Linux-Advocacy Digest #650, Volume #28 Sat, 26 Aug 00 13:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers ("Ingemar Lundin")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chad Irby)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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?
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 12:55:00 -0400
ZnU wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joe
> Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > ZnU wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > ZnU wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > > > > Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
> > > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The president doesn't create the budget, he only
> > > > > > > > > > > > has the power to approve it in it's entirety or
> > > > > > > > > > > > return it to congress, now who has really been
> > > > > > > > > > > > creating the budget deficit for the past 20
> > > > > > > > > > > > years? And who in the past four has managed to
> > > > > > > > > > > > turn it (the deficit) around?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If the Republicans did all the work to balance the
> > > > > > > > > > > budget, why are they trying to damn hard to
> > > > > > > > > > > unbalance it?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Are you, ZnU, smoking large amounts of crack before
> > > > > > > > > > writing to USENET?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Are you really denying this? In just the last few
> > > > > > > > > months the Republicans have tried to pass two tax cuts
> > > > > > > > > that would eliminate or significantly reduce the
> > > > > > > > > surplus, and Bush wants to take things even farther.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And I suppose the Democrats are just going to let that
> > > > > > > > surplus sit there reducing the debt, rather than spending
> > > > > > > > it on bigger government health care and *ahem* Gore's own
> > > > > > > > $500 billion in proposed tax cuts?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Gore has promised to pay off the debt. Bush has not. Of
> > > > > > > course, it's rather difficult to attack Bush on the issues,
> > > > > > > since he almost never talks about them....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Paying off the debt is already IN the budget, you moron.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ALL treasury bills have a maturity date. To cannot retire
> > > > > > the debt any sooner than the maturity dates on the T-bills.
> > > > > > To retire the debt, all that needs to be done is to refrain
> > > > > > from rolling over the bonds as they mature.
> > > > >
> > > > > How will this be possible after the Republicans have starved
> > > > > the government giving their tax breaks?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Tax breaks stimulate commerce, idiot!
> > >
> > > Ahh. Another proponent of trickle-down economics. Of course, some
> > > people see that for what it really is: a way for rich people to
> > > justify their exploitation of the system.
> >
> > That's possibly true.
> >
> > But, OTOH, perhaps you can explain why income disparity between the
> > "rich" and the "poor" is vastly worse today than it was under the
> > Reagan and Bush administrations?
>
> Because the economy is much better, and the rich always benefit most
> from a stronger economy. That's true to some extent in just about any
> capitalist society, but much more so with the US's winner-take-all
> mentality. I'd love to see something done about it, but any measure that
> could accomplish anything would be considered far too radical in the
> current political climate.
So, by the Democrats' own measure, Clinton is a horrible president.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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?
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 12:55:36 -0400
Ed Cogburn wrote:
>
> Joe Ragosta wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joe
> > > Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ahh. Another proponent of trickle-down economics. Of course, some
> > > > > people see that for what it really is: a way for rich people to
> > > > > justify their exploitation of the system.
> > > >
> > > > That's possibly true.
> > > >
> > > > But, OTOH, perhaps you can explain why income disparity between the
> > > > "rich" and the "poor" is vastly worse today than it was under the
> > > > Reagan and Bush administrations?
> > >
> > > Because the economy is much better, and the rich always benefit most
> > > from a stronger economy.
> >
> > That's certainly one possible explanation.
> >
> > But what made the economy better? The tax cuts of the 80's perhaps?
>
> Tax cuts from the right are always designed to help the rich, that's
How many welfare scum pay taxes?
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 17:03:54 GMT
WOW!
easy now...you cant seriosouly mean that Wintendo 95/98 would be better than Wintendo
2000 ;-)
it is a hell of a lot stable,and and a lot more configureble than Wintendo 95/98
/IL
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Witold Wilk
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> W swoim poscie napisanym do alt.microsoft.sucks w dniu Fri, 25 Aug 2000
> 12:07:32 GMT niejaki(a) Chris Ahlstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED]=- twierdzi,
> ze...
> :
> : > >W2K is perfectly stabile. It even bloes NT4 out of teh watter.
> :
> : No, it is very possible to get the Blue Screen on Win 2000.
> : A guy at work did it.
>
> But did he that on Linux? ;)
>
> : And it's an enormous memory hog.
>
> Not enormous, even greater. It runs slow on a PIII600MHz/256RAM/Seagate
> Barracuda. Jezus Cryst - this system is the biggest pile of crap I've
> ever seen ;) Win9x is better than that :) Not speaking of penguin
> systems ;)
>
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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?
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 12:56:26 -0400
Joe Ragosta wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ed Cogburn
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Joe Ragosta wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joe
> > > > Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
> > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ahh. Another proponent of trickle-down economics. Of course, some
> > > > > > people see that for what it really is: a way for rich people to
> > > > > > justify their exploitation of the system.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's possibly true.
> > > > >
> > > > > But, OTOH, perhaps you can explain why income disparity between the
> > > > > "rich" and the "poor" is vastly worse today than it was under the
> > > > > Reagan and Bush administrations?
> > > >
> > > > Because the economy is much better, and the rich always benefit most
> > > > from a stronger economy.
> > >
> > > That's certainly one possible explanation.
> > >
> > > But what made the economy better? The tax cuts of the 80's perhaps?
> >
> >
> > Tax cuts from the right are always designed to help the rich, that's
> > already been stated in this thread. So the tax cuts did help... they've
> > managed to expand the gap between rich and poor to its worse state since
> > the 1920s. For the rich the economy is great, but everyone else is just
> > treading water, including the shrinking middle class.
>
> The middle clas is only shrinking because of games like calling those
> who make over $60 K wealthy.
>
> As for the concept that only the rich benefit, can you explain why the
> welfare rolls are 75% smaller than they were a decade ago--and lower
> than they've ever been? How does that support your contention that the
> poor don't benefit?
Welfare scum being forced to work??? IT'S AN OUTRAGE!!!
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 12:59:28 -0400
JS/PL wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > ZnU wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > ZnU wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > ZnU wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In article
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > > > > Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> ZnU
> > > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The president doesn't create the budget, he only has
> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > power to approve it in it's entirety or return it to
> > > > > > > > > > > > congress, now who has really been creating the budget
> > > > > > > > > > > > deficit for the past 20 years? And who in the past
> four
> > > > > > > > > > > > has managed to turn it (the deficit) around?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If the Republicans did all the work to balance the
> budget,
> > > > > > > > > > > why are they trying to damn hard to unbalance it?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Are you, ZnU, smoking large amounts of crack before
> writing
> > > > > > > > > > to USENET?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Are you really denying this? In just the last few months the
> > > > > > > > > Republicans have tried to pass two tax cuts that would
> > > > > > > > > eliminate or significantly reduce the surplus, and Bush
> wants
> > > > > > > > > to take things even farther.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And I suppose the Democrats are just going to let that surplus
> > > > > > > > sit there reducing the debt, rather than spending it on bigger
> > > > > > > > government health care and *ahem* Gore's own $500 billion in
> > > > > > > > proposed tax cuts?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Gore has promised to pay off the debt. Bush has not. Of course,
> > > > > > > it's rather difficult to attack Bush on the issues, since he
> almost
> > > > > > > never talks about them....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Paying off the debt is already IN the budget, you moron.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ALL treasury bills have a maturity date. To cannot retire the
> debt
> > > > > > any sooner than the maturity dates on the T-bills. To retire the
> > > > > > debt, all that needs to be done is to refrain from rolling over
> the
> > > > > > bonds as they mature.
>
> A very large percentage of the national debt (last time I checked) is in 60
> and 90 day treasury bills. So unless there a plan to pay off most of the
> National debt by November we're not in a position to refrain from offering
> those T-Bills, to pay one out we're forced to sell a new one. If we can get
> away with selling 95 new ones for every 100 paid out we'll be in good
> shape.
>
> > > > >
> > > > > How will this be possible after the Republicans have starved the
> > > > > government giving their tax breaks?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Tax breaks stimulate commerce, idiot!
> > >
> > > Ahh. Another proponent of trickle-down economics. Of course, some people
> > > see that for what it really is: a way for rich people to justify their
> > > exploitation of the system.
> >
> > For your information...WORKERS always get paid.
>
> Until the owner(s) don't make money, then some of the overhead costs are
> cut, which may or may not mean employee cuts or layoffs.
There are time's that *I* have been paid by the company owner taking
money out of his own bank account.
Non-owner employees incur MUCH less risk, and thus, are not deserving
of the super-high profits of boom years.
>
> > OWNERS only get paid if there's anything left over after paying workers.
>
> Sometimes owners lose money, employees do not take that risk in a general
> sense, therefore are not entitled to sudden gains.
>
> > Micro-economics: learn it!
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: Chad Irby <[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?
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 17:07:17 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> So, tell the name of the third-world nations that have an ICBM
> capable of hitting the US -- then explain how it is that you or
> anyone knows this is a threat even though all of our espionage
> devices have failed to identify any such ICBM capability by a
> third-world nation.
Russia?
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
From: [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, 26 Aug 2000 17:07:26 GMT
On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 09:48:12 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>On Wed, 23 Aug 2000 01:30:50 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>
>>>>The GPL also "limits" "distribution". I'm not clear on who "they" are.
>>>>KDE are not trying to make a profit. Troll Tech ( the authors of QT )
>>>>are trying to make a profit. The restrictions that the QT license imposes
>>>>are for the most part less onerous than those imposed by the GPL.
>>>
>>>Again, I'm sorry, but that just isn't possible.
>>
>>It certainly is. For example, software released under the artistic license
>>does not dictate to me what license I should use. However, if I want to
>>use the GDBM library, then I have to use the GPL, even though I am only
>>linking. SO for example, I cannot release my software under the artistic
>>license.
He's also bringing up the 'gpled-licence red herring again'.
Nearly everyone, with perhaps the only dissenter being RMS
himself, aggrees that licencing library level shared components
with the GPL is a bad idea. Infact, last I heard on the Harmony
mailing list, the group decided not to go with the FSF due to
RMS's insistence that the end product be licenced GPL.
This unecessarily restricts commercial use. As long as profiteers
don't pollute shared essential facilities, they should be free
to do what they want with their core code.
This is what advantage gtk has over qt and likely why it was chosen
as a new defacto unix desktop standard for the major commercial
unixen.
>
>I didn't say that it grants the developer more liberty; I said it was
>not 'free software'. And I'll stand by that remark. I appreciate the
>further information you've provided, as it does fill in some gaps, but
>you seem to have ignored my rather lengthy comments concerning why
>"onerous" is ambiguous in identifying whether software is "free".
[deletia]
Remember, QT itself can only exist on Linux because libraries
are infact typically licenced under the LGPL rather than the
more viral GPL.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 10:02:05 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Amen brother!
Thank you
>
> NeXT-style bundles are one of the few ways in which we can appease
> both the UNIX tradionalist *and* go back to the days of using REAL
> FILESYSTEM TOOLS (like cp and a mouse pointer) to install software.
> Package managers may be very sophisticated, but they are always going
> to be a nusance, be it InstallShield, RPM or dpkg. We've already seen
> horrible naming conflicts (SuSE vs. RedHat), unbelievable circular
> dependencies (GNOME) and near-impossible-to-solve chicken-egg problems
> (RPM 3.0.4 -> RPM 4.0+db3).
Which is why I consider the package managers as valid tools to help
bootstrap neophytes into the system, but once they are advanced enough, I
think they should abandon the package managers and take full authority over
their computers.
> With bundles, you can pop in a CD and drag it to wherever you want to
> put it, and it will all work. I hope Apple hasn't screwed them up in
> MacOS X, but we'll see.
Since the public release of Mac OS X has been pushed back to January (Last I
heard), we should start hearing the glowing reports of their bundle handling
at that time and honest reports by the following month.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
