Linux-Advocacy Digest #201, Volume #26 Thu, 20 Apr 00 22:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Windows2000 sale success.. ("Otto")
Re: at the risk of ignorance...a little too late for that (Laura M. Parkinson)
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Elian ("Keith T. Williams")
Re: Elian ("Keith T. Williams")
Re: at the risk of ignorance...a little too late for that ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Rumors ... (Osugi Sakae)
Re: Elian (The 2-Belo)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows2000 sale success..
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 00:52:01 GMT
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8dnehk$thi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <mh8L4.59287$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > "J@M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "Indeed, on Tuesday, Microsoft said it
> > > had sold 1.5 million copies of Windows
> > > 2000 in the two months since its launch,
> > > a pace four times that of its
> > > predecessor, Windows NT 4.0."
>
> Actually, this is really a very poor showing considering that the
> cost of an upgrade from Windows 95 to Windows 2000 is only $200,
> (plus the extra RAM and hard drive). Windows 95 upgrades sold 1
> million copies in it's first WEEK.
The upgrade to Windows 2000 doesn't have as many advantages as from Win3.1
to Win95 did. NT 4.0 is a stable well established and supported platform.
For most shops there's no real reason to upgrade.
>
> On the other hand, this is the first opportunity that Windows 9x
> users have had to get into the Windows NT based technology for anything
> less than $400 (MSRP for unrestricted consumer version).
>
> Microsoft did offer restricted versions, including OEM, Developer, and
> Student editions, but you couldn't legally use them in production.
Therefore the price isn't $400.00 for Win9x users, they can get it a lot
cheaper.
>
> > Any data on how many servers out of the 1.5 million copies?
>
> > > 0.5 million copies for the second month
> > > compared to 1 million in the first month...
>
> Most of the first month sales were to the evaluators. These are those
> who need an unrestricted copy to evaluate to determine whether Windows
> 2000 is a viable platform.
>
> The feedback from Windows-only users is very positive.
> Windows 2000 is the best version of Windows Microsoft
> has ever produced. No one disputes that. The big
> question is whether it's worth the extra $200 to have
> Windows 2000, how many applications will have to be
> upgraded, and how many computers will have to be
> replaced. If it's not cost-effective to upgrade to
> Windows 2000, it may not go well.
>
> On the other hand, feedback from Windows/Linux users is
> that Windows 2000 is a very expensive package that still
> doesn't measure up to Linux in terms of Price/Performance.
> With companies like Corel, Inprise, and IBM/Lotus providing
> support for the rapidly growing Linux desktop market and Linux
> providing excellent performance as a server, most corporations
> are leaning toward a much wider deployment of Linux and UNIX
> variants. Even some of the Windows "biggots" are getting shy
> about insisting on Windows as the solution to enterprise problems.
Except for the one which actually tried it. They were kind of upset when I
was able to change the root password without knowing it. The whole procedure
took me less than 2 minutes, including re-booting.
>
> > And the projected sale for this month is.......
>
> In terms of cash paying retail customers, the count should drop
> quickly. The OEM market will me much less willing to accept the
> draconian terms Microsoft imposed on Windows 98, but might be
> willing to deploy Windows 2000 in "dual boot" configurations.
> I do expect to see many more Windows 2000/Linux machines, especially
> in the second half. It appears that customers are willing to pay a
> premium for Linux on Laptops and Desktops, especially if the know that
> all the components (sound, modem, video, USB, DVD) will work on the
> Linux platform. On some systems, the premium is as much as 40%.
There is already a version by Caldera, 2.4 E-desktop, which can correctly
configure all of the hardware components. Although it is far off from
Windows 2000 in quality, nonetheless a step in the right direction. As much
as Linvocates hate to admit, the success of the Linux platform hinges on how
soon it can be made as easy as Windows. Presently it is still years away
from achieving that goal, therefore posing no danger to MS OSs what_so_ever.
If Microsoft wants to end the MS vs Linux debate, then they should just mail
a copy of the latest Linux OS to every registered users. Let them experience
Linux for themselves. I've been tripple booting my laptop with Caldera 2.4,
NT 4.0, and Windows 2000. If there was any stability problem, it was with
Linux. I take that back, it was with KDE. Even the tripple boot option
doesn't give me anything extra what I couldn't do under Windows 2000. There
is no advantage in having a Windows/Linux (Windux) pc for the average user.
For the OEM it would mean that they need to support 2 OSs on one PC. That
will be the day when they allow tech support to completely wipe out the
profit. It's never going to happen by OEM. In another word, you're
completely out your fricken mind, as usual...
>
> I wouldn't be suprised if by the end of the summer, we were actually
> looking at Linux on retail shelves. Even Microsoft has hinted at
> Microsoft Office for Linux. Once the remedy portion of the hearing
> is established, I wouldn't be suprised if OEMs and Software vendors
> started very agrressively backing Linux.
Linux is on the retail shelves already gathering dust. Not many people are
willing to learn a new OS. Linux doesn't give anything to the average users,
other than headaches, what can't be done easier with Windows 2000.
>
> If the remedies are reasonable (Giving FTC authority to regulate
> and mediate Microsoft contract practices), the Supreme Court will
> uphold the verdict and the FTC will relax controls as Linux captures
> 30-50% of the desktop market. When Linux establishes a sufficient
> share of the market that Microsoft can say it's no longer a monopoly,
> the FTC won't need to regulate Microsoft because the OEMs will be
> able to choose how much of a balance of each OS they want to sell
> and market based on the terms Microsoft gives them.
>
What remedies? Are you day dreaming again? If there will be any, it won't
happen 'till the end of the next year, read 2001, or possibly never. The
only way Linux can capture 30-50% of the desktop market share if the
government forces it down on people's throat. Even in that case I'd put my
money against it.
Otto
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Laura M. Parkinson)
Crossposted-To: rec.games.roguelike.nethack
Subject: Re: at the risk of ignorance...a little too late for that
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 00:57:27 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) rhapsodized in blue:
>On 20 Apr 2000 23:01:25 GMT, David Steinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Karl Knechtel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>>: The whole idea of something being "in your path" is easily one of the
>>: three least intuitive things about *n?x I've run into...
>
> Bullocks.
Er.. I normally don't post just to nitpick, but this one... well..
tickled me. :)
I think you mean "bollocks."
--
-'-,-'-<<0 Trickster 0>>-'-,-'- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lparkinson.home.mindspring.com
"Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be
destroyed." -Richard Adams, Watership Down
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 00:59:25 +0000
Monkeyboy wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Colin R. Day"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > George Graves wrote:
> > >
> > > I run PageMaker - No Linux, or Be equivalent
> > > I run QuarkXpress - No Linux, or Be equivalent
> > > I run FrameMaker - No Linux, or Be equivalent
> > > I run Adobe Illustrator - No Linux, or Be equivalent
> > > I run Photoshop - Well, there's GIMP, but that's NO photoshop.
> > > I run ViaVoice - No Linux, or Be equivalent
> >
> > Didn't one of the Red Hat releases have a beta version of this?
> >
> > >
> > > I run Freehand - No Linux, or Be equivalent
> > >
> > > You get the picture.
> >
> > Yeah, you like proprietary software.
>
> Either that or stuff that works AND has features. Open source is great
> only if it does the job. If it does not, it's free crap. Once again, you
> usually get what you pay for.
>
TeX/LATeX does the job. As does emacs, gcc, etc.
>
> M
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 01:00:15 +0000
Chris Wenham wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> On 4/19/00, 6:31:43 PM, "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> regarding Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!:
>
> > > I run PageMaker - No Linux, or Be equivalent
> > > I run QuarkXpress - No Linux, or Be equivalent
> > > I run FrameMaker - No Linux, or Be equivalent
> > > I run Adobe Illustrator - No Linux, or Be equivalent
> > > I run Photoshop - Well, there's GIMP, but that's NO photoshop.
> > > I run ViaVoice - No Linux, or Be equivalent
>
> > > You get the picture.
>
> > Yeah, you like proprietary software.
>
> If non-proprietary software in the same class as the above exists, I
> would really like to know what they are.
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris Wenham.
Don't know that I was claiming THAT much. But then, I'm a TeX user.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Keith T. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.activism,alt.politics.communism,rec.games.video.misc,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk,alt.fan.karl-malden.nose
Subject: Re: Elian
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 21:12:29 -0400
Cybrinjn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 20 Apr 2000 12:47:48 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> Michiel Buddingh' wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
> >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > > On Wed, 19 Apr 2000 14:32:46 -0400, DGITC wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > >That's not much of a problem, since the majority of Linux users
are
> >> > > >already Communist.
> >> > >
> >> > > Bullshit. Go back under your bridge, troll.
> >> >
> >> > Bullshit? Linux is one of the best examples of
> >> > anarcho-communism the world has ever seen.
> >>
> >> Except that we like to make money. Actually, I think it is interesting.
> >> Linux is sort of a farm cooperative, or native american sort of thing.
> >> We build stuff in cooperative groups as a community, but use the stuff
> >> that we build for a capitalistic endeavor.
> >
> >Oh dear. Does this mean we're going to have to start scalping our
> >neighboring tribes and implement mass human sacrifice now? :)
>
> Uh... I think he said _Native American_, NOT Celtic tribes.
> The CyberInjun
Let's not forget the Aztecs in there
>
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >--
> >The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
> >Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Keith T. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.activism,alt.politics.communism,rec.games.video.misc,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk,alt.fan.karl-malden.nose
Subject: Re: Elian
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 21:15:09 -0400
Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> DGITC wrote:
> >
> > In article <8djqud$l9a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > DGITC wrought:
> > >
> > > >Today I heard from a friend, who has a cousin who works for
Microsoft,
> > > >that Microsoft is going to give Elian Gonzalez a free X-Box plus
three
> > > >games of his choice, but only if Elian says that he'll stay in the
US.
> > > >
> > > >Am I the only one who sees anything wrong with Microsoft doing this
to
> > > >him? This is nothing other than bribery, and will only make Elian
into
> > > >a passive, apathetic vegetable; dependant on television. He'll also
be
> > > >taught that happiness can only be attained by material possessions
and
> > > >not from a strong bond between father and son.
> > > >
> > > >Is it truly impossible for someone to be happy under communism. Are
we
> > > >so caught up in a system of greed that we think it is ok to separate
a
> > > >boy from his father, because his father lives a simple life, and
can't
> > > >provide his son with a lot of expensive clothes and toys? Does a
child
> > > >really need anything more to be happy than food, clothes, shelter,
and
> > > >the love of his parents? Send Elian Gonzales back to Cuba today.
> > >
> > > But only if Castro "embraces and extends" Linux.
> > >
> >
> > That's not much of a problem, since the majority of Linux users are
> > already Communist.
> >
> > --
> > DGITC
> > Delete the NOSPAM to send a reply by email.
>
> Actually, the Linux community has *nothing* to do with
> communism!
>
> Communism:
> The idea of communism is to have a highly centralized
> distribution of means of production. Production is often
> accomplished by asking the population (by means of
> questionnaires) what they need most. Out of this come plans
> for the future of the country's production.
> (Five-year plans in the case of the former Soviet Union.
> Correct me if i'm wrong)
> Conclusion: Doesn't work correctly. Difficult to plan ahead
> for a long time. Also difficult to keep people from trying
> to gain more wealth than other. Almost uncontrollable
> without tight regime.
>
ah! but needs of the population discovered by questionaire!
> Linux:
> Production means (the source code, if you will) are highly
> decentralized. This means everybody can contribute and alter
> production in any way they deem necessary, passing these
> changes through the proper channels. This in turn creates a
> highly automated method of production and evolution.
> Distribution is handled in a (mostly) commercial way.
> Conclusion: Quick evolution, high quality due to
> non-commercial means of production. Distribution channels
> are in commercial competition, which again increases
> quality. This chapter is not closed, and only the future
> will tell what will happen.
>
> Fascism:
> All production means are in the hands of big, centralized
> corporations. These corporations are supposed to be
> monopolies in their particular field of operation, and work
> together to fill the needs of the population.
> (Italy, late 1930's and early 1940's)
> Conclusion: Didn't work. Corporations looked after their own
> interests instead of population needs. Product quality
> dropped due to lack of competition.
>
> --
> % make fire
> Don't know how to make fire
> % Why not?
> No match
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: rec.games.roguelike.nethack
Subject: Re: at the risk of ignorance...a little too late for that
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 01:28:37 +0000
Karl Knechtel wrote:
> <rant crossposted to comp.os.linux.advocacy, where it should hopefully be
> somewhat more relevant. Those of you in rec.games.roguelike.nethack are
> warned ;)>
>
> Dylan O'Donnell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> :"discordja" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> :> i'll be honest, i'm not the most well versed in linux operations. i have a
> :> shell account here at school and play nethack when i should be working or
> :> going to class. at the same time, i have never installed it onto a computer
> :> or did anything but play. i dled a copy of nethack 3.3.0 onto my laptop
> :> yesterday and extracted the files to the proper directories.../usr/games/
> :> and so on and so forth. then...i hit the wall. where do i go from there?
> :> i tried to reading the nethack.txt and the README.linux but that didn't help
> :> me any. when i type "nethack" in usr/games i get that it is not a command.
> :> anyone out there want to help a desparate soul in a serious plight? any
> :> help would be much appreciated
> : Assuming everything went file with the compilation and installation,
> : you probably just need to add '/usr/games' to your PATH environment
> : variable; alternatively, invoke '/usr/games/nethack' explicitly.
>
> I was just about to make all of these suggestions actually, but noticed
> you'd beat me to it ;)
>
> : (Typing 'nethack' while in the directory probably doesn't work because
> : '.' ("current directory") isn't in your path either, for good though
> : somewhat offtopic reason; invoking './nethack' would likely work,
> : but adding '/usr/games' to your path will save the directory-changing.)
>
> The whole idea of something being "in your path" is easily one of the three
> least intuitive things about *n?x I've run into (the others being the vi
> keys - which I avoid by using pico - and the idea of forcing something to
> run in the background with. I thought this class of OSes was supposed to
> do PMT; how come if I run netscape without an & from an xterm, the commands
> in the xterm window don't get executed until I quit Netscape, even if I
> minimize it and bring the xterm window into focus?
Would it be too difficult to run multiple xterms? I can get four on one desktop
(1024 x 768). As I have eight desktops (in KDE), I could have thirty-two
xterms at the same time. Even more if one allows overlapping.
But I invoke Netscape by clicking an icon, anyway!
> Shouldn't a command
> window always have relatively high priority implicitly, since it's where
> you're running everything from?). Why on EARTH saying the equivalent
> of "go to the current directory and open this file" should under any
> circumstances allow you to do something that saying "open this file" wouldn't
> is beyond me. Off-topic (to RGRN), perhaps, but please do enlighten us
> (me). I presume there must be some obscure security reason for it.
> Which would be one more thing I don't understand; why all these linux hackers
> who aren't running web servers and are the only ones in their family who
> would dare touch a computer would want to run an OS designed for multiple
> users, and why it doesn't bother them that doing everything they want
> basically requires them to have several "accounts" for themselves.
> And why so many of them IME have set their id for their user account to
> plain old first-initial-last-name.
If you don't have multiple users, there's not much (any?) overhead. But
one should not do everything as root (I've got to stop!), as it is
preferable to download email to an expendable account.
>
>
> Karl Knechtel {:-#>
> da728 at torfree dot net
> Zahlman-Ran-Elf-Mal-Cha
Colin Day
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Rumors ...
From: Osugi Sakae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 18:21:44 -0700
In article <i8BL4.198$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik
Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Osugi Sakae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
(big snip)
>> I agree that it is normal for businesses to try to crush each
>> other, but in the case of abuse of monopoly power, it most
>> definitely does not benefit the consumer. Businesses fail
>> everyday, and that is normal. In theory, consumers decide
which
>> businesses live and which die. But a monopoly that abuses its
>> power to kill off competitors is in effect murdering those
>> companies before consumers have a chance to decide.
>
>So a monopoly should be crippled so that a poorly run company
can continue
>to function? Let's face it. Microsoft is where it is, not
because of
>monopoly power (though that helped). Microsoft is where it's
at mostly
>because it's competitors dropped the ball. For instance, both
WordPerfect
>failed to see the importance of the Windows based word
processor market
>until well after Ami and Word had established themselves.
Lotus (who bought
>Ami) later dropped the ball when Windows 95 came out, choosing
to take a
>"wait and see" approach before porting their word processor to
32 bit.
>Meanwhile, Microsoft had been porting Word and Excel to NT
while Lotus sat
>on it's laurels. This allowed Microsoft to not only "port"
Office to 32 bit
>Windows 95, but also to enhance it, since they had ported to NT
already.
Two comments. First, I don't buy the idea that every major
competitor of Microsoft's "dropped the ball". Many of these same
companies are competing quite well in other areas (areas that
Microsoft doesn't currently compete in), yet against MS they are
a suddenly a bunch of idiots who couldn't compete their way out
of a paper bag? Note I am not saying the companies involved
didn't make mistakes - even MS has made mistakes - I just don't
think that mistakes alone suffice to explain the situation.
Second comment: none of the examples you give are pertinant to
the anti-trust trial. The trial was (partly) about the way that
MS abused their monopoly power to kill netscape. I don't
remember anything in the FoF about Wordperfect or Lotus.
>> Why
>> >should the Netscape situation have been any different?
>>
>> Again, see my above comment. The Netscape situation was
>> different.
>
>You didn't answer the question. WHY should it have been
different?
Actually, I did answer the question, but you snipped my answer
from your reply. MS used their monopoly power to kill Netscape
because it exposed non-Windows API's that developers could use
to make programs that would be at least easier to port to other
operating systems or even possibly would be independent of the
OS. MS correctly viewed this as a threat to their control of the
desktop OS and decided to use their control of the desktop to
destroy that threat. AFAIK, no other program exposed API's like
this and thus no other program posed as direct a threat to
Windows. The case with java is similar - java in theory would
allow developers to write programs that would run on any
computer (with the correct software) without the need to rewrite
the program for different operating systems. This obviously
threatened to make the os irrelevant, so MS tried to stop java.
In both cases, MS was reacting to competitors' innovations -
innovations that threatened to lower the "applications barrier
to entry" that protected MS's monopoly of the desktop os.
Wordperfect never threatened MS's OS monopoly. Neither did
Stacker, Lotus 1-2-3, RealPlayer, or AOL instant messaging.
Netscape and java did threaten that monopoly and MS reacted to
crush them. Unfortunately for MS, the court has found that MS's
actions were an illegal abuse of their monopoly.
It is all right there in the FoF.
>
>> The issue is not with just providing a browser, the issue is
the
>> way MS used their monopoly power to force consumers to use
their
>> brower and the lengths they went to to kill a competitor that
>> threatened their monopoly.
>
>They didn't do anything that Netscape wasn't already doing.
Netscape
>pioneered every "monopolistic practice" that Microsoft used
against them.
>When Netscape had 90% of the market, nobody else could get in.
Even when
>Microsoft included IE for free with the OS, Netscape continued
to be a
>monopoly. It wasn't until IE actually became a peer with
Netscape (around
>IE3) that IE began to take market share away from Netscape, and
it wasn't
>until IE became better than Netscape that they actually gained
more market
>share than Netscape.
>
>IE won mostly on it's technical benefits. The market proved
with IE1, 2 and
>3 that even if the product is integrated and ISP's promote the
product, that
>customers won't drink the proverbial water they've been lead to.
>
>
Personally, I doubt that either Netscape or Microsoft pioneered
any monopolistic practice. Be that as it may, surely you realize
that there is more to being a monopoly than just market share.
If just having 90% of the market were enough to earn a company a
monopoly, then the DOJ wouldn't have had to work so hard to
prove that MS has a monopoly on desktop operating systems. What
power did netscape have to punish OEM's or consumers who didn't
choose Navigator? The very fact that IE 1, 2, and 3 were able
enter the market and compete shows what a hollow "monopoly"
Navigator had. If, as you claim, IE won on technical merit, that
also shows that there was real competition in the browser market
and thus Navigator did not have a monopoly.
I believe that in the FoL, the judge found for Microsoft
regarding the tying claims - could be wrong on that tho'. So I
am not sure what your point here is, except maybe for
claiming "its ok because the other guy did it first".
<pet peeve>One thing that kind of bothers me about MS is that
the always seem to put out crap that they know they can have
OEM's pre-load (and thus get at least a little market share) and
then slowly improve it over time - losing money the whole time -
until it is actually able to compete. This was true for Word
(though it AFAIK wasn't pre-loaded, MS-Works was), DirectX, and
by your own admission, IE. MS knows that by the time the program
is worthwhile, most everyone will at least be familiar with it
because it has been hyped and pre-loaded for years while MS
programmers worked to make it decent. In other words they
release beta stuff and depend on their size and marketing to
survive in a competitive market until their product is finally
able to compete - and upto now, usually win. I don't know or
care if it is illegal or not, but it annoys me since most any
other company would go broke if they tried to do business that
way.</pet peeve>
--
Osugi Sakae
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The 2-Belo)
Crossposted-To:
alt.activism,alt.politics.communism,rec.games.video.misc,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk,alt.fan.karl-malden.nose
Subject: Re: Elian
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 01:36:21 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Donovan Rebbechi wrought:
>On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 21:02:59 GMT, Cihl wrote:
>
>>Communism:
>>The idea of communism is to have a highly centralized
>>distribution of means of production. Production is often
>
>Wrong. The means of production are shared but needn't be centralized
>( though in practice usually are. )
>
>>Production means (the source code, if you will) are highly
>>decentralized.
>
>The means of production are a shared resource in the case of Linux.
>This would seem to be consistent with communist goals.
>
>The big difference is that participation in the Linux community is
>voluntary, while communist regimes tend to forcefully disposses
>their citizens.
Thought: Linux for communists = STALINUX?
--
mhm21x20 http://afk-mn.eist.co.jp/ news:alt.fan.karl-malden.nose
Jesus was my co-pilot, but I crashed in the Andes and I was forced to eat him.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
