Linux-Advocacy Digest #298, Volume #29 Mon, 25 Sep 00 09:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: The Linux Experience (Chris Sherlock)
Re: Insight (Chris Sherlock)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Chris Sherlock)
Re: New Linux Install (Chris Sherlock)
Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the (Chris
Sherlock)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) ("Boyle M.
Owl")
Re: The Linux Experience (Chris Sherlock)
Re: The Linux Experience (Chris Sherlock)
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie! (Chris
Sherlock)
Re: What is with all the mudslinging? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie! (Chris
Sherlock)
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie! (Chris
Sherlock)
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie! ("Stuart
Fox")
Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451800 ("Joe Malloy")
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie! (Chris
Sherlock)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (STATIC66)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 11:12:08 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >The same rule applies in physics where "old" is defined as 30.
>
> Bear in mind, you're referencing *theoretical* physics. You'll find
> that all of the respected _experimental_ physicists rely as much on
> experience as on academic credentials or ingenuity.
I go with what I know.
> But you've also made the point that good art does not come from good
> engineering. Software is, both in practice and theory, in
> implementation and even in design, mostly engineering, I think. Unless
> you're only considering innovation when discussing design, which is
> naive in its own right.
What I'd consider engineering in software would be Formal Methods,
and I don't plan to use them. Software development is actually a
form of architecture more than engineering because when done right
it relies on beauty and elegance.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 22:28:59 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Linux Experience
IMHO, both Redhat's and Microsoft's web site are just as bad as one
another. Have you ever tried doing a search on the MS web site?
Things are everywhere.
Chris
Rich C wrote:
>
> No, as I said, I just did a quickie search as the average semi-experienced
> user might do to see if there was readily available info about RedHat's
> support of TrueType fonts. It was an experiment to see if Jake's claim was
> reasonable.
>
> -- Rich C.
> "Great minds discuss ideas.
> Average minds discuss events.
> Small minds discuss people."
> "David M. Cook" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 16:10:32 -0400, Rich C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > >Also doing a quick search of RedHat's web site with "truetype" or
> "truetype
> >
> > Did you search the solutions database at
> >
> > http://www.redhat.com/apps/support/
> >
> > Dave Cook
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 22:29:09 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Insight
Oops, spelling mistake in URL given methinks. I think that this site is
*hillarious* and I don't want anyone to miss out!!!
Try http://www.rinkworks.com/stupid/
Sorry for correcting a typing error, Glitch. I'm not doing it to show
you up!
Chris
Glitch wrote:
>
> www.rinkworks.com/stuipd
>
> this will help show how stupid people are and no matter what OS they are
> using they will always be stupid. Since they don't know any better and
> we in here do we should promote Linux as we all know it runs better than
> Windows. Users still may not know what it is but at least the computer
> will run better.
>
> Martigan wrote:
> >
> > My first computer was an Atari 800xl, then a C=64, then an A500, A2000. In
> > 1999 I bought my first PC with Win 98.
> >
> > I'll tell you this, I have LINUX on my computer, the only thing that
> > keeps me going is the fact that I knew DOS and Amiga OS! So it is not as
> > bad for me. I wish I had the time to relearn everything but I don't. From
> > what I have seen LINUX is a great OS, for people who are not afraid to go
> > further into the night. But face it Win98 is the best thing for people who
> > can't even program a VCR!
> >
> > LINUX is good, Win98 is good, and Amiga OE is good. It all depends on
> > what you want to use it for.
> >
> > For a server, I would choose LINUX no question, for general business
> > stuff Windows, and for future gaming and graphics Amiga OE.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 22:29:13 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Stop me if I'm wrong, but isn't there some sort of thing called freedom
of speech in your country? Just about all the Americans I know (and I
guess that I don't know that many) are extremely proud of it and will
defend this principle to the death, if necessary.
How does this fit in with the Universities policy?
I doubt that they will care - perhaps they will wonder who has the time
to collect all this info and post it to them. I know that I would!
Chris
Bob Germer wrote:
>
> On 09/23/2000 at 08:32 AM,
> Jason Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Good for them and what will this do? Annoy the president that a usenet
> > flamewar is being mailed to her?
>
> I seriously doubt she will be amused at the vulgarity and profanity you
> have posted.
>
> --
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 14
> MR/2 Ice 2.20 Registration Number 67
> Finishing in 2nd place makes you first loser
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 22:29:17 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: New Linux Install
>From what I understand, the new LBA32 extensions in LILO will circumvent
this problem. I don't know much more about this as I haven't had to
worry about hitting the 1024 cylinder ceiling yet.
Would someone care to comment?
Chris
"James M. Luongo" wrote:
>
> I plan on installing Linux Mandrake 7.1 for the first time. I need some
> help. How big should the partitions be? And, I heard something about
> LiLo not recognizing a Linux partition after a certain disk cylinder (or
> sector, whatever). I think it was 1023, but I'm not sure. Is this
> true? Help!
> --
> ------------------------
> James M. Luongo x1427
> Draper Laboratory Room 4207
> ------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 22:29:24 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the
This has never ever happened to me. And I have been using Linux for
about 2 years now doing such things as IP NAT, DHCP, running X-Windows
and numerous apps.
Chris
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >Nah - the easiest way is to install linux instead. What you don't
> >run, can't freeze.
>
> Linux can freeze just as well as Windows 98 SE can. Or did you think Linux
> was 100% bug free?
>
> >Oh yeah - and you don't get creep and registry problems with Linux.
>
> You get other problems instead. Like, no real software.
> --
> Pete Goodwin
> ---
> Coming soon, Kylix, Delphi on Linux.
> My success does not require the destruction of Microsoft.
------------------------------
From: "Boyle M. Owl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 07:33:27 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Boyle M. Owl" wrote:
>> People are free to run whatever software they wish to run. If
>> *you* don't like "non-professionals" writing code, then jusd don't
>> run any
>
> Hey, buddy, I also don't like professionals writing bad code. I have
> just as much agaist most implementations of Unix as I have agaist
> Linux.
Who am I?
I'm Joe Hobbyist.
I've been getting my feet wet with programming again after a 10 year
lapse because I had been stuck in the world of Bill Gates. (running
Linux has made it all fun again).
For you to spout off and say that I or anyone else who's a hobbyist
programmer, that we shouldn't release code, strikes me as you being
a fascist moron.
So who am I defending here? Certainly myself, against the likes
of pretentious "elite" bastards, such as yourself.
Like I said....
FOAD.
>
> And who the fuck are you defending here? For some reason, I doubt
> strongly it's yourself!
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer" - Adolf Hitler
Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
- Tom Tomorrow
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 22:35:19 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Linux Experience
There is plenty of good information out there about Linux products.
Take a look at http://www.linuxdoc.org for PLENTY of good documentation
on Linux! Also have a look at the Linux Gazette - I guess that this is
the equivalent of MS's Technet, only better. The URL for this site is
http://www.linuxgazette.com
Cheers,
Chris
Jake Taense wrote:
>
> Spent some of my Sunday helping out a friend with a problem.
>
> Seems she has been happily using Linux for most things (RedHat 6.2) for a
> little bit now. However, like many users, she disliked the lack of Truetype
> support.
>
> So, she called up another linux user and asked what she could do to fix that.
>
> "Oh, just add a truetype font server."
>
> "Where can I get that?"
>
> "I'll mail you a link. Download the tarball and make sure you follow the
> instructions in the INSTALL file."
>
> To her credit, she did exactly that. She downloaded the right file, extracted
> it properly, and followed the instructions precisely. She replaced the
> existing xfs file with the new one as indicated in the INSTALL file, replaced
> the man page, and the other files as necessary, taking care to back up the
> originals.
>
> Finally, the moment of truth - she rebooted. What happened? The xfs server
> failed during initialization. She uses the redhat graphical login. Result? A
> machine that just sat and kept switching video modes. Killing the x-server
> with ctrl-alt-backspace didn't fix it. All she could do was ctrl-alt-delete,
> which shut everything down.
>
> She was without a machine until I could come over and fix it.
>
> "What was I supposed to do?" she asked.
>
> "You did everything fine. In fact, I'm glad this happened. Welcome to the
> linux experience."
>
> "Would I have been more successful if I had just completely upgraded to
> Xfree86 4.0.1?"
>
> "Good Lord, no."
>
> Xfree86 has the wonderful role of being the worst group I've ever seen for
> writing documentation that is completely useless to the world at large. I'm a
> technical guy, and my upgrade to 4.0.1 was problematic to say the least. I
> succeeded, but only after much exasperation.
>
> Linux. Documentation is "no longer being maintained", outdated, and frequently
> flat-out wrong. What should be simple "make"'s become nightmares due to
> dependencies or programmer assumptions. Precompiled binaries fail. RPM's torch
> X-settings. Instructions are written by programmers, for programmers, with no
> thought at all given towards non-technical users.
>
> Go ahead. Flame away. But unless you are prepared to spend a huge amount of
> time in support, turning a friend on to linux is probably a mistake. Either
> that, or lock them down, don't give them root access to their own computer,
> and get call-display so that you can avoid their calls.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 22:39:56 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Linux Experience
Jedi,
I think that as he didn't suggest installing the tarball and was asked
for some help by a more knowledgeable friend this isn't really pedantry.
Chris
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 02:30:39 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >Note: once your reading reaches grade school level you might want to
> >reread
> >> >this post, just to confirm that I, in fact, didn't suggest the tarball.
> >> >
> >> >I welcome reasonable responses, but for some reason you can't be bothered
> >to
> >> >understand before posting.
> >>
> >> ONCE AGAIN RUBE, why did you bother with tarballs when the
> >> distro in question was Redhat?
> >
> >Jedi. Re-read the original message. You'll see that Jake *DID NOT*
> >"bother" with a tarball. your statements are irrelevant and evidence of
> >your inability to comprehend.
>
> No, it is your pedantry that is irrelevant.
>
> The fact still remains, regardless of who the particular rube
> was, that a tarball was thrown at a package based distro and
> that the "guru" in question advised adding xfs to a distro
> that already had it in place.
>
> This isn't even getting into font technology issues.
>
> --
>
> But since I knew now that I could hope for nothing of greater value than
> frivolous pleasures, what point was there in denying myself of them?
> -- M. Proust
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 23:04:04 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Although I can sympathise with your experience with Windows ME not
seeing or allowing you to use your 3rd IDE channel (seems daft to me)
Your last comment that Erik shouldn't post to c.o.l.a. seem a bit rough.
You're the person who posted into comp.ms.windows.advocacy and
comp.ms.windows-nt.advocacy! Why the heck *shouldn't* he respond?
Chris
OSguy wrote:
>
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > And your true colors come out. You don't care about the truth, only
> > sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling that you can't hear anyone.
> >
> > (that wasn't for OSGuy's benefit, but anyone reading this).
>
> And your true colors are to discredit anybody who like Linux or Run
> Linux.....And the way you do it is to defend to the death everything MS does.
> And what you are doing in this thread it to bog it down trying to tell me how
> to fix my installation of WinME and go through a whole bunch of details (again
> trying to make me swallow that MS is blameless in the idiotic way they did
> there WinME stuff). Screw You....I've already got a running version of WinME
> and unfortunately worked around MS'es quirks to make my daughter's machine
> work. NO WHERE DID I EVER ASK FOR HELP IN GETTING MY WINME COMPUTER
> WORKING!!! I yell this since this seems to be what you only understand. I
> have already gotten my WinME computer working and I'm not Interested in
> listening to you whine on about how MS did it and I should do that and trying
> to tell me and others here that Linux ought to do it too. You're right, I'm
> not interested in hearing the BS details. My opinion that I've expressed is
> that the way MS had me install WInME took hours with a lot of dumb garbage to
> make it work....and that I never had to waste this amount of time on Linux, and
> that It is a DAMN LIE that Windows installation is easier than Linux. Next
> time read the headers.
>
> No go give your dissertation and justification of MS to someone who
> cares........someone outside of c.o.l.a.
>
> (And this is for your benefit Funkenbusch, most everyone else understands!)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: What is with all the mudslinging?
Date: 25 Sep 2000 12:09:12 GMT
On Mon, 25 Sep 2000 06:07:08 GMT, sfcybear wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>which is why you are here, Right?
No, it isn't. Because unlike the idiots and trolls, I post helpful
responses to help groups. And unlike the idiots and trolls, I contribute
( both documentation and code ). Unlike the idiots and trolls, I have
a presence in the community outside of this forum.
The idiots and trolls on the other hand just demonstrate the "strength of
their convictions" by acting like obnoxious zealots. I don't suppose you know
anyone like this.
Hope this helps,
--
Donovan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 23:08:56 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
What about those drivers that *inist* on using certain areas of memory?
What can be done about them under Windows ME?
Chris
Stuart Fox wrote:
>
> "Tim Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Nigel Feltham wrote:
> > >
> > > >This kills me. People bitch about Windows 9x still having legacy DOS
> > > >support, and when they begin to take it out, suddenly those same people
> > > >bitch because it's gone.
> > > >
> > >
> > > They don't bitch about legacy support in itself being gone, they
> complain
> > > about
> > > the support for their hardware being removed -
> >
> > Exactly. So my video card is obsolete because MS says so? Fuck
> > that. That is the sort of arrogance that is driving a lot of
> > people to try linux.
>
> MS has precisely fuck all to do with whether your video card is supported.
> Your hardware manufacturer decides whether to write the driver, not MS. MS
> may bundle the driver, but they certainly don't write them...
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 23:12:57 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Where I feel that problems lie in Windows is where drivers are written
specifically for a certain O/S to corner the market. Look at WinPrinters
and WinModems. This is where I feel that Windows goes wrong a lot of the
time.
Chris
Yannick wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
> 8q86h4$f0k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > If it is the hardware manufacturer's not Microsoft's fault for Windows ME
> > not working with given a piece of hardware, then why is it Linux's fault
> > when there is hardware that does not work with Linux?
>
> The problem is different. There are many people around saying that Windows
> is crap and that Linux is wonderful. There are people who say that hardware
> support for Linux is better than for Windows. And there are people saying
> the contrary. And people saying neither the
> one or the other.
>
> I don't mean to discuss whether this is true or not here. People have
> problems running their hardware with Windows and less problems with linux.
> The contrary is also true.
>
> If an OS doesn't support your hardware, you think "well, I'll change my
> hardware or get another OS" (unless you have the ability and desire to write
> your own drivers, of course). The particularity of linux is that the people
> closely related to the system are writing their own software for the system
> in order to fight the "applications barrier to entry" set up by the windows
> dominant position. So people tend to expect linux to provide its own
> drivers, although it's not necessarily logical. This feeling is reinforced
> by the fact that some people present linux as the hero against the windows
> evil, and a hero is generally able to look after itself without other help
> (well, in really simple stories at least :-).
>
> There are several reasons why people would accuse _linux_ of not supporting
> some hardware, among which :
> * They listened to people, closely related to linux development and/or
> distribution, claiming that linux supports nearly all hardware, when in
> fact, like all OSes, Linux may have problems running some hardware.
> * They are fighting linux in the same way as _some_ linux advocates are
> fighting windows with the same kind of arguments.
>
> Whether or not this accusation is justified or not is not my point here.
>
> Yannick.
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 13:17:02 +0100
"Chris Sherlock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> What about those drivers that *inist* on using certain areas of memory?
> What can be done about them under Windows ME?
Contact the OEM...
------------------------------
From: "Joe Malloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451800
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 12:17:27 GMT
Tholes doesn't know how to thole:
> >> Why name it after me, given that I haven't engaged in any such
argments?
>
> > What "argments"?
>
> The ones he was referring to, Eric.
Sorry, Tholen, but that won't do. Was the other poster referring to
"argments" or "argUments" [emphasis added]? You're forever harping on other
people when they make a typo, so no surprise it's being done to you. Why,
the University of Hawaii should be ashamed of having a "professor" who can't
even spell "arguments"!
--
"USB, idiot, stands for Universal Serial Bus. There is no power on the
output socket of any USB port I have ever seen" - Bob Germer
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 23:15:57 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Why would rank newbies want to *use* extfs or xiafs?
Chris
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Mon, 18 Sep 2000 12:47:47 -0700
> <8q5s76$vl8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:8q5mqf$env3j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> How often do linux distro's remove drivers for old hardware in new
> >> versions - my copy of
> >> mandrake 7.1 still seems to carry drivers for every device that was
> >> supported when I had
> >> my first linux distro (slackware 2.0) back in october 1994 as well as most
> >> devices invented
> >> since them except the horrible windblows only type hardware (mainly
> >>modems).
> >
> >I recall the removal of support of one filesystem from Linux, but that is
> >about it.
>
> I count two: extfs and xiafs. However, I think one can probably try
> to back-patch the current kernel with older source (no warranties
> here, folks!), as every kernel since about v1.0pl15 is still available.
> (For some reason, though, ftp.kernel.org doesn't store the complete
> sources for 1.0.0 through 1.0.9, just the patches. *scratches head*)
>
> Whether they're compatible with various aspects of the support system
> (bread() [*] et al) is not clear to me, since I haven't looked in there
> lately. But in theory one could go in there and fuss with it; I've
> wondered myself about what routines would be needed to build a
> standalone (i.e., user-level code, as opposed to kernel-level) tool
> that tests/exercises the file system, and/or a Very Stupid File System to
> go with it. (This VSFS would be extremely braindead, making no attempts
> at all to optimize allocations of blocks, and would primarily be a tool
> to study how file systems are accessed in Linux, and how to build
> one from scratch. One of my many "wish list" projects, I guess... :-) )
>
> Of course, expecting a rank newbie to know about this sort of stuff
> would be ridiculous -- but rank newbies don't remain such for long. :-)
>
> [*] Block read, not a baking product. :-)
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: STATIC66 <[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: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 12:20:18 GMT
On 25 Sep 2000 05:18:40 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Sep 2000 19:26:47 GMT, STATIC66 wrote:
>>On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 23:53:47 GMT, Ted Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>So it really doesn't supprise me that Al would learn from his buddy
>>how to win over voters with empty promises...
>
>But he's still going to win, because very few Americans will benefit
>from Bush's vision which seems to revolve around tax cuts for the
>aristocracy. The problem is that the vast majority of Americans have
>little to gain from Bush's policies. Not to mention that with Clinton's
>approval rating and the economy in their current state, Bush needs to
>come up with a more inspiring vision than handouts to the aristocracy.
Al Gore will not win.
They stand to benefit more from Bush.
Maybe not immediately but they will. let me tell you how.
1. he wants to deregulate oil exploration in alaska. Eventually this
could lead to reduced fuel costs.
Don't give me no namby pansy crap about impacting the invironment.
That is a load of crap. There is drilling in preserved areas of
america right now, setting the standard and proving that it is
possible to CLEANLY and RESPONSIBLY collect OUR own supply of crude
oil without harming "nature" (as if our needs aren't part of "nature")
On kind of a side note.. aren't any of you concerned about the land
grab our government has been up to the last decade??? "They want to
preserve the land" ?? How about preserving an economic future for this
country ??
2. The next president will appoint at least 3 new supreme court
justices. We don't need anti-constituitional leftists appointed there
controlling the courts.....
3. Social security (welfare) - although I don't like him trying to
save it...I will compromise and say that giving me the choice to put
it into a real investment fund is acceptable if there is no stopping
its theft from me. I would much rather it was somewhere they cannot
raid it every time they want cash for one of their social programs.
4. TIPPER - i really don't think we want to be censored..
I can come up with more if ya like...
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
