Linux-Advocacy Digest #346, Volume #27 Mon, 26 Jun 00 10:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Comparing Windows NT and UNIX System Management (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Do not like Windows but ... (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Volker Hetzer)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling
Too Harsh (MK)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling
Too Harsh (MK)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling
Too Harsh (MK)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh (MK)
Re: Fan of General Wojciech Jaruzelski? was Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose
Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (MK)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:07:10 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Mon, 26 Jun 2000 05:55:11 GMT <8j6r7r$n7f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote on Sat, 24 Jun 2000 03:05:39 GMT
>> <8j18ht$2vi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >Notepad could be compared to xedit, one of the most "bare bones"
>> >text editors available for UNIX or Linux, primarily because it
>> >was one of the first X11 Applications written back when programmers
>> >had to code directly to Xlib (similar to coding directly to GDI
>> >calls on Windows).
>> >
>>
>> Pedant point: Notepad on NT4 does not appear to have this limit.
>> Not that it's a great editor... :-)
>>
>> (Of course, this illustrates Yet Another Stupidity Of Windows,
>> or maybe the ix86. Namely, the segmenting of same. Granted,
>> it was an improvement over, say, the 8080A (20 address bits
>> versus 16), but the Motorola 68000 did it more intelligently. :-) )
>
>Actually, one of the big problems with the 68000, especially
>as a UNIX processor, was that it had no internal MMU.
This is true; that came later. I was documenting the silliness
in the address structure; I don't know as much about the MMU
on both chip families, although I do have some documentation
on the 486 somewhere.
>Furthermore,
>the interrupt handling made it very difficult to implement an MMU.
>The early Sun/1 Workstations used two 68k processors to handle
>exceptions safely. Some machines such as the Sun2 and the Power 5/32
>used the 68010 processor and an external MMU.
If I'm not mistaken (having looked at a hardware board), the
Apollo DOMAIN DN660 also used two 68k processors, and a Z80 to boot.
Apparently a few workstations went this route.
>
>Ironically, the segmentation of the 8088 and 8086 were originally
>intended to support Xenix, Venix, and ZDOS, all UNIX variants based
>on AT&T version 6 UNIX.
>
>It was Bill Gates who told Intel that he couldn't imagine using more
>than a megabyte of RAM on the 8088.
"640K ought to be enough for anybody." -- Bill Gates, 1981
>Later he ate those words and
>too many MS-DOS programs played cute arithmetic games with the
>segmentation pointers that prevented the adoption of the 80286
>"protected mode".
>
>So much for Microsoft "Advancing Computer Technology". For years,
>Microsoft tried to protect it's monopoly by forcing programmers to
>use "Real Mode" even when other systems such as DR-DOS were providing
>fully functional "Protected Mode" services.
>
>Linux provided working Virtual Mode back when Microsoft was still
>"thunking" between Real and Protected mode.
AFAIK, Microsoft is still "thunking". They're being hobbled by
backward-compatibility issues. :-)
Couldn't happen to a nicer company. :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- should one think instead of thunk?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Comparing Windows NT and UNIX System Management
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:11:59 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 25 Jun 2000 15:41:13 -0500 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/bin/nts/ntsysman.exe
[1] 404; others have already pointed this out.
[2] What, precisely, is the point of serving a .exe file? Is this
executed from the server side, or the client?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Do not like Windows but ...
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:18:46 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Mon, 26 Jun 2000 02:45:40 -0400 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>Pedro Iglesias wrote:
>>
>> nowadays :
>>
>> winamp is better than xmms or whatever on Linux
>> word is better than startoffice or whatever on Linux (wordperfect,
>> abiword, ...)
>
>Nobody in their right mind would write a book in Word.
I do wonder what formats are accepted by publishing houses. I suspect
that Word is in fact one of them, although its general reliability
(or lack thereof) would make me nervous.
Of course, there's also the issue of actually *writing*, (subject,
verb, participle, object of preposition, conjunctions, alliterations,
metaphors, and similies) as opposed to using cutesy wootsy icons,
bullets, fonts, smilies ( :-) ) and such.
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: Volker Hetzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:22:39 +0000
"Kenneth P. Turvey" wrote:
> I think it also implied some use of force during the transition. The
> workers rise up, the workers force their will on the former system,
> eventually everyone is happy and voluntarily cooperates.
>
> There is a middle step in which consent is not required.
Yes, however this is based on the assumption that the workers form the
majority of the population and therefore simply enforce a majority decision.
> Any extreme system results in failure. Pure socialism is a failure. Pure
> capitalism is a failure. Some blend is necessary.
I don't think it has to be a certain "blend". This was wished by many when
the two germanies merged, but it simply didn't work out that way. (Try
to blend easy work, a hard currency and perfect social security.)
I'd rather think one always needs a diversity of opinions. Without them there
is no change and therefore no progress.
The problem of today is that you can basically demonize any opinion if you
tag it with either "fascist/capitalist" or "communist".
Then you don't have to think about its contents anymore and the purpose of
freedom of speech (diversity of opinion and ideas, IMHO) is defeated.
This is bad.
> I personally think
> that consent is the most important aspect of any system.
I disagree.
Conflicts (slaver/slave, peasant/landowner, worker/factory owner) and their
eventual and ongoing resolution are the driving force of progress.
They create problems and therefore the will to change something.
IMHO that's why western european culture evolved faster (if more bloody)
than the consent based societies in the far east.
What's needed is a civilised means of solving those conflicts. I think
a mixture of marx and gandhi philosophy would be a good place to start this.
Greetings!
Volker
--
The early bird gets the worm. If you want something else for
breakfast, get up later.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (MK)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:28:08 GMT
On 25 Jun 2000 19:24:15 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>>Convince. There's nothing here to be "convinced" about, it's about
>>understanding the issue. I think you're just not used to smell of ugly
>>negotiations. I think I saw more of them, so I am not that oversensitive and I
>>think I can see the difference between coercion and using your position to
>>press the other side to get what one wants. ...
>
> It would seem that all this bully-worship never got you fake
>citizenship papers, buster.
Never applied for them, moron. I had no intention to immigrate really (I
was thinking about it, but ultimately decided I did not want to), BTW, just
earn money I needed.
>Because if you had gotten such papers, your
>life would have been a *lot* easier.
Oh gee, thanks, how generous the govts are (including mine, it's
not better for people, esp. those from former SU) -- they could actually
make my life difficult, while they generously do not make my life difficult!
My, my!
There is a joke around here:
Lenin was visiting some mountain village. Years later, reporters find
highlander living in that village and ask him how he recognized the
greatness and generosity of Lenin. The highlander responded: "Once, while
shaving in the morning, some kid running around has unintentionally kicked the
bowl with water. Lenin hit the kid's face so the kid has bite the dust, but kid
got up and ran away.
So you see, Lenin was incredibly generous; he could actually
kill the boy, but he only hit him!".
Gee, thanks, govt -- you actually did not kill me or jail me. What a display of
generosity.
In order to be consistent, Petrich would also have to be grateful to mafia
that it allows Petrich not to have troubles on its side. Strangely, I don't
see this.
>> It's obvious that MS has a very
>>powerful position in negotiations. Nevertheless, it's still not coercion.
>>That's just threatening to revoke _positive right_. I have been subject
>>to ugly threats of revoking positive rights, like firing me when I objected to
>>something while I worked illegal, so I obviously could not go to court or
>>govt agency if I thought it was unfair.
> You were illegally present, MK, so what do you expect?
That govt (of any sort, including but not limited to mine -- or maybe esp.
mine should I say) fucks off, bc I am no criminal. Unless you count wanting
to work as a crime.
>Or do you
>wish that *everybody* has a status equivalent to that of an illegal
>immigrant and be equally vulnerable to getting screwed over???
Petrich shows he has less than half of pig's brain -- if work without
permit is not illegal, all work logically enough is legal.
Petrich is decrepit moron that has to assume that all things are illegal until
govt generously allows them to be legal, not the other way around. Otherwise
Petrich would not produce that excuse for conclusion he does.
Petrich also has this romantic vision of govt being romantic force of good that
defends people from "being screwed over". Petrich can not possibly grasp it's
bullshit and govt is not significantly more or less altruistic than McDonald's
is -- that govt is not inherently good or bad, just similarly self-interested.
That is because Petrich is so incompetent that he takes normative statements
for real instead of bothering to observe positive reality. It's enough to
declare "I want to help you from being screwed over" and then practice enough
lies and misrepresentations to have Petrichs of this world on yoiur side. It's
enough to point at example of MS and Apple, with Petrich being total idiot
thinking that MS has actually practiced more vertical foreclosure and
monopolistic pricing than Apple did, even though in reality it is precisely
other way around.
Petrich ignores opinions of pro economists like Krugman or Economides, or,
in general matters of govt he also ignores knowldege of people like Milton
Friedman or public choice theorists, bc Petrich actually "knows better"
and Petrich has good intentions which are in conflict with that
knowledge! Ain't that grand?
Petrich seems to think that in some inane way economists actually support his
position even though they actually don't; that is probably bc Petrich seems to
be unable to connect facts in logical manner in addition to being normative
thinker -- the most mediocre type around -- instead of being positive thinker.
> And look at how much money you made as an illegal immigrant.
Enough. None of your business how much I earned or for whom I worked
or with whom or how much I earned.
> Also, if it turned out that you had squatted on someone else's
>property, O MK. Or stole, O MK...
Oh, gee, and think what it would be like if I actually were some sort of
Hitler. Wouldn't I be _really_ guilty then? Also, I guess that criminals
having legal citizenship leave the numbers of their national IDs in the place
of the crime, so it's so much easier for police to find them.
Imbecile.
>>Both MS and pencil salesman could coerce you -- but in practice, neither can
>>_coerce_ you in way other than forceful depriving you of all other
>>alternatives. If MS did not burn Linux vendors and blackmail BeOS makers, it's
>>not coercion. Those are still negotiations -- harsh, but negotiations.
> Bully-worship.
No, it's not -- I can tell coercion from negotiations, while it's evident you
can't. As long as _dollars only_ are in game, it's not coercion, it's just
using dollars to attract the participants -- the number of dollars
paid is equal to combined benefits of all attracted participants. Sure the
outcome of negotiations may not be attractive for some participants or
outright give them serious troubles, but it's not coercion. You're just crybaby
wanting govt to intervene on your personal behalf.
MK
---
Involuntary redistribution is theft in coating of hypocrisy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (MK)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:28:17 GMT
On 25 Jun 2000 19:08:03 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>>Well, it just so happens that I lived and worked precisely that way -- and
>>worse, bc I worked illegal. On farms, construction sites, restaurant and
>>the like. Full underground, nothing legal. No working permit, no
>>insurance, nothing. Cash from hand to hand -- about a third of legal
>>wage. Renting a single bed in a shared apartment for a quarter of average
>>earnings.
> An ILLEGAL immigrant in pursuit of gold-paved streets. Sheesh.
You know nothing about my life or what is it that I pursue, so fuck off.
> And one who never made very much money off of being a capitalism
>groupie.
Enough to understand how things tick in major aspects, and where I can expect
real and where I can expect unreal.
"Good government" and real govt are like potential and reality.
The son once asked his father what is the difference between potential
and reality -- he had to write essay on that as his homework. His father asked
him to go to his mother, sister and brother and ask whether he or she would
sleep with another man for a million dollars.
His mother said "well, I guess I would agree -- it's a million dollars".
His sister said "I think that in the end I would".
His brother said "well, it's disgusting, but after all it's a million bucks,
man".
The boy reported that to his father and and asked what it all means. The father
responded: "You see, son, potentially we have three million dollars in this
house. Reality is we have two whores and a faggot".
MK
---
Involuntary redistribution is theft in coating of hypocrisy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (MK)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:28:24 GMT
On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 00:09:44 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 17:23:18 GMT, MK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>On 25 Jun 2000 01:14:48 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>>
>>> Mr. MK seems to think that tax money goes into some black hole
>>>somewhere. But soldiers and cops have to be paid somehow. Not to mention
>>>government-bond holders, pensioners, road builders, and the like.
>>
>>Petrich twists the subject to fit the predetermined thesis, conveniently
>>ignoring that taxes for national defense are only necessary for
>>technical, not moral reasons -- I simply see no way of organizing
>
> The same can be said of any expenditure that seeks to minimize
> the total spending of a state to deal with problems of internal
> security. There are prison wardens that would contradict your
> position on social spending based on this.
This is yet another urban legend that people will become criminals
if govt doesn't pay them welfare.
Why don't you check at my friend -- the town where he grew up became overrun by
welfare recipients, it used to be normal town with mostly very civil
neighbourhood. Now in the shop they hand you over groceries through the hole
in the strenghened wall -- they used to be robbed once a month or more
frequently. It looks like welfare and public spending aggravates the crime,
alcohol and drug abuse, not diminishes them. If you pay for something, you get
more of it, not less.
In general military, police, justice -- those are necessary to pay from taxes
paid to state _maybe_. David Friedman claims not even that is necessary
and that laws and police may be result of market response; since he's
professor of law, he's more competent in this domain than I am. He may be
right, I don't assume he can't be (thus I take working position of "technical
minarchist").
But even economists now admit that "there are far fewer pure public
goods than it was initially thought". Source: "Economic Theory in Retrospect"
by Mark Blaug, a renown scholar. Blaug is scientist, not some flaming
libertarian, but even he concedes that "even if market solution does
not work exactly as expected along Coase's lines, it's not guaranteed that
govt solution will give better results in this case".
MK
---
Involuntary redistribution is theft in coating of hypocrisy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (MK)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:28:30 GMT
On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 12:18:55 -0700, Salvador Peralta
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> I doubt it. Libertarians routinely come up with the most
>> >> ridiculous justifications for harmful activities by business-
>> >> men.
>> >It also occurs to me that they seldom address the extent to which
>> >government investment has fostered economic growth in countries like the
>> >united states. Our current economic boom is due, in no small measure,
>> >by protocols that were funded by the government and a communications
>> >infrastructure that have been paid for with a mixture of public and
>> >private funds.
>> Correlation is not causation. I don't see how e.g. IETF standards
>> are really result of "public funds".
>The development of many of the protocols we are now using came from
>DARPA, ARPA, and CERN.
Absolutely. I don't claim govt is inherently unable to do anything. I only
claim it's not cost effective and there are many more examples of crucial
standards that were not paid for by govt. E.g. companies pay hundreds of
thousands of dollars per year for participation in W3C. Unicode creation was
mostly initiated as result of IBM's efforts, IIRC. Mouse, GUI, Ethernet,
Smalltalk and more came from Xerox PARC. C++ came from AT&T labs. TCP/IP was
designed by company (hired by govt, true). The idea and first implementation of
relational databases was done in IBM. UNIX started existence in company, too
(now with Linux it comes back to private domain again). MRP II is the key to
high productivity of main manufacturers nowadays. I don't know how much effort
behind ERP comes from govt-funded bodies, though I expect it's not much. Take a
look at OMG, ATM Forum, VESA, IETF -- those are all bodies whose standards are
mainstays of computing. And they are either totally or mostly
private/voluntarily paid for here are also dozens, if not hundreds of smaller
consortiums having nothing to do with govt.
>NCSA paid for the first graphical browser?
Govt (read: taxpayer) paid for first man in space, too, but I don't think
it is really the proof private industries couldn't do it. Who's developing
big, feature rich graphical browsers used in real world NOW?
I'm not saying they all govt labs should be eliminated, for they are mostly
necessary for research on weapons or other national security matters. However,
existing products or standards that came from them are rather side effects
of either military programs, or programs done for propaganda reasons, not
goals on their own. Like sending man to moon was mostly result of propaganda
flexing muscles during Cold War. Now we have also have teflon thanks to that
program, but I would not say that teflon is result bc of good govt wanting to
give teflon to people.
>The
>first mail protocols developed at ucla, and ucsb were paid for with
>government funds. Large portions of every telephony infrastructure
>across the globe were paid for with public funds, etc.
>The seed money
>for research in most internetworking originated with public funds, not
>the private sector. First computer? Paid for by the U.S. army. etc.
>etc. etc.
It's all true -- but it doesn't prove anything but forceful monopolization of
those domains by govt. Govt just took those domains over by force and made
taxpayer to pay for it -- that's all. It doesn't mean that it helped, I think
that at the end of the day it rather impeded progress. Look at how dynamic
progress has been where govt does _not_ mess up, at least much -- IT
from seventies till now.
>> More like they are result
>> of particular person or organization simply wanting to do that.
>More like they are the result of the US government wanting to develop
>first a machine capable of cracking german codes in WWII and later, a
>decentralized communications infrastructure that could survive a nuclear
>exchange.
US govt? IIRC, the bulk of work on cracking Enigma during WWII was done
in Bletchley Park in UK, and before WWII the first substancial successes in
breaking Enigma code were achieved by mathematicians working in Polish
intelligence that with outbreak of WWII gave what they had to British (those
mathematicians continued their work at Bletchley). The first computer was
result of US govt needing to have something to calculate trajectories of shells
fired from high-powered cannons, bc doing calculations by hundreds of humans
was too time-consuming and error-prone.
>> >Simpy saying that increased taxes leads to decreased consumer spending
>> >is a rather shaky edifice on which to base an opinion about economic
>> >growth. Say what you will about public education, but countries that
>> >have widespread public education have higher literacy rates than
>> >countries that do not. Countries that invest public funds in
>> >infrastructure such as roads, telecommunications, water works, electric
>> >works, etc. tend to have a stronger base upon which to build a diverse
>> >and successful economy than those which do not. Countries that provide
>> >for the weakest elements of a society, and which protect their citizens
>> >from the often dynamic and painful shifts associated with markets tend
>> >to have political and social stability which in turn creates a better
>> >environment for commerce and economic growth.
>> It's all collection of normative feel-good beliefs. For actual empirical data
>> see e.g. http://www.worldbank.org/research/growth/absddolakray.htm
>...lol... Unstable governments and a populace that is unprotected from
>economic hardships are great for market economies... lol... It's no
>coincidence that every first world country in the world can be labelled
>a social democracy.
Correlation is not causation -- socialdemocracy is result of politics that
makes it worse, not better. As Brink Lindsey likes to put it, the fact
that I can move uphill with a pack of cement on my back doesn't
mean that that pack makes me run faster. You make typical, common,
vulgar post hoc, ergo propter hoc error.
>Nor is it a coincidence that the periods of
>greatest revolution in the United States came prior to the advent of the
>welfare state.
>> Involuntary redistribution is theft in coating of hypocrisy.
>Reaping the benefits of social redistribution, and spending on public
>infrastructure and then whining about taxes is hypocrisy.
Why? Govt does not produce anything on its own. Every single cent it has spent
is taken from taxpayer. Govt is not good uncle that earns on his own and then
generously redistributes the dough to its citizen nephews in just ways.
>Charging
>citizens to pay for the public goods that make a reasonably high
>standard of living possible is simply good for business.
Well, why don't you check how European socialdemocracies are
doing economically. They do it so "well" they recently had
to ask US to impose new Internet taxes. As if it had not enough
of its own troubles:
"Citizens Against Governmental Waste", the URL is http://www.cagw.org IIRC.
I like their "Porker of The Month" awards.
MK
---
Involuntary redistribution is theft in coating of hypocrisy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (MK)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Fan of General Wojciech Jaruzelski? was Re: Anti-Human Libertarians
Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:28:34 GMT
On 25 Jun 2000 19:03:23 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>>I guess you are hypocrite defending modern guilds attempting to screw customers
>>and competing businesses and workers.
>
> I'm sure that you appreciate what General Wojciech Jaruzelski had
>done with that infamous labor union Solidarity.
I'm sure that this would actually be you defending that, bc you are
pathological, corrupt liar pretending things are different than in
reality -- i.e. that Solidarity was labor union like typical Western labor
unions, while in reality it was more like immense political movement. AFAIK,
labor unions in the West rarely demand freedom of speech like freedom
of creation of media uncontrolled by govt and elimination of censorship as well
as allowing voluntarily formed political parties into elections and other stuff
like that.
Petrich's claims contain similar proportion of truth to the Goebbels' claims.
Petrich even practices lying in precisely the same manner -- Petrich
was explained the Solidarity in some details many times, but Petrich doesn't
respond, snips the explanation and just restates original claim.
EXACTLY like Goebbels.
FYI: Solidarity at the time was great movement working for freedom. It
largely fulfilled its historical role, but times and situation have changed,
and now they are just one more political party. I truly hate to say that, but
now in some respects they are worse than contemporary post-communist
party, and AWS (the political party based on main movments and parties
composing Solidarity in the past) is probably going to lose next elections. I'd
prefer them to be different and I hope they change, but for now it doesn't look
like there's much chance for it. They did not adapt and reform to the new
situation, or if they did change, they changed for worse. I guess that's the
regular development of all revolutionary-turned-govt movements, but still there
is no more Solidarity like it was back then. I don't despair over that,
however, this is normal state of things; once certain phase of historical
development is over, it's over and there's no point in longing for it to come
back. I guess we became country closer to normal (though I often have serious
doubts about that seeing the politics).
MK
---
Involuntary redistribution is theft in coating of hypocrisy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
