Linux-Advocacy Digest #234, Volume #34 Sat, 5 May 01 22:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS (Terry Porter)
Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie (Paul Colquhoun)
Re: Performance Measure, Linux versus windows ("Weevil")
Re: Linux disgusts me ("Gary Hallock")
Re: Linux books (Terry Porter)
Re: Linux books (Terry Porter)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Article: Want Media Player 8? Buy Windows XP ("green")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT (Dave Uhring)
Re: MS pushing retailers to hide Linux? (Dave Martel)
Wintroll are discusting Was: Linux disgusts me (Terry Porter)
Re: To Aaron (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie (Craig Kelley)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux disgusts me (Terry Porter)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 06 May 2001 01:07:58 GMT
On Sat, 05 May 2001 21:50:49 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Linux was/is and will continue to be a miserable failure as a consumer
> desktop OS until it wakes up and starts offering an end result that is
> superior instead of an inferior result based upon theoretical superior
> technologies.
Wow thats quite a mouthfull for a ignorant Wintroll
"Steve,Mike,Heather,Simon,teknite,keymaster,keys88,Sewer Rat,
S,Sponge,Sarek,piddy,McSwain,pickle_pete,Ishmeal_hafizi,Amy,
Simon777,Claire,Flatfish+++,Flatfish"
Did your mum help you with it?
>
>Consumers want instant gratification and Linux is way out in left
^^^^^^^ Flatfishes
> field as far as that is concerned. A consumer can call a 1-800 number
> they saw on TV and order the latest and greatest Pentium 4 system with
> all of the bells and whistles including AOL or MSN for less than 2k.
Exactly, thats wht the Justice Department found Microsoft guilty
of contraveining the Sherman Antitrust law.
Once upon a time you could do the same thing with Standard oil,
in fact like Windos, Standard Oil was ***ALL*** you could buy.
> They open the box plug it in and it works. Sure the scanner/printer
> and modem are Win* variety, but who cares?
The users ... if they try to use tham all at once BWAHHHH!
> It works.
Sort of.
> They have a
> pre-load with all kinds of games, office suites and so forth. The same
^boring ^^^^ toy apps
> Office suites that their children are using in school.
Preditory practices, nothing less. The schools use it
because MS 'gives' it to them free of charge. Bill Gates uses the full
value of this 'free' software to boast that he gives millions to
charity every year.
> My daughter
> needed to a Power point presentation for French class the other day
> (she is 15 and in 9th grade). Am I going to give her a Linux version?
> Hell no!!! I want the CD I burn to run on Windows because that is what
> her teacher uses.
Locked in to Ms, and she will always be, as the Pope said "give me
a child, and I'll give you back a Catholic"
> Why be a martyr?
Why indeed ?
>
> Linux lusers like to talk about free applications.
Many Windows users like to *steal* applications, as
everything Ms costs money BIG money.
> Well take a look at
> the header page of Freshmeat for today 5/5/2001.
Why not, 62 apps! :-
Saturday
- Linux ethernet bridge rewrite 0.0.9
- SimpleCDR 1.60
- ProZilla 1.3.5
- JIGS 1.3.0
- XPilot 4.3.2
- Smurf Sound Font Editor 0.52.1
- Cheetah Web Browser 0.05
- eboard 0.1.6
- WLA DX 7.4.1
- ECLiPt Roaster 2.0.9
- Ampache 1.07
- Deity RPG 0.0.3
- Simple Allpurpose New Diarykeeper 0.1.1
- rute 0.9.1
- KLCC 0.3
- CGINews 1.03
- GNOME Installation Guide 1.4/B
- SATGUI Beta 1
- fwanalog 0.2.1
- OpenACS 3.2.5
- xclip 0.04
- fax4CUPS 1.12
- POSIX 1003.1b clock/timer patch 2.4.4
- NBC-VBI - Linux [EMAIL PROTECTED] saver 0.32
- Fade Router Administrator 0.55
- Guikachu 0.5
- CCC 1.02
- GRAMPS 0.1.3
- kmasqclient 0.1
- Groundhog 1.3
- xps 3.21
- APCComm 1.2.1
- z81 1.3
- FK 0.6.2
- bind 9.1.2
- Andromeda 1.4
- PHP-GTK 0.0.4
- guesslang 0.1
- Resolver User Layer Interface 0.0
- Linux 2.4.4-ac5
- Modular syslog 1.04
- Yet Another SQL*Plus Replacement 1.67
- Firewall Builder 0.9
- mod_pgsqllog 0.4
- MySQL Navigator 0.9.9
- Erika 0.6b
- Minimalist Linux-My-Way 0.22
- kmamu - xmame icons for X 0.37b14
- Topsecret_Ftp 0.90 beta
- Sentinel Groupware 0.8.8
- LANforge 2.0.1
- gShield 2.6
- Sjinn 0.9.1.2
- Net::ICal 0.13
- PhpDig 0.95b
- SecureIT 0.1.5
- libXMLement 0.0.4
- GNU xhippo 3.1
- BahBot IRC Bot 1.0.2
- EtherApe 0.7.0
- Tapestry 0.2.11
- JavaGroups 0.9.9.9
>
> I sure see a lot of great stuff here....NOT :(
"Steve,Mike,Heather,Simon,teknite,keymaster,keys88,Sewer Rat,
S,Sponge,Sarek,piddy,McSwain,pickle_pete,Ishmeal_hafizi,Amy,
Simon777,Claire,Flatfish+++,Flatfish"
Wouldn t know a decent Linux app if it bit his ass off.
To this Wintroll, the world is Winaudio, nothing more.
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Colquhoun)
Subject: Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 01:10:02 GMT
On Sat, 5 May 2001 13:14:44 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
|news:9d109q$g7c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
|> > Don't make the mistake of trying to claim MS is against Open Source.
|> > They could care less if someone gives their code away. What they care
|> > about is that the GPL prevents businesses from taking advantage of code
|> > paid for by taxpayer dollars.
|>
|> Since when has the GNU project been supported by the taxpayer?
|
|Who said it was? I'm talking about code developed at JPL or the NSA (such
|as Secure Linux, which is government funded, but GPL'd)
|
|> And you also seem to be saying that they are annoyed that they can't make
|> money off other peoples work? Well so what? Do you think anyone cares
|> about MS that much?
|
|Federal law prohibits work developed by the government from being
|copyrighted. That means it can't be GPL'd by law, but it still is happening
|because the GPL has infected the government.
|
|> > The original internet wasn't even developed on Unix. My point is that,
|> > if the government had released the original DARPANET code under a
|> > license like the GPL, companies like DEC, IBM, and Sun would have never
|> > adopted it.
|>
|> Why not? The GPL doesn't license protocols. Companies would be quite free
|> to develop a compatible implementation, using the GPL source as a
|> reference.
|
|No, they're not. Using GPL'd source as a reference makes the work a derived
|work, and subject to the GPL's license terms.
In this usage of the word "reference" you don't need to look at the code at all.
A "reference implementation" of a protocol is partly a proof of concept,
and partly a "black box" testing setup. You install the reference on one
computer, install your software on another, and make sure they can communicate
with each other, and that they behave the same way. You also compare against
the written spec, but watching the bits on the wire can be a big help.
OK, if the reference used a BSD liscence you can just use the code,
but then everybody gets the same bugs/faults (if any).
--
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Universal Life Church http://andor.dropbear.id.au/~paulcol
-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-
xenaphobia: The fear of being beaten to a pulp by
a leather-clad, New Zealand woman.
------------------------------
From: "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Performance Measure, Linux versus windows
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 01:11:27 GMT
Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> If a benchmark can be rigged to prove anything, then benchmarks are
> crap.
> I can rig benchmarks to prove anything.
> Therefore, benchmarks are crap.
>
> A fundamental element of logic is that a false assumption can be used to
> prove anything.
> By making a false assumption when writing a bechmark, a benchmark can be
> used to prove anything.
No, not really. You can rig a benchmark to make it appear that it supports
your case, but you cannot rig a benchmark to prove your case. If you're
"making a false assumption when writing a benchmark," and it is this false
assumption that makes it appear to support your case, then you haven't
proven anything at all. You've merely made a mistake (or lied, as the case
may be).
A similar (atcually identical) misconception is that statistics can be
massaged so that they prove anything. Not true, of course. Statistics do
not lie: they say what they say, no more and no less. What muddies the
waters is that statistics and benchmarks can be interpreted incorrectly, and
it is often extremely difficult to tell when this is being done. So they
get abused all the time.
What they do not do is prove anything that is not true. That is impossible.
> The only benchmarks that count are those you write to test your
> application. And they are meaningless for anyone else.
Yup. I agree , oh, 85% or so. Statistics and benchmarks are best when you
can compile (no pun intended) them yourself, but other people's numbers can
be very enlightening and useful. You just have to be really careful that
you're getting the whole, accurate story.
> --
> Russ Lyttle
> "World Domination through Penguin Power"
> The Universal Automotive Testset Project at
> <http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
--
Weevil
================================================================
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough [for breaking encryption schemes]
would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers."
-- Bill Gates
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux disgusts me
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 21:08:46 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
> Talk to Terry Porter.
>
> He's been using Linux since somewhere back in the Jurassic period and
> denies all of these problems.
>
> BTW you "can" change the font size to 100dpi but run the risk of
> aborting the entire system is you don't know what you are doing.
>
I've never had that problem. Of course you never had either.
> Search on "Font De-Uglification" for information because these yo-yo's
> have a How-To for just about everything.
100 dpi and anti-alias fonts are standard on Redhat 7.1. 100 dpi has
been there ever since I can remember.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux books
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 06 May 2001 01:11:31 GMT
On Sat, 05 May 2001 21:26:05 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The How-To's are more than enough to keep you busy for several months
> or until you vomit, whichever comes first.
>
> flatfish
>
>
> On Sat, 05 May 2001 22:50:32 +0100, "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>>Hello Advocates.
>>
>>A friend of mine has asked me for reccomendations (etc) for books on
>>Linux. I've never really bothered with books much, so I thought I'd ask
>>you guys what you found the best.
>>
>>
>>Thanks
>>
>>-Ed
>>
>>PS To the wintrolls, I'm really not interested in what you have to say
^^^^^^^^^ Norti Norti BlowFish, can't you read either ?
>>about windows, this is about Linux only.
>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux books
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 06 May 2001 01:10:31 GMT
On Sat, 05 May 2001 22:50:32 +0100, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello Advocates.
>
> A friend of mine has asked me for reccomendations (etc) for books on
> Linux. I've never really bothered with books much, so I thought I'd ask
> you guys what you found the best.
>
>
> Thanks
>
> -Ed
I started with O'Rielys "Running Linux", it has 90% of the simple things
that a new Linux user needs to know. I found it immensely usefull.
>
> PS To the wintrolls, I'm really not interested in what you have to say
> about windows, this is about Linux only.
This is sure to attract the blowfish!
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 21:16:43 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > > And why was DR-DOS so lousy to build applications on, compared
> > > > to the other OS's in it's market?
> > >
> > > Horrible memory model. Very weak services for
> > > applications. It's just like MS-DOS basically.
> >
> > Answer the freakinig questions put to you...
> > And why was DR-DOS so lousy to build applications on, compared
> > to the other OS's in it's market?
>
> The horrible memory model was the biggest
> thing. Only DOS and clones thereof had it;
> Windows could not succeed until it busted out
> of it.
>
> Also DOS offers very little in the way of
> services for application programmers.
>
> [snip]
> > > Do you really want to have this argument again? You
> > > positition *still* makes no sense, and you are still being
> > > dishonest about those quotes.
> >
> > Listen you son of bitch, you'd better have your facts straight before
> > you accuse me of lying. I will give you the quotes and references AGAIN.
> >
> > Brad Silverberg:"What the guy is upposed to do is feel uncomfortable and
> > when he has bugs, suspect the problem is DR-DOS and then go out and buy
> > MS-DOS or decide not to take the risk for the other machines he has to
> > buy for in the office."
>
> They didn't actually do it, though. Windows 3.x ran on DR-DOS.
>
They did do it. The AARD code was active in the betas.
> Silverberg does not say otherwise, but if he did I would
> point out that his saying it doesn't make it so.
>
So, he's lying. A Microsft exec is lying about how to kill off the
competiton.
Whats ti going to take with you.
You are a waste of time.
> > David Cole :"It's pretty clear we need to make sure Windows 3.1 only
> > runs on top of MS-DOS or an OEM version of it."
>
> They didn't do this either. Even the bug didn't prevent
> you from running on DR-DOS.
>
it wasnt a bug you idiot. It was puposely placed code. The evidence is
in the Micorsoft memso. Oh, I forgot. you say the Microsoft execs were
lying.
> [snip]
> > > As a desktop app platform, it was certainly flawed, but still
> > > way better than Unix.
> >
> > Why are you comparing UNIX to DOS, DR-DOS and Windows of that time?
>
> Unix existed then, too, you know.
>
> [snip]
> > > It offered the services desktop apps needed- I've
> > > enumerated some of them for you before.
> >
> > I have no problem printing. What problems do you have printing?
>
> The modern Unix approach is for the application to
> implement its own printing system, but only for one
> type of printer- PostScript printers. That's better
> than in the bad old days of DOS when you supported
> every kind of printer you were going to use, but
> it's still not so good.
>
> It works best, of course, if you use PostScript printers
> for real. All other printers need a conversion. That
> can be done, but it reduces them all to mere bitmap
> printers.
>
> But even then, you have to generate PostScript;
> this is work developers don't need. Windows
> will do it for you; the same code that draws
> to the screen can print too.
>
> [snip]
> > > > What "time" are you talking about now?
> > >
> > > Early nineties, really.
> > >
> > > Mind you, it is still true now. But most users
> > > don't know enough about DOS to have an
> > > opinion.
> >
> > Really. Just how smug can you get?
>
> I don't know. Hang around and we'll find out! :D
>
> [snip]
> > > > Really? I have an integrated suite (Applixware) I can play music,
> watch
> > > > movies, surf the Net. Whats missing?
> > >
> > > Games. :D
> >
> > Games. Sheesh. buy a Nintendo.
>
> I rather like PC games. :)
>
> Windows 9x dominates in two markets;
> home and business desktops. In the home
> market, game support is *critical*. Unix
> is just not in the, um, game.
>
> > > But really, it's a question of quality. Windows apps
> > > are *better* in the eyes of practically everyone, and
> > > they are so because Windows provides the tools to
> > > make them so.
> >
> > And what is wrong with Applixware, the GIMP, xmms, GQView, etc.
>
> Got that in another post. Let's not duplicate
> too much.
>
> [snip]
> > > Microsoft offered bundled software, yes, but so did everyone
> > > else. Lotus and Wordperfect were not so dumb as to miss out
> > > on *that*.
> > >
> > > [snip]
> >
> > What other OS vendor participated in forced bundling ?
>
> IBM. IBM forced you to take their interner browser
> with OS/2. The rapscallions.
>
> But that's not what I meant. Microsoft would
> bundle weak programs with strong ones;
> that's the idea behind an "office suite". Office
> didn't depend on Windows for sales, but
> PowerPoint sure depended on Word.
>
> The other companies did this too, of course.
What compaies and apps were those?
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: "green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Article: Want Media Player 8? Buy Windows XP
Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 11:18:45 +1000
> whether they bought it or not, powerpoint is bad even when comparing
> to other ms products. why they just don't expand word to turn the
> page in landscape and do big fonts i'll never know.
to hard for the time pressed ms users ( all my uni lectures are done in
power point, using standard templates. no imagination needed.)
put it in word and it becomes two hard.
and even more bloated. by keeping features down you can help minimise bugs.
>
> J o h a n K u l l s t a m
> [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Don't Fear the Penguin!
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 21:17:51 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 04 May 2001
> > [...]
> > >That would appear to make you, Rick, and Aaron Kulkis the
> > >"reasonable men" of whom there are lots. Right?
> >
> > You still seem to be under the impression you can annoy me with personal
> > insults. Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.
>
> You consider "reasonable" a personal insult? Wow. :/
>
> > (No offense, Rick; I'm sure you understand. Daniel's quite the troll,
> > isn't he?)
>
> Damn right I am! :D
That is an insult, you idiot.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: Dave Uhring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 20:16:28 -0500
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <9_XI6.22452$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > An exploit is an exploit. Someone that allows security to lapse in one
>> > area over the other is simply shifting priorities. This shows that Red
>> > Hat and Linux in general tend to be more focused on remote exploits, to
>> > the detriment of local exploits. Which means, that all it it takes is
>> > to get a local account, any local account to gain root access.
>> >
>> > A common technique some people use is to set up a web site you must
>> > create an account for. Often, people will create the same account and
>> > password they use on their local machine. Suddenly, you have an
>> > account
>> > and password for the machine they logged in from, you gain root. Not a
>> > big deal.
>> >
>> >
>> I get your point. I am just getting into stuff like this, but is this not
>> a problem with UNIX standard security? Ie, the common problem that even
>> on a well protected machine, all it takes is one bug to give someone root
>> privileges and all hell breaks loose?
>> Of course when I say local exploit, I mean someone actually sitting down
>> at the machine to be exploited. For obvious reasons, it is very hard to
>> *totally* lock down a machine this way, as giving someone physical access
>> already implies some level of trust, whereas of course anyone accessing
> the
>> machine over a network is not to be trusted by default.
>> I might be very naive here, so please correct me if necessary.
>
> If you've access to a machine, you can hack it, period.
> Usually the easiest way is to take another HD and install the same OS on
> it, thus you gain root privileges, allowing you to access anything on the
> HD, the rest is just a matter of importing stuff, which can be difficult,
> but much easier than if you'd to break through the security.
>
>
>
>
You work too hard. Boot single. Or boot from an install CD-ROM or floppy.
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS pushing retailers to hide Linux?
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 19:06:58 -0600
On Sat, 5 May 2001 17:13:56 -0600, kosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You should see compusa in boulder. They have a LOT of linux stuff.
>Everything from the dists to firewalls apps etc. When a new dist version
>comes out they usually have several pallettes of it around for the first
>two weeks or so. They did this with both Redhat 7.0 and Mandrake 7.2 and
>they have a bunch of Suse there also.
Wish I had a picture of the OS aisle at the local store. Yards and
yards of RedHat, Mandrake, SuSE, Slackware, Caldera, even FreeBSD, not
to mention the various NetMax firewalls, etc. And way way down there
at the very end, squeezed into a space barely two feet wide, Windows
ME and Windows 2000.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Wintroll are discusting Was: Linux disgusts me
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 06 May 2001 01:16:19 GMT
On Sat, 5 May 2001 09:04:22 +0000 (UTC),
John Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
<snip>
> You bunch of losers,
>
> J
>
>
> --
> Posted from [196.2.33.11] by way of oe55.law12.hotmail.com [64.4.18.63]
> via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Its impossible to take a fake id, anonymous wintroll's
postings at all seriously.
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Aaron
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 13:22:23 -0700
> Seems kind of low to me. A few years ago the Swiss government
> subsidised their farmers to the tune of SFr7B (~SFr1.5 to the $ at the
> time I think). This was for direct subsidies and import tariffs on
> imported food. When you consider there are ~6M people in Switzerland
> that was over SFr1000 per person. Farming is one area that most
> governments will spend a fortune to protect. The EU CAP is even worse
> mainly due to the French with their very inefficient farming.
>
> I can understand why farming is given such support by governments for
> in time of war you will have to be as self reliant as possible. However
> this is abused by farming lobbies to ensure that their farmers have a
> guaranteed high income.
Instead, these countries should be focusing in areas where they can
compete. There is no point trying to make a $10 t-shirt, however,
instead, for example, if they produced electronic componentry cheaper
than any other country, thats what that particular country should focus
its resources on. If the US reduced the taxes in stead of giving had
outs to inefficient farmers, then they wouldn't be in the same shit they
are in now.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie
Date: 05 May 2001 19:23:34 -0600
"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:bzXI6.22443$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Ian Pulsford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Craig Kelley wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Many (all?) TCP/IP stacks were developed to be BSD-compliant. The
> > > > internet wasn't developed on UNIX, but UNIX made it what it is today
> > > > (you're splitting hairs). Any way you look at it, Microsoft would
> > > > have done everything *worse* than it is now (see SMB, ntrpc, ActiveX
> > > > -- all communication technologies specifically designed to make people
> > > > dependent on Windows).
> > > >
> > >
> > > Doesn't matter M$ wasn't in the networking game at that stage anyway and
> > > now it lags with ipv6 implementation too. Recent Unixes have it built
> > > in, Windows 2000 and NT have 'developer' add-ons. That'll be fun, as
> > > the internet migrates to ipv6, watching M$ catch up.
> >
> > As the internet migrates to ipv6? You haven't any idea how long that is
> > going to take, do you? It would not surprise me if in 10 years, the
> > internet were still primarily ipv4. You're only going to see ipv6
> adoption
> > in local private wide area networks for the foreseeable future.
>
> With the way the internet grows it will HAVE to be much sooner then 10
> years. We're not going to have the luxury of putting the transition off.
It's a good thing Linux systems already ship with IPV6 installed and
running out-of-the-box. Obviously, open standards are inferior to
commercial ware. (sarcasm)
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 04:22:00 +0200
"Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <dJZI6.6119$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I *strongly* suggest that printing *must* be
> > addressed as soon as possible. I honestly see
> > very little movement on that front.
>
> I don't understand this printing problem that Unix supposedly
> has. Unix apps normally produce postscript. Unix lpr uses filters to
> see what the data type to be printed is. If you don't have a
> postscript printer the filter will use ghostscript to convert it to
> pcl or whatever. I now have a Lexmark z52 which has its own Linux
> driver. To me it is totally transparent. Before I had an
> HP850C. Again printing was totally transparent. Where is the problem?
First, there is a news server that is dedicated to printing in Linux, that
is a problem all in itself.
Second, we aren't talking about end users' problems here, we are talking
about support for developers.
Let's say that we take two comparable products that does the exact same
thing, one for windows, the other for linux.
The windows one could have printing support in a matter of no time, because
GDI abstract the output device from the developer, so you don't have to
change the code at all to print to a printer or display on the screen.
The only worry you have is page breaks.
On Linux, however, you need to have seperate code that does it, which is
much harder than adding few "if"s for page-breaks.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux disgusts me
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 06 May 2001 01:20:04 GMT
On Sat, 05 May 2001 16:02:56 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 5 May 2001 09:04:22 +0000 (UTC), [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("John
> Smith") wrote:
<snip>
>>
>>You bunch of losers,
>>
>>J
>
>
> Talk to Terry Porter.
>
> He's been using Linux since somewhere back in the Jurassic period and
^^^ 1997
> denies all of these problems.
^^^^^^^ allegations.
>
> BTW you "can" change the font size to 100dpi but run the risk of
> aborting the entire system is you don't know what you are doing.
Aborting ???
>
> Search on "Font De-Uglification" for information because these yo-yo's
> have a How-To for just about everything.
Yes thats correct, Linux does have How-to's for everything, as
"Steve,Mike,Heather,Simon,teknite,keymaster,keys88,Sewer Rat,
S,Sponge,Sarek,piddy,McSwain,pickle_pete,Ishmeal_hafizi,Amy,
Simon777,Claire,Flatfish+++,Flatfish"
has correctly observed.
>
> Flatfish
The troll that Flatfish responded to, and probably wrote
required no response, other than a swift rebuke.
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
