Linux-Advocacy Digest #352, Volume #28 Fri, 11 Aug 00 12:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: It's official, NT beats Linux (?) (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: [Q] Too many distribution? (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Honest question about NT vs. Unix as Internet platform (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix (bgeer)
Re: Maximum file size question- follow up (Jeff Peterson)
Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company (Joseph)
Re: [Q] Too many distribution? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Learn Unix on which Unix Flavour ? (Kevin Shelly)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joseph)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Aaron Kulkis -- USELESS Idiot -- And His "Enemies" -was- Another one of
Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality ("Spud")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: It's official, NT beats Linux (?)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 09:25:46 -0500
KLH wrote:
>
> Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Mike Marion wrote:
> > >
> > > Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yes, but look at who bought them out. Two "Windows Rocks!" sites
> merge
> > > > and I don't think we will see a big shift in focus.
> > >
> > > No kidding... Middle of the front page now: "Prepare your PC for Windows
> > > ME." the article says that ME won't be in stores until 9/14 but "it's
> > > never too early to begin thinking about and planning for installing the
> > > new operating system on your computer." This "Oh geez, MS is going to
> > > release something new soon.. we must install it the moment it hits the
> > > shelves!" crap makes me want to puke.
> >
> > Reason # 3,467 for dumping Windows on my systems: I got sick of the *you
> > suck if you don't buy everything we put out the first day it's
> > available* cram it down your throat and tell you you like it bullshit.
>
> It is also a similar reason why I despise the entertainment industry.
>
> Best Regards,
> Kevin Holmes
Get into books. They are cheaper, they last longer, and nobody is
throwing a hissy fit about buying the latest 'boy-band' type of book.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Q] Too many distribution?
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 09:37:08 -0500
peer@service wrote:
> When it comes to computers, most people are not experts at them,
> and most prefer to use something familiar and easy to use and
> standard.
>
> When you buy a tire, it does not matter who made the tire becuase
> you know as long as it is of the size you want, it will fit.
>
> With software it does not work like that, you can't buy Quicken for
> windows and install it on Linux or VMS.
>
> Linux will not go anywhere on the desktop, unless and untill it becomes
> easier to use than windows and the same desktop applications that exists
> on windows exist on linux.
>
> Having too many distributions also is a bad thing for standarizations
> and for develpers. Now I have to test my Linux application on 20
> distributions instead for one.
>
> Choice can be good, and it can be bad at the same time.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah!
I still think the number one barrier to computers is that people think
it should be as easy to use as a toaster, yet we in the tech industry
are stupid enough to let them think that.
Once a few more of us *wake up* or are beaten with the cluestick and
realize that computers are tools that you need some *training* to know
how to use, the better off we are all going to be. There are now a few
*appliance* level machines that aren't so much computers, and more along
the lines of single level devices that are pretty simple (and getting
simpler). But the mainstream idea of a PC is not, nor do I think it
ever will be (at least not in our lifetimes) as easy to use as a
toaster. We need to either get over ourselves, or get over our fear of
looking 'geeky' and admit to people that not everyone *needs* a PC. And
if they do, they *need* to have a little bit of knowledge of it in order
to run it.
I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but this "UNTIL WE HAVE A WINDOWS CLONE,
WITH WINDOWS SOFTWARE..." crap has got to stop. Windows is not the
epitome of 'ease-of-use'. Sure, it's familiar to 'some' people. But I
still garauntee you that if you pop a Windows machine in front of
someone that has never seen one before they would be just as helpless as
they would be in front of a Linux machine.
We don't need a Windows clone. We need Linux to get better, yes, but
that does not equate to Windows clone. Please, think about what you are
asking for.
If you want Windows, use Windows. Don't encourage the destruction of a
good system just because you want Windows. And if you think you can
make a political statement by 'avoiding the big bad MS' by using Linux,
get over it. Politics has nothing to do with 'good' system design. If
you want Windows, it's still there, use it. If you want Linux, use it.
But don't try to turn it into Windows.
To quote Randall in Clerks:
"If you want Veronica, stay with Veronica. If you want Kaitland, get
with Kaitland. But don't pine for one and fuck the other! Jesus if you
weren't such a fucking coward."
Do you get the point?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Honest question about NT vs. Unix as Internet platform
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 09:48:27 -0500
Mr Jama wrote:
> What do you guys think? Is NT really less secure than Unix for the Internet?
> What about browsers? Is this guy just a Unix weenie, or does he have a point?
>
> P.S> Unix platform in particular that we use is Solaris.
There's two ways of looking at this particular problem. NT is a 'safe
bet' from a business perspective (that old, "No one ever got fired for
installing Windows" phenom). But if your IT outsourcer is the person
that will be responsible for the machine in question, it is probably a
good idea to put some stock in what he/she says. It is important that
the person in charge of the system is *very* comfortable with the system
(especially an *outside* system like a web server) and that they have
confidence in the system they will be maintaining. It is extremely
important that the person is question is knowledgeable about the system
he is using. Frankly, my personal feeling (which you should take with a
grain of salt) is that Solaris would be better in this particular case.
But I would also say that for a web server it is hard to beat the
open-source systems. The bug-fixes for these systems are almost
instantaneous (sometimes no more than a few hours, even a few minutes)
and if the person knows where to look for bug-fixes it is a great way to
keep the system in tip-top security. But if you must go commercial, and
you need big-guns, Solaris is definitely the way to go on a web server.
Unix performance and Unix security should not be wrote off just because
of Microsoft's marketing power. NT is a relative newcomer to the web
server market, and they still have *some* problems to work out.
However, if you really feel you have to have NT, there aren't any solid
arguments to made against it that can't be made against nearly any other
commercial vendor. A web server is a pretty subjective thing. And if
set up behind a firewall system of some sort, the NT will look just as
good as the Solaris (though it won't scale as well).
The main point to remember is to have someone in charge of the system
that is comfortable with it. Especially if you are spending money on
the software and money on the person that is in charge of the software.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 10:10:41 -0500
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 08:29:57 -0500, Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>
> >This is the stuff I find scary. I don't mind the idea of 'modularizing'
> >the graphical interface into the kernel (as I believe some of the early
> >efforts are underway to do so), just don't make it something that is
> >*forced* on me.
>
> This brings back memories of the dreaded kernel NFS server. <shudder>
>
> --
> Donovan
Now there was/is something that sucked/sucks/is sucking. Kernel NFS in
Linux is a pain in the butt. I know it's been promoted up the wazoo as
being *so much faster* and all that, but I've never had any luck with
the stability of it. And it kind of forced some *bad things* like no
way of shutting down the process of NFS (it's in the kernel) without a
reboot and other Windows like behavior. But I never bitched too much
about that one because it always appeared that it was going to remain a
choice in the system.
SuSE Linux has offered the choice in the last few versions of its distro
of kernel or userland NFS. But they seem to be slowly leaning towards
kernel. I just hope they always offer the choice of which one to use
(like they have thus far). At least until they find ways of dealing
with the more glaring problems with kernel NFS.
Oh yeah, how about that kernel based http server? That's another one I
wouldn't mind seeing disappear, but as long as it's a module <shrug>.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 01:37:32 +1000
"Nathaniel Jay Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> There was a time when NT was criticized heavily for 'integrating' the
> GUI into the kernel itself because of the possibility that it would
> de-stabilize the system. Unfortunately, the same people that criticized
> it then are now clamouring for Linux to do the same thing because of
> 'how well it works on Windows'. Frankly, if that's their idea of
> something working *well*, I'd just as soon they used what they consider
> to work well and leave Linux alone.
The GUI isn't "integrated" into the kernel. It just runs in ring 0 with the
kernel. *Big* difference.
It was done for performance reasons - much like the kernel mode NFS and http
daemons for Linux. In a workstation, it's a valid tradeoff, since graphics
speed is important. In a server it's not necessary, but as long as you just
stick with the standard VGA driver (which you should always do) the chances
of it causing problems hover slightly above zero.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (bgeer)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.alpha
Subject: Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix
Date: 11 Aug 2000 09:27:45 -0600
John Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What UNIX for the home market was this and what date was it available?
>By home market, I'm assuming the 8088. That was the first PC when UNIX
>was already in existance. If no one did UNIX for the 8088, then when
>for the '286?
Interactive Unix or some such. It was way expensive, & buggy,
according to usenet posts I read at the time.
Then there was Xenix, also expensive. I think it was available on
pre-386 machines, tho not sure.
--
<> Robert Geer & Donna Tomky | * <>
<> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | _o * o * o <>
<> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -\<, * <\ </L <>
<> Salt Lake City, Utah USA | O/ O __ /__, /> <>
------------------------------
From: Jeff Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Maximum file size question- follow up
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 11:23:11 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Colin R. Day" wrote:
> Users (or groups) are only allowed to have so much disk space, no matter
> how much the computer has.
And where is this set? The /home partition has 13GB free, so filespace
isn't
a problem.
Jeff Peterson
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 08:37:24 -0700
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company
JS/PL wrote:
> "Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > JS/PL wrote:
> >
> > > "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > JS/PL wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > > JS/PL wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If I remember correctly, the links were posted as supporting
> > > opinion
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > Windows2K is extremely reliable. Posted because I was accused
> of
> > > > having
> > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > credibility when I said it myself.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You have no credibility . How could anyone credibly say W2K is
> a
> > > > reliable
> > > > > > OS -
> > > > > > > W2K is too new and hasn't be in service long enough to prove
> itself.
> > > > > > Hotmail
> > > > > > > still runs FreeBSD. That's why W2K deployment has been put on
> hold
> > > > for
> > > > > > many
> > > > > > > firms. It's still hard to get drivers for W2K. Get real.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Who cares what Hotmail runs? Whats's the point of changing the
> server?
> > > > It's
> > > > > > just a company MS has purchased like 100's of others. There are
> > > > employees
> > > > > > and hardware in place and I'd be real surprised if the service
> ever
> > > > turns a
> > > > > > profit. Why sink dolloars retraining and purchasing un neccessary
> > > > hardware
> > > > > > and software when the Hotmail doesn't make dime one.
> > > > >
> > > > > Because it's a fucking admission that their OWN product (which,
> whaddya
> > > > > know, doesn't cost MS a dime) is incapable of handling the task.
> > > >
> > > > Well after looking into the matter further I've come across this
> little
> > > gem,
> > > > read it and weep:
> > > > "HotMail has commenced its much awaited migration to a Microsoft
> operating
> > > > system. Some Windows 2000 machines have recently been moved into the
> load
> > > > balancing pool, with currently between 90-95% of requests being served
> by
> > > > the established FreeBSD/Apache platform, and 5-10% from Windows 2000.
> The
> > > > Hotmail site infrastructure is enormous, and even if everything runs
> > > > smoothly, a migration will likely take several weeks."
> > > > http://www.netcraft.com/survey/
> >
> > You didn't know MS made a boast they were going to roll HotMail over to
> > Windows2000. I'm not surprised.
> >
> > Let me highlight the text for you.."and if everything runs smoothly, a
> > migration will likely take several weeks" "IF EVERYTHING RUNS SMOOTHLY".
> What
> > IF it does not? Windows2000 is unproven so WHO knows? Not the OS creator
> but
> > you DO?!?
> >
> > As of TODAY MS itself, has NOT yet made the commitment to use NT (ever)
> and
> > they haven't used Windows2000. How can Windows2000 be proven? It is NOT
> and
> > MS is even unsure IF THE PROCESS RUNS SMOOTHLY.
>
> Come on, all the nitpicking of words is unnecessary, your sounding like a
> resident of csma.
There isn't an option - the facts are the facts.
>
> All the Windows bashing on earth by this small group won't change fate.
I wouldn't know about fate. I'm not into mythology.
So far W2K hasn't proven itself. That's not MS bashing - it's really pro MS to
be honest about W2K! If you really knew about W2K you'd argue about it's
benefits and tone down the nonsense.
> over it, you can view the real world kicking and screaming but it doesn't
> change reality. Windows is proven to be extrememly stable, get over it.
> Hotmail will soon be running on a Microsoft server like the other 20% of the
> entire internet. Mince words all you like, unfortunately time still moves
> forward while you live in denial.
I'm sure Hotmail will be running a version of W2K now that MS is finishing
Window2000 Data Center and will NEED to test W2K DC on HotMail. That's good
since the OS needs to be tested before customers will deploy the OS. MS
isn't going to use the toy verion of W2K you said is stable but I suppose these
differences don't register with you.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Q] Too many distribution?
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 15:32:52 GMT
In article <8mvvm5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
peer@service wrote:
> When it comes to computers, most people are not experts at them,
> and most prefer to use something familiar and easy to use and
> standard.
Most people are not experts at cars, either, but they go to classes and
pass a test that shows they are competent. Which car is easy to use, a
manual shift or an automatic? Which one should we make go away because
it is not the standard? (I wish people had to pass a test to drive on
the information highway, but that is a different story for later)
> When you buy a tire, it does not matter who made the tire becuase
> you know as long as it is of the size you want, it will fit.
I do not know what my tire size is. I don't need to. When I want new
tires, I take it in to an expert and they change them for me.
> With software it does not work like that, you can't buy Quicken for
> windows and install it on Linux or VMS.
And you cannot install tractor tires on a car. I miss your point here.
> Linux will not go anywhere on the desktop, unless and untill it
becomes
> easier to use than windows and the same desktop applications that
exists
> on windows exist on linux.
What is easy to use for me is maybe hard for you, and the other way as
well. Which of us is 'standard'?
> Having too many distributions also is a bad thing for standarizations
> and for develpers. Now I have to test my Linux application on 20
> distributions instead for one.
If all linux comply with the same set of industry standards, why would
you need to do that? Even if you did, what is different from having to
test on different microsoft versions? which have their own closed
standards that they may not completely tell you what they are?
> Choice can be good, and it can be bad at the same time.
But lack of choice is always bad.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Kevin Shelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,alt.solaris.x86,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Learn Unix on which Unix Flavour ?
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 11:44:50 -0400
All the OS/360 stuff is still there - JCL, TSO, etc., but there is also
Unix System Services that you can logon to and get a real Unix shell
with real Unix commands, hierarchical file system, etc. All the system
calls required for Unix 95 branding are there with their c header
files. Both traditional datasets and Unix style files are accessible
from the shell and from regular JCL. It's pretty neat.
Ed Reppert wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Lew Pitcher
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Ed Reppert wrote:
> > >
> > > OS/390 is Unix?! When did that happen?
> >
> > IIRC, 1998 or so.
>
> [snip]
>
> Ah. After my time. :-) When the US Navy sent me over to England to run
> the Royal Navy's Personnel DBMS under OS/390, I was only mildly
> surprised to discover things hadn't really changed a whole lot (at
> least, not on the OS side) since OS/360 back in the early 70s.
> >
> > Anyway, IBM markets Apache for OS/390, with (IIRC) enhancements
> > rebranded as "WebSphere". Talk about scalability ;-)
>
> Yeah. Sheesh. :-)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 08:56:05 -0700
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Christopher Smith wrote:
> "Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Christopher Smith wrote:
> >
> > > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> >
> > > > >Again, you cannot make a dishonest mistake. Being dishonest requires
> the
> > > > >truth be known.
> > > >
> > > > Known by whom; the one making the mistake, or the one detecting the
> > > > mistake?
> > >
> > > The one making the mistake, of course. What relevance does the
> knowledge
> > > some person has to the knowledge some other person may or may not have.
> >
> > Lie:
> > 1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
> > 2 : to create a false or misleading impression
> >
> > intent to deceive, misleading.
> >
> > Knowing the truth has little relevance -- intentions determine if one is
> a
> > liar.
>
> How can one have an "intent to decieve", if one does not know one is
> deceiving ?
You don't understand the word "intent".
> > Assumptions don't even come into it. The evidence that Linux is not in
> > > demand is its notable absence in the consumer market until very
> recently,
> > > and its lacklustre performance in same since.
> >
> > There is an abusive monopoly unnaturally distorting the PC OS market.
>
> In your opinion.
No -- the court's opinion. This is your version of the market vs the court's
finding of fact.
You can hold any opinion you wish to hold -- it comes down to credibility and
sensibility.
> > THEREFORE the use of the PC OS market as an indicator of the market's
> demand is
> > INVALID.
>
> Only if the market has to go out of its way to access alternatives.
Market has bene proven to be distorted and that's a fact so the market is not
an indicator of demand. Given a choice between you and the court, I choose
the court. That's reasonable.
> > One would need to assume the DOJ and Judge were FACTUALLY wrong.
>
> THis is not a huge assumption to make.
It is a huge, unreasonable assumption. I A single fact in a finding of fact is
rarely changed - Let alone the entire finding of fact.
> > As we all know, Findings of Fact are reliable.
>
> *cough*bullshit*cough*.
A fool would bet on them being substancially if at all changed.
> > and rarely is a fact challenged
> > on appeal.
>
> THey will be, I'd imagine.
And MS will fail.
> > Is it reasonable to defend MS by looking at the market they
> > distorted to prove the monopoly is maintained by market forces ? No. Of
> > course not.
>
> It is more than reasonable to note a lack of demand in a market for a
> product, where that market is free to choose whether or not to use that
> product.
It is very unreasonable to ignore the anti-trust case.
I can't (and will not) change your mind. I need not because you're opinion is
based on outlandish circumstances that haven't and (will not) happened. As the
case progresses, these doors will close. For now there is the improbable hope
that MS can over turn the facts on appeal.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: 11 Aug 2000 15:55:39 GMT
On Sat, 12 Aug 2000 01:37:32 +1000, Christopher Smith wrote:
>The GUI isn't "integrated" into the kernel. It just runs in ring 0 with the
>kernel. *Big* difference.
>
>It was done for performance reasons - much like the kernel mode NFS and http
>daemons for Linux. I
I'm going to be consistent and say that knfsd also sucks.
>speed is important. In a server it's not necessary, but as long as you just
>stick with the standard VGA driver (which you should always do) the chances
But it's still a horrendous design decision for a server.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 02:16:20 +1000
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2000 01:37:32 +1000, Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> >The GUI isn't "integrated" into the kernel. It just runs in ring 0 with
the
> >kernel. *Big* difference.
> >
> >It was done for performance reasons - much like the kernel mode NFS and
http
> >daemons for Linux. I
>
>
> I'm going to be consistent and say that knfsd also sucks.
It has its uses - obviously.
> >speed is important. In a server it's not necessary, but as long as you
just
> >stick with the standard VGA driver (which you should always do) the
chances
>
> But it's still a horrendous design decision for a server.
It is, as I said, largely irrelevant since a) the VGA driver is pretty much
rock solid and b) you shouldn't be doing anything with the GUI on a server
anyway.
------------------------------
From: "Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Aaron Kulkis -- USELESS Idiot -- And His "Enemies" -was- Another one
of Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 09:07:33 -0700
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Loren Petrich wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >Then please explain for everyone here any substantial
> > >disagreements you hold with Communist philosophy.
> > [...]
> > >Once again, I ask you to suggest in ANY way where you defer
> > >from the those who openly admit that they advocate Communism.
> > >As far as I can tell, the only difference is...you're too
> > >much of a fucking coward to stand up and state exactly what
> > >it is you believe in.
> >
> > This depends on what Mr. Kulkis considers Communism, and it's
> > apparently anything to the left of groves of birch trees. For all we
> > know, many Republican politicians could count as Communists.
>
> A lot of Republicans are socialists. Rightwing socialists,
> but they are socialists....which for Communists, is good enough...
> as long as it's a philosophy that puts the power of the state
> above all individual liberties....they'll accept that for now
> and worry about which brand of socialism later.
That's nice. BTW, are you ever going to support your claim you make more
than I do, by telling us all just how much I make? Or are you happy to have
the world know you lied when you implicitly claimed to know that you made
more than me?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
