Linux-Advocacy Digest #151, Volume #30 Fri, 10 Nov 00 00:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Les Mikesell")
Re: OS stability (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Disapointed in the election ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: KDE vs GNOME: specific issues (Jeff Jeffries)
Re: Disapointed in the election (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Disapointed in the election ("Tom Wilson")
Re: What does KDE do after all (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (.)
Re: What does KDE do after all (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (.)
Re: Reg Ex (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Linux Is Lame. Sorry but it is true ("Clifford W. Racz")
Re: OS stability ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: OS stability (.)
Re: Disapointed in the election (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Caldera OpenLinux User)
Re: Disapointed in the election ("Clifford W. Racz")
Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft? (.)
Re: Disapointed in the election (Donovan Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 03:58:46 GMT
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >What new API? Are you smoking something funny?
>
> Technically, it's a new API, but one can recompile apps
> by using the options:
>
> g++ -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -D__USE_FILE_OFFSET64 ...
>
> The source code -- at least for open() level stuff; I don't know
> about fopen() or iostream -- would not have to change.
> However, the objects would not be compatible, as open() and
> other such things become macros with the real calls becoming
> open64().
>
> Makes life interesting. :-)
This should be well-known territory, because the *bsd's did it
years ago. The old system calls have to remain in the libraries
for backwards binary compatibility, but things compiled on
new systems pick up the macros to use the new sizes and system
calls. Windows must have the same issue when running old
programs on new filesystems - and probably solves it the same
way.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: 10 Nov 2000 04:08:10 GMT
On Thu, 9 Nov 2000 13:07:27 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>Most is not all.
>
>If even one known security hole remains, then that site is vulnerable.
Not necessarily.
Most machines have at least one security vulnerability: an attacker can
remove the case and steal the hard drive. The fact that this security
vulnerability exists does not mean that the machine will get broken
into, provided that this weakness is not exposed.
A more realistic example -- if the machine has no remote exploits, and
accounts are only given to systems administrators, then the machine is
safe until a remote exploit is discovered.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Disapointed in the election
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 04:11:03 +0000
> Of the two major candidates, Gore was the one who flunked out of school
> twice. Why vote for Gore/Bush if you don't believe in them? By voting
> for a minor party candidate onc can help that party be on the ballot for
> next time.
> --
> Russ Lyttle, PE
> <http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
> Not Powered by ActiveX
Maybe Gore did flunk high school, and I am told Bush went to Yale. But
at least Gore can f***ing speak ENGLISH! And perhaps knows where
BELGRADE is! And doesn't think it essential to point out that the USA
gets imports from other countries!
(Incidentally, I realise my grammar is terrible in this post, but it
makes the point more robostly than if I had been grammatically correct).
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff Jeffries)
Subject: Re: KDE vs GNOME: specific issues
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 04:15:05 GMT
In article <8u7m8h$k70$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The
>office apps are shakey in places and missing functionality in others, but
>the base is there and it won't be long before the '1000 eyeballs' flatten
>out all the bugs.
Who are the "1000 eyeballs"?
Thanks
--J
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Disapointed in the election
Date: 10 Nov 2000 04:15:26 GMT
On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 03:53:24 +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>As I said before, I understand you voting for Nader, whether or not
>he'll be a real player in 4 years (and I doubt that). I just think
>people who voted Nader ought to have voted Gore, cos in this election,
>Nader isn't a player really, and Gore is the lesser of 2 evils.
What it boils down to is that when you vote for a third party candidate
in the US electoral system, you are basically throwing a spanner in the
works, and subverting the system. Though I'm not going to say that there's
anything wrong with doing that. I just wish to point out that it really
is a two party system, and minority parties do tend to screw things up.
For the system to work in a way that doesn't polarise voters towards
majority parties, you really need something like an instant-runoff system.
While I support Gore, I don't have any problem with Bush winning an election
where Gore has more of the popular vote -- the "state vote" system has a
lot of good points. But I think instant runoffs would improve the system
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Disapointed in the election
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 04:20:24 GMT
"Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I vote for the candidate I believe in, Nader. In four years Nader is
> > going to be a major player, especially after Bush or Gore screws this
> > entire country into the ground.
>
> I think Nader came in to this election sincerely thinking that he wouldn't
> win. He was merely trying to garner the minimum 5% popular vote required
to
> get his party recognized (or something to this effect).
It was ALL about matching funds for 2004.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: What does KDE do after all
Date: 10 Nov 2000 04:24:12 GMT
On 09 Nov 2000 15:49:44 -0700, Craig Kelley wrote:
>KDE and GNOME are projects to make Linux behave more like Windows and
>Macintosh.
Laughably false. They are projects to provide Linux with a modern set
of development tools. It's not that there's anything *wrong* with the
standard POSIX development tools -- but they do not in themselves make
a complete application development framework.
> Those of us who like UNIX generally don't get it either.
>Don't worry, you're not alone! We've been doing component programming
>for decades on stable, multitasking systems.
Component programming for decades ? Hmmmm ... I don't see anything close
to KDE and GNOME that's more than a few years old. (possibly Motif/CDE,
but that's been saddled by licensing problems, and it's also saddled with
C as its language)
Personally, I think the Glib/GTK and Qt APIs offer a lot to programmers,
and GUI programming would be a hell of a lot harder without them.
I disagree with your comment about people who "like UNIX" disliking
GNOME/KDE. What are all the Linux developers writing their GUI applications
in nowadays, and do those people "like UNIX" or are they writing free
Linux software under duress ?
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft?
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 22:30:06 -0600
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Curtis <alliem@kas*spam*net.com> writes:
>
> > . wrote...
> > > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Curtis <alliem@kas*spam*net.com> wrote:
> > > > Chad Myers wrote...
> > > >> > It cant support true realtime applications
> > > >>
> > > >> BS. You have nothing to back this claim up. Besides, are you
claiming Linux
> > > >> can? ROFL...
> > >
> > > > Take a look at :
> > >
> > > >
http://www.win2000mag.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=7598&Key=Forecast
> > >
> > > > [...]VenturCom offers three products that provide and take advantage
of a
> > > > realtime environment in NT, and the company recently released
Win32rt, a
> > > > common realtime API for NT and Windows CE.[....]
> > >
> > > Now actually use them. Go ahead, check out the granularity of stat
> > > reporting with XRNOR on a fission core.
> > >
> > > And then wonder for about 3 seconds why no nuclear facility in the
world
> > > uses the NT version.
> >
> > You're changing the goal posts. The original claim was that WinNT cannot
> > run real time applications. This is simply false.
>
> I've never seen a real-time version of NT.
>
> Where is it? (just curious)
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/embedded/nt/default.asp
Is the embedded version of NT. If you include the real-time extensions
offered by VentureCom (WNT/E includes a subset of VentureCom's product, but
it's not strictly hard real-time unless you add the full real-time
extensions) then it's completely deterministic down to 6.7 microsecond
accuracies.
http://www.vci.com/products/vci_products/rtx/rtx_nt_overview.html
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.linux.sucks
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 17:34:24 +1300
> I did spend quite a bit of time trying to find or figure out how to get
> Windows to do anything with files which do not have an extension, and I
> thought for sure that the reg entry you posted worked differently than
> you describe.
>
> Regardless, I prefer my technique, as it gives most of the benefits you
> describe, is more easily configured, and doesn't clutter up the top
> level context menu, which is already too crowded for my tastes.
Fair enough... to each his own =) Part of what makes Linux that much
fun to use I suspect...
For the record, that registry change has worked for me since 95 OSR2 (the
version I had when I first started mucking around in HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT =)
Although, it was a little buggy on OSR2. Occasionally double clicking a
shortcut would open the shortcut file in notepad rather than launching
the target, but not consistently... closing notepad and double clicking
again usually launched the app.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: What does KDE do after all
Date: 10 Nov 2000 04:34:49 GMT
On 08 Nov 2000 17:15:46 +0100, DTZ wrote:
First, let me say why it takes so long to compile -- compiling C++ on
Linux is slow. C++ programs may take several seconds to compile
(especially if they use a lot of virtual functions, or STL code)
while C programs compile faster than you can blink on new hardware.
Also, because the autoconf setup uses a libtool based build, every single
source file in the distribution is compiled twice. That's right, the
entire KDE distribution gets compiled twice.
( someone please hit me if I'm wrong ! but this is the default behaviour
of libtool. It builds a .o file and a .lo file to create dynamic and
static libs )
>Then I thought to myself: I can compile a linux kernel within 20
>minutes and it does multitasking, filesystems even handles my
>soundcard, but what does KDE actually do ?
"KDE" does a lot of things. It browses web pages. It provides an
application development framework, and a component architecture.
It manages your windows and your desktop. It opens and views
DVI files. It even plays tetris.
My point ? KDE is several things:
(1) It is an application development framework (kdelibs)
(2) It is a desktop environment consisting of a Window manager, session
manager, a desktop file manager and other things.
(3) It is a suite of applications that use that framework.
>Okay, there are some application, which (unfortunately) only run under
>KDE,
What does it mean to "run under KDE" ? I don't believe this is true.
What is more correct is that some applications require kdelibs.
>Is it for the component based architechture ? This is a point, but
>immediately raises the next question: what does a component based
>architechture do for me.
It doesn't do that much for you directly.
What it does for the developers is enable them to write more modular
applications that are embeddable and callable via some kind of object
brokerage.
This results in better applications ( Koffice is probably the first app
to really put this into use )
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sucks
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 17:36:05 +1300
> >B> I think you are mistaking me for some sort of winadvocate Aaron.
>
> I'm sorry, Ayende, but if you come to alt.destroy.microsoft (even
> through cross-posting, I'm afraid) and start talking about how "W2K
> works for me," you *are* a Winvocate. As I've said before, you seem to
> be a pretty reasonable person, and I don't want to insult you, but if it
> walks like a duck...
At the very least, noone can deny Ayende is a Win2kvocate. He has stated
many times his distaste for the 95 line... (is there anyone who actually
LIKES this OS? Seriously?)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Reg Ex
Date: 10 Nov 2000 04:38:26 GMT
On Thu, 09 Nov 2000 17:07:53 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I'm working w/ Regular Expressions and can't figure out how to find a
>string while excluding a separate string.
regex syntax doesn't handle negation that well.
Try using a pipe:
grep '\.html$' | grep -v '^/usr'
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Clifford W. Racz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Is Lame. Sorry but it is true
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 23:31:13 -0500
Oh, ok... boy, I was sure put in my place :)
"spicerun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> You sure aren't a serious contractor.....or you know your work is not
worth
> even a discount from the industry's contract rate (Try $75-$400 per hour
to
> start next time).
No, I am not a serious contractor; I am still a student. It is good work on
the side for a student going through school. I never bragged that I made a
lot. I just weighed the cost, which you do when you haven't got much.
Maybe at $90/hr I could just hire someone to do it for me.
> So you spent 2 hours to install W2K according to your math. If you were
> running professional rates (not the professional student rate you are
> claiming), and let's say your time might have been worth $90/hr., This
makes
> $180 of your time plus and upgrade disk for $120, making your job worth
$300
> for those two hours. I assume your install took only 2 hours because your
> machine probably already had a running copy of NT so that everything was
> already configured. The upgrade just put on the new packages, and you
were
> done. I'm certain you didn't even have to configure your network that
already
> had the settings from your NT system.
Nope. Fresh install. And I over estimated my time, to be conservative. If
I had to be more precise, I would say the Win2k installation took 1 hour 15
minutes. I had an 8x CDROM, which may have been the limiting factor?
> According to your math, you spent 500 man hours or 12.5 work weeks. I'll
give
> you the benefit of the doubt and allocate you $400 for adding a Hard Disk
and
> other cards you felt you had to buy to work with Linux. That means you
still
> spent 300 man hours or 7.5 work weeks. I think even Claire could install
Linux
> within 2 man weeks <if he put his mind to it and really was trying to use
Linux
> seriously>. This tells me that your work isn't even worth $20 per hour if
it
> takes that long to install Linux from scratch on your system. I'd hate to
see
> how much time it would have taken you to even install Win2K from scratch
on a
> machine without any OS or previous OS on it.
According to my math, $20/hr * 50hr = $1000; 50 hours at ~5 hours a night
(granted, somewhat leisurly, wiping drool as I held my infant son).
Remember, I have a life, so I don't have infinite resources to put a bumper
sticker on my car: "Born to run Linux (and F**k around all the time with my
computer because it is my life)." I guess being a physicist has made me
somawhat better at math then the spicerun, even if I am not a Unix/Linux
administrator.
> With your apparent contracting skills, I don't care who you are. You
aren't
> coming anywhere near my computers (including my wife's WinME system).
Oooooh. That hurts.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 22:42:23 -0600
"Mig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8uf9ve$ovd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > > By your logic Barns & Noble must be the most secure site around!
> >
> > No. It's a fact, any Linux system that's been up over a year has bugs
in
> > it's kernel that could make it insecure.
>
> Come on Eric. There is no way around the facts presented by Netcraft and
> "sfbear". If those Linux boxes where insecure then they would have been
> cracked long time ago and identified as cracked.
Wow, so you're saying that simply because a system hasn't been cracked, it's
secure? Wow. I'll rush off and tell all the security experts.
> The facts are simple and straight. NT/W2K is all about hype and nothing
> else. It must be extremely annoiyng to know that ones prefered enviroment
> is unstable and so insecure - just think about the two recent Micros~1
> cracks.
Right. The first Microsoft crack had nothing to do with the OS. It was an
unsecure home system which an employee used to access the VPN. It was poor
security policy and nothing relating to the OS itself.
The second one was an old machine that had not been patched because it was
considered in retirement. It should have been removed from the network
completely, but it wasn't.
Here's another thing to think about. In any large shop, similar to
microsoft.com, don't you think they do regular maintenance? If I ran such a
shop, i'd rotate every server out of the loop every 60 days and subject it
to a battery of diagnostics and replace any hardware which shows even the
slightest sign of failing.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: 10 Nov 2000 04:46:30 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Mig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8uf9ve$ovd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> > > By your logic Barns & Noble must be the most secure site around!
>> >
>> > No. It's a fact, any Linux system that's been up over a year has bugs
> in
>> > it's kernel that could make it insecure.
>>
>> Come on Eric. There is no way around the facts presented by Netcraft and
>> "sfbear". If those Linux boxes where insecure then they would have been
>> cracked long time ago and identified as cracked.
> Wow, so you're saying that simply because a system hasn't been cracked, it's
> secure? Wow. I'll rush off and tell all the security experts.
Actually, any security expert will tell you straight off that a machine
thats been up (and visible to the world) for 300 days is by that achievement
secure in its own right.
Hack attempts happen to almost every publically visible machine nearly
every day. The ultra-5 that I use at work sees an average of a dozen
attempts per day; my home machine a little more.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Disapointed in the election
Date: 10 Nov 2000 04:47:39 GMT
On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 01:46:20 GMT, Russ Lyttle wrote:
>Clamchu wrote:
>My ballot had *SIX* candidates on it. What did you think of the other
>four?
The other four are irrelevant. The US electoral system is a two party
duopoly. I'm not saying that's good or bad. I'm simply pointing out
that under the US electoral system, it's dumb to vote for anyone besides
one of the leaders.
This is why minor party candidates never gain any momentum. Nader might
well have pulled five percent if the system didn't penalise those who
vote for minor parties.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 20:52:32 -0800
From: Caldera OpenLinux User <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Les Mikesell wrote:
> "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8udjdo$rnk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > > Wilful, deliberate, ignorant and just plain stupid misinterpretation
> of
> > he
> > > > said does _not_ help you in any way, it just makes you look childish.
> > >
> > > So the people who are spreading the virus are really
> > > doing the right thing by opening it, in your opinion?
> >
> > Opening an email does not spread a virus.
> >
>
> Is that the 'guns don't kill people' argument?
No. It's the 'MS never does anything wrong - it's the stupid user.' argument.
------------------------------
From: "Clifford W. Racz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Disapointed in the election
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 23:46:07 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > I voted for Nader.
> >
> > Unfortunately the idiots in my home state voted Hillary "The Witch"
> > Clinton in as US Senator.
> >
> > Sad :(
> >
> > claire
> >
> I'm fromthe UK, so I obviously could not vote in your elections.
Oh sure you could... happens in California all the time. When I voted, they
asked me my name. then they asked me if i was the guy on the paper. I said
yes. Then I voted. That's it. Boy, America is great.
*Wish Linux could be that easy*
(can't wait to hear responses to that comment)
> I can see why you voted for Nader
Oh yeah, Nader. "I can see a future with zero emissions... because industry
will be powered by solar energy." What a joke. Do some simple calculations
and a cost analysis. But at least he has some principles (unlike Clinton).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft?
Date: 10 Nov 2000 04:50:06 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Curtis <alliem@kas*spam*net.com> writes:
>>
>> > . wrote...
>> > > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Curtis <alliem@kas*spam*net.com> wrote:
>> > > > Chad Myers wrote...
>> > > >> > It cant support true realtime applications
>> > > >>
>> > > >> BS. You have nothing to back this claim up. Besides, are you
> claiming Linux
>> > > >> can? ROFL...
>> > >
>> > > > Take a look at :
>> > >
>> > > >
> http://www.win2000mag.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=7598&Key=Forecast
>> > >
>> > > > [...]VenturCom offers three products that provide and take advantage
> of a
>> > > > realtime environment in NT, and the company recently released
> Win32rt, a
>> > > > common realtime API for NT and Windows CE.[....]
>> > >
>> > > Now actually use them. Go ahead, check out the granularity of stat
>> > > reporting with XRNOR on a fission core.
>> > >
>> > > And then wonder for about 3 seconds why no nuclear facility in the
> world
>> > > uses the NT version.
>> >
>> > You're changing the goal posts. The original claim was that WinNT cannot
>> > run real time applications. This is simply false.
>>
>> I've never seen a real-time version of NT.
>>
>> Where is it? (just curious)
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/embedded/nt/default.asp
> Is the embedded version of NT. If you include the real-time extensions
> offered by VentureCom (WNT/E includes a subset of VentureCom's product, but
> it's not strictly hard real-time unless you add the full real-time
> extensions) then it's completely deterministic down to 6.7 microsecond
> accuracies.
Which of course is highly determined by processor architecture, and still
cannot hold a candle to the competition, which (in QNX/Neutrino's case)
is 0.55 milliseconds on a PIII.
And QNX is free.
And completely POSIX compliant.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Disapointed in the election
Date: 10 Nov 2000 04:53:52 GMT
On 9 Nov 2000 19:47:16 +0100, Bruce Scott TOK wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I'm fromthe UK, so I obviously could not vote in your elections. While
>>I can see why you voted for Nader, don't you see that you have only
>>acted to help the simpleton Bush?
>
>No, that's stupid.
>
>www.counterpunch.org
Nothing on that site addresses the fact that the Nader voters could cost Gore
the election.
Maybe the Nader voters did have reason not to like Gore.
However, the fact remains that the current electoral system tends create
circumstances where having a minor (liberal/conservative) party damages
the major (liberal/conservative) parties chance of winning.
It also creates a two-party duopoly, since it encourages voters to polarise
at the last minute, which damages a minor partys long term prospects (for
example federal funding and air time in the debates, as well as a lack of
perceived support)
--
Donovan
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
