >> >Take note: The communist system in the Soviet Union was toppled.
>> >> >Communism in the economic sense is a total failure. [...]
>> >>
>> >> Apparently, you aren't listening. Communism *doesn't have* an "economic
>> >> sense", unless you're misusing the word, which generally torpedoes any
>> >> argument you might present on the matter.
>> >
>> >Then why does so much of Marx's writings deal with economic systems,
>> >and what he called his Communist economic system...
>>
>> Marx was a philosopher engaging in free inquiry.
>
>Marx was an utter failure in life, and a pampered little son of the
>same aristocracy which were his parents.
>
>How else could he afford to idle away YEARS in the library with no income?
>
>Basically, he spent his entire life spending other people's money (like
>daddy's), and inventing ways to spend even more people's money
>(stealing from the workers to support professional parasites like himself).
>
>All he was doing was trying to rationalize his entire life of parasitic existance.
Somehow, the image of Aaron Kulkis as a Marx scholar is a bit...
unbelievable.
>
>> His writings covered a
>> great deal of the human condition. But you're the kind of person who
>
>And otherwise wasted a lot of otherwise perfectly good paper.
I know, you're very frightened of academics, philosophers, and anyone
who shows an ability to think, because you are very jealous of that
ability.
>> would kill a person for disagreeing with you, politically, so whatever
>> your opinion is of Marx's writings, is irrelevant. It seems likely that
>
>No...disagreeing with me is ok. It's when someone starts advocating
>the enslavement of others for his own aggrandizement or other petty whims
>that he pushes it to the point of marking himself for extermination.
Which is what you claim anyone who disagrees with you is doing.
>> your basically incapable of understanding anything he wrote clearly, due
>> to your mental health problems.
>
>I swore to defend FREEDOM, at risk of my own life, if that's what it takes.
We can only hope.
>Stealing from those who work to support parasites is an infringement
>upon the most fundamental of all human rights (to keep that which you
>have made for yourself, and to trade or give it away as YOU choose,
>**NOT** because some bimbo seduces a congresscritter into funding
>her pet cause).
After all, property is the only human right which matters, eh? Funny
how they left it out of the Constitution, substituting "pursuit of
happiness" for the right to property.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Multitasking
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 19:00:31 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Barry Manilow
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 30 Mar 2001 17:08:29 -0800
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Said Paul 'Z' EwandeŽ in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 30 Mar 2001
>
>> >> >What I do next is point out that you *still* haven't put forward the
>> >evidence that NT multitasking is crap. you lose.
>>
>> That doesn't make NT's multitasking any more acceptable, though, does
>> it?
>>
>It is not that good either. I know people who have used most OS's out
>there.
>
>The best multitaskers:
>
>1. Amiga
>2. OS/2 Warp
>3. QNX (close third)
>4. BeOS (very good)
>5. Various Unixen, including Linux
>6. NT/Win2K
>7. Win XX
>8. Mac OS
>
>This lineup is pretty indisputable. The only controversy seems to be
>over the order of 2, 3, and 4. I know a lot of folks who have tried
>them all and the results are pretty similar.
I'm not sure about Amiga's scheduling being the best (it didn't have
dynamic auto-reprioritization, which meant that a high-priority CPU-bound
task could lock out the lower-priority ones) but AmigaOS most definitely
had the smallest footprint, and probably the most elegant design
internally, at least of that era (I haven't studied BeOS or OS/2), and
now my understanding is that the new version of AmigaOS will borrow,
if not take outright, the QNX kernel -- assuming they haven't already.
At the time, it was claimed (I forget by whom) that Amiga
can do in 512K multitasking-wise things that it took OS/2 4 megs
to accomplish. Or something like that; with my luck I've munged it.
OS/2 also had VM, something the original Amiga didn't have (somebody
did produce an add-on product that tried to incorporate swap for selected
programs, however, on 68030 and 68040-based machines with a MMU).
I'll admit 4 megs now seems tiny in its own right. Linux has
little trouble running in 4 megs [*], if a swap file is available, but
don't ask it to run X, KDE, or Gnome snappily. :-) (If at all.)
Contrast this with WinXP's requirements, which are -- what? 128
megabytes? To be fair, that includes display subsystem, GUI, a
number of servers, and quite probably a few other things such
as music players, web browsers, and built-in virus protection.
The Amiga was definitely an impressive machine -- and I still hear rumors
of it coming back. :-) (Maybe it's because Microsoft hasn't ported NT
to it yet...)
[.sigsnip]
[*] I have an old 386 mo-bo with 4 megs on it -- DIPs -- and the
last time I actually fired it up to test this was back in the
1.2.x era. The kernel's a little bigger now; I'm not sure if
it would boot, and I cheated by setting up the disk on another
machine, then moving it.
The motherboard could take 8 megabytes by inserting SIPs, but
that's a bit like trying to purchase an old Model T for
basic transport -- investment or nostalgia, yes, but
not basic transport. :-) Or maybe putting a roof rack on
an old Model T might be a better analogy. Oh well.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random old motherboard (grandmotherboard?) here
EAC code #191 54d:19h:16m actually running Linux.
All hail the non-Commodore Amiga! :-)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
