Linux-Advocacy Digest #654, Volume #28 Sat, 26 Aug 00 16:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Perry Pip)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Perry Pip)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (Perry Pip)
Re: philosophy != science. (Perry Pip)
SmartShip needs multiple platforms (Was: Am I the only one that finds this just a
little scary? (Perry Pip)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Courageous)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("JS/PL")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Courageous)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Courageous)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Courageous)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Courageous)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (The Ghost
In The Machine)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Mike
Marion)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: 26 Aug 2000 18:45:12 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 12:33:35 -0400,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Hell, in some inner cities, cash-strapped parents are paying TWICE
>for education..once through property taxes, and AGAIN to put the kid
>into a local catholic school so that the kid will actually be taught
>the essentials.
>
Essentials in a cathodic school?? Exactly what essentials are these
kids learning in cathodic school? That the Bible is the law not the
Constitution?? That the pope is infallable(tm)?? That the rhythm
method is the best for birth control?? That some guy from 2000 years
ago who got his ass executed for not being able to control his mouth
is going to come back from the dead to solve all your problems if you
just blindly believe in him and the acknowledge the church as his
infallable(tm) authority?? Or are the kids simply learning how to
properly let the preist fondle them, something the infallable(tm)
church knew was going on for years and did nothing about it.
And you want my taxes to pay for vouchers for that shit? No way.
Perry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: 26 Aug 2000 18:45:28 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 14:00:24 -0400,
Donavon Pfeiffer Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
>>
>> Welfare reform has turned welfare into something that's not terribly
>> dependable ( in particular, the point of it is to force welfare
>> recipients to get off their butts and get a job ), so it doesn't do
>> a terribly good job at "encouraging dependency".
>
>Actually that is only true in states where fiscal responsibility has
>gained import. While that is an ever growing number (witness the # of
>Republican Governor's) it is in no way universal.
Well it hasn't happened here in the State of Texas under our
Republican Governor George W. Bush.
Perry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: 26 Aug 2000 18:45:51 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 17:09:46 -0400,
Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Perry Pip wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:33:24 -0400,
>> Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Perry Pip wrote:
>> >>
>> >> 1) Military benefit: Better ability for the U.S. to protect it's borders.
>> >>
>> >
>> >That is a legitimate use of government spending, although the US wasn't
>> >really threatened from the West.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Actually, I believe Japan began imperialist activites as early as the 1870's.
>
>Could they have landed on the US West Coast at that time? Or would a
>trancontinental railroad have helped defend Pacific possessions?
In those days they did not have satellites back then to determine
where the Jap Navy was. The Jap Navy was as far from Japan as the
south pacific at the time, but the U.S. had little way of knowing
where they were.
>
>> >
>> >My claim was if the West were that rich in minerals, then a
>> >trancontinental railroad should have been economically
>> >justifiable to private firms, although the military/political
>> >considerations might have tipped the balance.
>>
>> "economically justifiable" is a bit subjective. For a private
>> businesses five to ten year wait for a payback on investment might be
>> reasonable. For a public works project, a much longer payback might be
>> reasonable if the public wants the benefits of the project. So as I
>> said before, it's a matter of opinion.
>>
>> >The rail net of the South was somewhat degraded during the
>> >Civil War. How much had been repaired before the Trancon RR
>> >was built?
>>
>> Totally irrelevent. The Government gave land grants to Union Pacific
>> in 1863 and was thus in a contract with Union Pacific. Reconstruction
>> was funded from another source.
>>
>
>But was Reconstruction funded enough?
Totally irrelevent (and highly subjective too.)
>Or did funds which could have
>gone to Reconstruction go to The Transcontinental Railroad?
No, the Transcontinental Railroad was paid for by land grants. And the
land of those grants wouldn't have been saleable if they weren't
building railroad access to it.
>Granted,
>maybe they should have gone to the railroad anyway, but insufficient funding
>of Reconstruction (if such there were) would have had painful political
>consequences as well.
How so?? The South was already plastered. If they revolted agian, they
would have gotten plastered again. And did reconstruction more
benefit the former slaves or former slave owners??
>>
>> >California (and several other states) had threatened secession in 1861.
>> >However, I don't think any state would have seceded after Sherman's
>> >march through Georgia and the Carolinas.
>> >
>>
>> Ever wonder why the Germans never marched thru Switzerland?
>>
>
>Well, I would have shipped the troops by way of Central America.
>An amphibious operation would have taken some time, but Sherman
>would have chastised any rebels. Aside from the isolation of
>California (which was both an advantage and a disadvantage), the
>Union would have had the benefit of knowing who its good generals
>were.
The Panama canal had not been completed yet. And even so, Hitler had
Switzerland surrounded. It's another thing to take the mountains
themselves. How many unecessary lives would have been lost?? In those
day, again without satellite, military strategy meant dealing with
huge unknowns.
>We might never achieve full agreement, but we might narrow the
>disagreement.
>
Sure, but we are way off on a tangent. We are supposed to be
discussing OS's. Do you think things would have worked out differently
if they had cheap Linux PC's back then??
Perry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: philosophy != science.
Date: 26 Aug 2000 18:46:03 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 17:53:01 GMT,
Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Perry Pip wrote:
>
>1) if a person views other human beings merely as tools to be exploited
> then they are a psychopath (this is the point at which bright people will
> say to themselves "yup, businesses are psychopaths")
This is not the definition of a psychopath, even in a liberal sense.
>2) corporations view their employees as assets only and nothing matters
> beyond the bottom line.
Corporations view their employees as an investment. Employees view
thier careers as investments. Corporations do not exploit their
employees any more than their employees exploit them. For example,
some guy goes to work and goofs off all day, and doesn't give a
shit about his company as long as he gets paid. So by your definition
of psychopath, employees are psychopaths to.
>
>> Are you developing GPLed software? What are you working on. Where can
>> I get the code?
>
>It's pre-alpha (and likely to remain in that state for years). And I doubt
>it would interest you since it wouldn't run on *nix. Or Windoze. Or Mac.
If it's GPL'd code, then the code should be available. *nix *doze and
Mac aren't the only OS's I use.
>Opening your eyes to reality as it is can be disheartening.
And who are you to tell us what is reality and what isn't. You act as
if you are the authority.
>
>> >Just like you don't blindly follow doctors, pharmacists, chemists,
>> >engineers, architects, mathematicians and logicians, right?
>>
>> I don't. I take everything with a grain of salt. All the above tend to
>> use more scientific methods than religions and philosophers and are
>> thus more believable.
>
>I just love how people worship the Scientific Method. Please
>explain how math uses the "scientific method" and when you're
>done explaining, you might understand what philosophers do.
Mathemeticians make postulates about completely abstract phenomena and
then make formalized theories based on those postulates. Since the
phenomena they work with is pure abstraction, the postulates are
neither right nor wrong. For example neither Euclidian and
Non-euclidian geometry is more correct than the other, they just start
with different abstract postulates. Scientists often use math models
to describe real world phenomena, but insist these models must be
repeatedly verifiable by real world experimentation. Thus the crtieria
for scientific method is experimental verification. Philosophers make
presumptions about human nature and formalize ideas based on those
presumptions using a mathematical approach. But they have no criteria
for experimentation to back up their models. Their presumptions are as
stupid and blatent as those conjured up by religion.
>Unlike you, I don't /assume/ that people are motivated by self-
>interest and redefine the word to match people's behaviour.
I haven't redefined the word. You have.
>Rather, I define the word and then /verify/ whether people act
>according to self-interest. They do not, and that is a Good Thing.
>
You define the word in a narrow way. Others do not define it your
way. You limit it's meaning to be 'pure selfishness", which is the
most short sighted form of self-interest.
>> You are
>> the one who claimed the human race will go exctinct in 500 years. Why
>> don't you do as someone suggested and start by killing yourself. It
>> will put you out of your misery.
>
>That's just the kind of selfish behaviour I'd expect you to suggest.
>Note: not everyone handles existential angst as badly as you seem to.
>
"existential angst" or whatever you call it is just an excuse for your
pessimism which is an outward manifestation of your emotional hang
ups.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: SmartShip needs multiple platforms (Was: Am I the only one that finds this
just a little scary?
Date: 26 Aug 2000 18:46:18 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 24 Aug 2000 22:34:39 GMT,
Anthony D. Tribelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> Three *consective* paragraphs directly quoted from the article:
>>>>
>>>> Ron Redman, deputy technical director of the Fleet Introduction
>>>> Division of the Aegis Program Executive Office, said there have been
>>>> numerous software failures associated with NT aboard the Yorktown.
>>>>
>>>> "Refining that is an ongoing process," Redman said. "Unix is a better
>>>> system for control of equipment and machinery, whereas NT is a better
>>>> system for the transfer of information and data. NT has never been
>>>> fully refined and there are times when we have had shutdowns that
>>>> resulted from NT."
>>>>
>>>> The Yorktown has been towed into port several times because of the
>>>> systems failures, he said.
>>>>
I am not going to debate this with you. Redman's words are in plain
English for people here to read. I am not adding any conjecture. We
don't need your conjecture either. Let people read for themselves and
interpret it via their own conjecture.
>But not required, that is one possible implementation I consider inferior.
>With a more embedded approach specific application software can be
>downloaded to such units as needed, just like information from the data
>base is downloaded. A default application can reside in ROM as a backup
>and be tailored to the physical location of the terminal. If the server is
>unavailable on powerup the terminal can control equipment in it's vicinty,
>if the server is available it can download apps and control remote
>equipment.
As I said before, that's fine for systems in the engine room and other
specific locations. But for 'central control' areas like the ship's
bridge, damage control, engineering areas you need access to all the
equipment control applictions, plus many complex displays and high
level applications that an embedded OS is not suited for. What
database integration tools are their for Tornado? Does Tornado have
any specialized tools for writing UI forms. How about COTS graphical
data analysis and trending tools for Vxworks? How much would it cost
to custom develop all that shit on an OS without the necessary
libraries for sophisticated UI's. VxWorks is great for realtime
embedded functions and for simplistic consoles but is much less proven
for some things a general purpose OS is used for that are needed for
SmartShip.
It is quite clear that at least two platforms are need for the
Yorktown SmartShip, and embedded platform for realtime controls and
local equipment consoles, and a reliable general purpose OS for higher
level SmartShip applications. And since when can't you run a general
purpose OS on rugged hardware? You can buy rugged hardware for both NT
and Unix. The 27 dual 200-MHz Pentium Pro Windows NT miniature remote
terminal units (you know...the ones that crashed) were in fact rugged
consoles built by Intergraph.
>> Sure, but when you deprive developers of decent tools you are either
>> 1) going to spend more man hours on devopment ...
>
>A quite acceptible tradeoff if the embedded orientation provides sailors
>with a simpler, more rugged, more reliable system than the general purpose
>computer approach. And of course, I believe it can do so.
You are again fogging the distinction between the need for reliable
embedded control at specific locations and the need for a fully
capable central control and management interface and failing to
recognize the importance of both. You are also forgetting that
multiple platforms can be used for various purposes on board the
ship. You are also forgetting this is supposed to be a "smart ship"
not a "simple ship". You are forgetting the sailors need user freindly
interfaces, something most developers have a hard time with even with
the right tools, god forbid on an embedded OS with tools geared
towards real-time embedded development and not UI development. You are
also presuming that a general purpose OS cannot run on rugged
hardware.
>
>I don't think there should be a preference choice. I think for on-ship
>applications the developer should always lose to the sailors.
You are also forgetting applications need to be maintained and
upgraded, and that development costs, like anything else, are limited
to finite budgets.
>
>I meant absolute reliability. You are wrong, absolute reliability is
>required for such consoles. See next paragraph.
No, you are wrong. Any hardware can fail. The only way you can have
absolute reliability is with redundancy. You are also overlooking that
they do have multiple consoles in areas where they are most needed.
>> A ROM based console can fail to, in hardware or software. All systems
>> can fail. That's why you need redundancy. And in a situation where a
>> general purpose OS is needed, and reliabity of a single console is
>> important, one would certainly choose Unix over NT.
>
>The hot pluggable single board solution I describe is more rugged and more
>easily repaired.
Again you are overlooking that a general purpose OS can run on a hot
pluggable single board, and can be made as nearly reliable as an
embedded OS. But either way you still need at least two consoles in
critical location because it of the time it takes to stick in a new
board.
>My point is that with such an implementation a sailor
>will have less need to go find an alternate console. Also I'll refer to
>the default applicaiton in ROM I mentioned earlier. This can be the
>application that controls equipment in the proximity of the console.
You are overlooking that SmartShip is to provide high level UI
centralized access to all subsystems that are needed needed in the
bridge, engineering, and damage control rooms. Embedded OS's like Lynx
and VxWorks simply can't support high level GUI's to well. As I stated
above a more dedicated VxWorks conoles could be used in specific
subsystems areas. I would also recommend parallel fualt tolerance for
embedded systems of the highest criticality. More importantly,
redundant communication networks as well, and some additional back up
communications. Basically redundant everything.
>There is simply less to go wrong compared to a general purpose computer
>performing the same role.
You aren't looking at all the roles needed on Smart Ship. An embedded
OS won't handle some of those roles.
>Assuming a sailor can just go use a different
>console is bad.
You have to make that assumption. Any hardware can fail. You need
redundant consoles in areas like the bridge no matter what platform
you use.
>The local consoles should have connections to local
>equipment independent of a LAN and be able to operate independently if
>required to do so.
Of course. But I am not talking about local consoles dedicated to
equipment. I'm talking abount central consoles used to access the
entire ship and to manage and run the smart system as a whole. For
that you need more than an embedded OS. Not a flakey OS like Windows
though. Solaris on rugged hardware would have been good solid choice,
with VxWorks as the choice for the embedded components.
Perry
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[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 18:48:31 GMT
> And the scary thing is...Some people look up to Carter..
He was an awful President. But he appears to be an utterly
unreproachable EX President. :)
C//
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[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 15:11:46 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >Your ISP seemed to have agreed with me, now didn't they.
>
> No, they sent me an email. I have threatened them with legal action
> should it turn out that you did not provide them with your real name and
> identity, though obviously not much will come of an email.
>
> I will remind you, again, that I will not be warning you via Usenet if I
> have decided to pursue legal action against you.
>
> >Death threats,
> >whether or not you actually now the persons name are highly illegal, (and
> >lame). Now drop it or I'll forward the second threat you posted and
you'll
> >be searching for a new ISP by Monday.
>
> Go ahead. Make my day.
I would call this "agreeing" that your continuing to abuse their network
with your unlawfull acts.
To: T. Max Devlin:
Recently we received a complaint from another
user stating that threatening statements were
posted from your account on several newsgroups.
If it happens again, your account will be terminated.
Please take this email warning seriously. As it
stands now, the person making the complaint
could take legal action against you if he decides
to go that route.
Also please note that newsgroup postings
are archived, and that anything posted by
you can be found by legal authorities, future
employers, and anyone else who wants to check
into your personal history.
Tech Support
NBN.net
279-6535
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 19:15:44 GMT
> feudalism is a rigid caste society...which is wrong. I support no such
> thing... on the other hand, I don't think that the government has any
> business directly intervening to move someone from one social stratus
> to another... capable people are perfectly able to advance on their own.
There's nothing per se wrong with the government helping people
out (outside of occasional and pointed discussions of the efficacy
of such attempts); the issue is whether or not the government
should be massively redistributionist.
As for feudalism, during the latter stages of European feudalism,
as the cities grew and so grew with them the desire for the country-
side to relocate to the cities, laws were passed in certain
countries to make changing from one career to another illegal
and for making the exit from one's lord's feif illegal without
his permission.
Accusing Aaron of this is plainly mistaken, so I can't imagine
how the orignal poster could spew such hyperbolous rhetoric.
C//
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 19:23:07 GMT
> > You are a hazard to the liberatarian party. With adherents
> > like you, it's no wonder our support is so low.
>
> You don't understand the dynamics of multi-generational welfare
> families, do you
In fact, I do. But this is neither here nor there. As a progressive
Libertarian, it truly pains me to see people like you associated with
Libertarianism. There's virtually no chance of making political
progress with publicate advocates like you, who don't blink at
loudly esposing they'd like to see children die, and not considering
for one moment the sensibilities of such statements vice the sensitivities
of their audience. It's almost as if your political views are etherically
connected to some delusional fantasy that you will one day be Dictator
of America, and the opinions of those you rule therefore won't matter,
because you'll just lay down the legal system you desire in some
crazy fascist temper tantrum of absolute power.
This isn't going to happen, Aaron. You are a fool. You are three
times over a fool.
C//
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 19:25:14 GMT
> >Evidently, you are unaware of the number of high school seniors (who
> >*just* had a "government" class) who could not identify key phrases
> >from the US Constitution. Some even believed that Leninist slogans
> >were actually in the USC.
>
> Documentation please.
Do you really require this? An important thing to recall when
evaluating the human beings around you is that, indeed, half of
them have I.Q.s under 100. Therefore, it should be no surprise
at all when things like this happen.
C//
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[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 19:27:02 GMT
> At best, this system will waste $60 billion of US tax payer money.
Many incidental technologies generally flow from such efforts.
> At worst, it will waste much more and start a another cold war.
I believe this is doubtful.
C//
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 19:27:01 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Joe Ragosta
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 25 Aug 2000 13:51:30 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Courageous
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Re: welfare
>>
>> > The current system of welfare is completely useless.. it doesn't help
>> > anyone
>> > do to no incentive to actually go out and get a paying job.
>>
>> I suspect that you are behind the times. Furthermore, we're
>> arguing about peanuts. Why get all in a rile over peanuts
>> when there are issues where SERIOUS MONEY is at stake? Look
>> at the Federal Budget. We can talk later... MUCH LATER!...
>> about AFDC.
>
>Peanuts?
>
>The current welfare system is costing taxpayers BILLIONS Of dollars.
>Lots of billions.
The entire budget is about $1.7 trillion, as of 1999 if memory serves.
Half of that (roughly) is for "transfer payments" (the document I
currently have doesn't elegantly break that down, and it's ca. 1996 anyway
IIRC -- it's the President's budget proposal).
This means that about $850 B is being taken in and paid right back out
again. This is efficient? Or am I missing something important?
(Probably.)
Were it up to me, government would use nothing but Linux, where it
possibly could. It's free, it's stable, it's easy to set up, it's
secure, it's highly patchable, it's about as standard as it gets.
If anyone really needs Windows, WinE is an adequate replacement for
many tasks as of right now (sadly, Windows Office2000 is not one of them).
Of course, this is probably a mere pittance, budgetwise -- one
can't put Linux on a highly-specialized supercomputer any more than
one would want to put a 25 cent gasket in a racing truck, so Linux's
applicability may be limited, although not by a heck of a lot. It
does scale nicely though, from a now-obsolete 4 MB i386 to an IBM S/390,
although the 386 will swap like crazy -- and yes, I happen to have
a 386/20 motherboard with 4 megabytes, expandable to 8 megs.
(No, it's sitting on a shelf in a zap-proof baggie. :-) )
My understanding is that Linux also reduces support costs, even if
one has to hire more capable Unix-style admin types as opposed to
a lot of NT administrators.
(OK, so this was a dumb attempt to make this subthread a little bit
relevant.... :-) )
I will also note that Amiga was running multitasking in as little as
128K of memory (production A1000's had 256K, with a 256K add-on).
So Linux isn't the best, memory-consumption wise -- but it's darned good.
Unfortunately, the Amiga is now dead and was ill-suited for bureaucratic
form-filling; its primary focus was the artistic types IMO.
This may partly explain the popularity of Microsoft -- Office allows
for nearly-transparent E-mailing of Excel spreadsheets, Word documents,
Powerpoint presentations, zip files, self-contained downloading executables,
and Visual Basic scripts. Beware, however, if one goes outside
of Microsoft; things can get dicey.
But there's lots of potential virtual paperwork ("virtualwork"?
"trackingwork"? "fiddlework"?) in cyberspace. :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- no job is complete until the paperwork is done
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 19:34:26 GMT
Joe Ragosta wrote:
> Check out the IRS' statistics. On average, people earning $60 K are
> paying a much higher percentage of their income in taxes than people
> earning $30 K. And people making $100 K pay even more (percentagewise).
I don't think we need statistics to prove that.. just pay attention to how
you've been taxed depending on how much you've made. I know that I'm paying a
substantial percentage more now then I was at my lower-paying job about 3
years ago.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc. - http://miguelito.org
"Our system is already Y2K compliant but you can improve your Y2K compliance
by using the special CD, which carries out some minor fixes." - Microsoft
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
