Linux-Advocacy Digest #623, Volume #30 Sun, 3 Dec 00 07:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: OS Sound OFF. (Pete Goodwin)
Re: OS tree - SOUND OFF! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is awful (kiwiunixman)
Re: Netscape review. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Whistler review. (kiwiunixman)
Re: Whistler review. (kiwiunixman)
Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: how come Dell makes you buy Windows with all their PC's? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Linux is awful (Avinash Meetoo)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Tim Smith)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS Sound OFF.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 10:14:49 +0000
Dual boot machine: Windows 98 SE and Linux Mandrake 7.2
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS tree - SOUND OFF!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 10:24:26 +0000
Charlie Ebert wrote:
At home:
Compukit UK101 (6502 based)
Home built 6809 machine running FLEX-09
BBC Master 128
Acorn Electron
Acorn A410/1
DECpc 450D2LP (Intel 486) running Windows 3.1 then Windows 95. I tried
Slakware on this machine at one point.
Pentium I 166MHz unbranded currently running Linux Mandrake 7.2
Pentium II 400MHz dual booting Windows 98 SE and Linux Mandrake 7.2
At work:
PDP 11/60 RSX-11M
VAX 11/750 VAX/VMS
various MicroVAXes, Alphas, OpenVMS, Digital UNIX
various DECpc's, Windows 95, Windows 2000
Currently three PC's: the development machine running Windows 98 SE, the
other two multi booting for Windows 98 SE, Windows Millenium and Windows
2000.
> From mainframe land we found the
>
> VIC 20. A commordore based machine with 256K of ram I think.
>
> Then it was a VIC 64.
I've never heard the VIC being described as a mainframe. It certainly never
had 256k of RAM! The VIC 64 was a 64k machine, I can't remember how much
the VIC 20 had.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 23:53:24 +1300
In my original post, I was not trying to be a anti-Linux asshole, I was
simply expressing IMHO about Linux, yes, having lots of editors and
stuff does give the user selection, however, wouldn't it be great to
have one, opensource editor that combines the +'s from each one.
When comparing Linux to Windows, the tools that are included definately
beats the ones included with Windows 2000, for example, the media play
in Winblow$, why does it take so bloody long for it too load? Why once
it has downloaded a codec, then later re-downloads the same one again
when you use another site? Compare those problem's to my happy
experience with KDE2 Media Player, Compact, easy to use, fast and very
stable, something Microsoft should learn about.
kiwiunixman
Les Mikesell wrote:
> "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
>> However, with that said, I am willing to put up with these little
>> nagging things until I get either a SUN machine or SGI machine. However,
>> in the future, (hopefully :)) the distro's will make more of an effort
>> to ensure not only compatibility, but complete application-OS
>> intergration is made when designing a distro, whats the point of having
>> 1500 packages, consisting of 5 editing tools, and each has it's only
>> problem, hopefully, distro's will combine the source code of all five
>> and create on complete editor, making life simpler for the user.
>>
>> kiwiunixman
>
>
> In the commercial world, they usually combine the worst features of
> all the previous entities when they give you something they think
> is complete, making life miserable for the user. Disk space is
> finally cheap - let's keep those choices.
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Netscape review.
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 12:46:49 +0200
"Jason McNorton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Have you ever developed web pages? Complex ones?
> > > Guess who is the one that adher to standards and who is the one who
isn't?
> > > In this case, Microsoft was the one that most closely adhered
standards.
> > > Netscape can't *handle* standards.
> > > They had to rebuilt their entire codebase because of that.
> > > And guess who is the browser that forced me to break my pages'
standard
> > > compliance before?
> > > Guess who is the browser that now force me to hack my own code, in
order to
> > > fix things that it made me do the wrong way in the first place?
> >
> > Much as I hate to admit it, you're right. Last summer, when I developed
> > some pretty sophisticated web pages, I made the mistake of "debugging"
> > them exclusively in Internet Explorer. I got them to the point where I
> > thought they were finished, but then I loaded them in Netscape, and the
> > damage was pretty severe.
> >
> > The most egregious example was in Javascript. You can declare a
> > function to execute when you close a window, and in Internet Explorer,
> > this works fine. But in Netscape, when the window closes, it
> > immediately stops the execution of the function! You aren't guaranteed
> > that even the first line of your function will execute under Netscape,
> > which means that you can never use the feature.
>
> Yep, you have to use netscape to debug. Otherwise you'll end up with
> stuff that works in IE, but not Netscape. If you use Netscape to debug,
> you'll probably be ok with both.
Not if you do complex things, you won't.
Layers, frex, do not *exist* anywhere except on Netscape 4.X mad vision.
They dropped that out in Netscape 6, more trouble for the developers.
> Netscape is just not up to it anymore. Go with IE5.0+ and save yourself
> and your users a lot of trouble.
I agree.
Either that or provide *full* backward compatibility.
Perhaps by a <Netscapte:4.XX> at the top of the page that would tell the
browser how to render it.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 12:55:46 +0200
"Michael Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:90cn3c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> That ignorant lutefisk Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> foolishly
> posted the following words into comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy:
>
> > > Win2K is slow,
> > Compared to what? It's the fastest transaction processing system
> > according to TPC.org.
>
> It might be fast if you're running it on a gigabuck server, but put linux
on
> the same machine and it will blow Windows right out of the water.
It haven't yet.
And IBM had to move it system to Win2K in order to reach the top ten.
If they could've done it on Linux, they would've.
Linux can't do this.
> As far as
> desktop OS is concerned, have you ever tried running Windows NT/2000 on a
> pentium classic with 32 megs of RAM?
Yes.
> If you have, I'm sure you fell in love
> with that spinning hourglass cursors and a bunch of blue screens. Linux,
on
> the other hand, would run just fine on that system.
No, it wasn't any slower than X on the same hardware.
And certainly within the limits of workable.
> > Win2K has set serveral data transfer records as well as scalability.
>
> I agree, it might be scalable, but your pocketbook has to be scalable as
> well :) Win2K's multiprocessor support sucks, the ultra-expensive data
> center server supports 32(?) CPUs, while linux supports 64(?). The numbers
> might be wrong, but I believe they are reasonably close. Looks like Linux
> wins again.
Pocketbook? Get WinCE, based on NT kernel.
About linux supporting 64CPU, on what platform & kernel?
I don't think this is true, I know that SMP was improved in 2.2, but I think
that is one of the main attractions of 2.4
> > > unreliable
> > Compared to what? Linux? That crashy, buggy, unstable, development
> > "OS"? Give me a break.
>
> Correctly configured linux servers can run uninterrupted for years, while
> your beloved Windows NT/2000 goes belly-up every few days.
False.
A properly configured Win2K has no problems staying up for as long as you
like.
The only reason it's not up for years is because it's less than a year in
the market.
> It might be a
> little more stable on one of those giga-everything boxes, but who needs to
> spend $100,000+ when you can get a reliable Linux server for under $5000?
If
> you're planning to deploy a Windows-based network, you'll spend much more
> than that on software alone. Still think Win2K is more reliable that
Linux?
> All right my good friend, why don't you find some .gov or .mil domains
that
> are running it.
False.
TPC tests include TCO for five years, Win2K is still the clear winner in
*both* price *and* performance.
If you think that you can reach one tenth of the level that the Win2K
cluster did with a 10,000$ linux machine, than you are mad.
Win2K broke performance records, Linux isn't even a runner-up.
Beside, even assuming that Linux is 1000% more than Win2K, which it isn't,
you would *still* not be able to reach that level with a 10,000$ linux
machine.
Doubling your price just in case.
www.israel.gov.il
http://uptime.netcraft.com/hosted?netname=IL-GOVT-NET,147.237.0.0,147.237.25
5.255
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph/?host=4woman.gov
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph/?host=abaweb.faa.gov
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph/?host=access.gov
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph/?host=access.wa.gov
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph/?host=acquisition.jpl.nasa.gov
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph/?host=adoptahorse.blm.gov
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph/?host=aepo-xdv-www.epo.cdc.gov
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph/?host=amoebawww.den.nps.gov
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph/?host=anchor.ncd.noaa.gov
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph/?host=aoc.gov (And you call *this*
accurate?)
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph/?host=abonline.monroe.army.mil
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph/?host=agena.spawar.navy.mil
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph/?host=astimage.daps.dla.mil
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph/?host=baileys-mtmcwww.army.mil
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph/?host=5yrplan.nfesc.navy.mil
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph?display=uptime&site=cooper.nosc.mil
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph?display=uptime&site=jdmsweb1.nosc.mil
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph?display=uptime&site=Metasc.nosc.mil
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph?display=uptime&site=ntcsslab.spawar.navy.mi
l
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph?display=uptime&site=METAVAWG.nosc.mil
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph?display=uptime&site=baileys-mtmcwww.army.mi
l
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph?display=uptime&site=www.mtmc.army.mil
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph?display=uptime&site=assist.daps.mil
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph?display=uptime&site=www.dodssp.daps.mil
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph?display=uptime&site=battlelabs.monroe.army.
mil
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph?display=uptime&site=commprj.nosc.mil
(Win2K)
Need some more?
> > > hard to set up
> > Compared to Linux? ROFL... This is by far the funniest thing I've
> > heard all week.
>
> Linux might be difficult to set up if you're attempting to install some
> hacker distribution such as slackware or jurix. Mandrake and RedHat,
> however, are as easy to install as Windows9X, which, in turn, is much
easier
> to set up that NT/2000.
False, Redhat is as easy to install as NT/2K, not as 9x.
> > > and outrageously expensive
> >
> > The initial cost compared to Linux. Compared to the rest of the
> > industry it's rather inexpensive. Not to mention Windows has the
> > lowest TCO of any business-class OS.
>
> I don't recollect anybody talking about the rest of the industry. Are you
> trying to tell me that windows nt, will al the money-sucking upgrades,
will
> still be cheaper that linux in the long run? All right Chad, now's my turn
> to ROFL.
Yes, check TPC for data.
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 11:03:20 GMT
Hypothetically speeking, if I were to install Whistler on a clean hard
disk, how megs would it occupy? for a standard, run of the mill
workstation installation.
kiwiunixman
Ayende Rahien wrote:
> "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>>> For now, I think that there is a good chance that Whistler will be as
>>
> good
>
>>> from win2k as win2k was from NT.
>>
>> That would make it getting somewhere useful, but still has a long way to
>> go.
>>
>> Is it more like UNIX than 2K (2K is more like UNIX than NT4 and NT4 is
>> more like UNIX than NT3.5.1)?
>
>
> No, on the outside, it's very much like a Mac.
> I just installed it on another mahcine, for a more serious testing (it goes
> to the *abusers* now, the kind whose desktop directory is 1.5GB in size.)
> and check the full turial.
> Aside from the horrifying thought about the users that *need* to take the
> mouse turial, it makes it very easy to do most tasks.
> On the inside, it's more like Win2K, have some more features that I've to
> study further to decide how they are going to work and if they are worth it.
> And perform nicely on low-ram machines (Some people claim that you need 128
> to run Win2K properly, I just installed whistler, with higher demands, on a
> 72MB, and I've a desktop & gaming computer on 2K with 64MB)
>
> The most obvious advantage, aside the cool GUI, is the user switching, which
> is really good, but MS should implement virtual desktop as well in order to
> make it really good.
> The NT line isn't trying to be unix-like, if they wanted that, they could've
> gone Apple's way, to get BSD code, whose license allows properity code, and
> use it.
> The NT line was built by the same people who worked on the VMS.
> If you want to learn about NT history, you might want to start here:
> http://world.std.com/~jimf/papers/nt-unix/nt-unix.html
> http://www.microsoft.com/WINDOWS2000/news/fromms/kanoarchitect.asp
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 11:11:37 GMT
Those were the days when having a bug in a piece of software would be
unimagionable. These days, with the internet, companies now (like
mickeysoft) don't give a tinkers-cuss whether a piece of software has
bugs in it because they know users can always download patches later.
kiwiunixman
<snip>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 05:15:03 -0600
"Michael Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:90cn3c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It might be fast if you're running it on a gigabuck server, but put linux
on
> the same machine and it will blow Windows right out of the water. As far
as
> desktop OS is concerned, have you ever tried running Windows NT/2000 on a
> pentium classic with 32 megs of RAM? If you have, I'm sure you fell in
love
> with that spinning hourglass cursors and a bunch of blue screens. Linux,
on
> the other hand, would run just fine on that system.
That depends entirely on what you're doing. For instance, I'm running Linux
Mandrake 7.2 on a P200 mmx with 64MB and it takes >30 seconds to open a copy
of Netscape, not to mention that even opening copies of Konqueror take
upwards of 10-15 seconds. Opening the terminal program takes 10 seconds.
Virtually everything makes me wait. Of course there's no wait cursor while
it's doing this, so I'm just left fiddling my thumbs not knowing if it's
actually loading or not.
I don't call that "just fine".
> Linux might be difficult to set up if you're attempting to install some
> hacker distribution such as slackware or jurix. Mandrake and RedHat,
> however, are as easy to install as Windows9X, which, in turn, is much
easier
> to set up that NT/2000.
2000 is simple to setup. In fact, it asks for nearly no information. Why
do you criticize things you've never obviously used?
> I don't recollect anybody talking about the rest of the industry. Are you
> trying to tell me that windows nt, will al the money-sucking upgrades,
will
> still be cheaper that linux in the long run? All right Chad, now's my turn
> to ROFL.
Cost of the software is less than 10% of the total cost of running a system.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: how come Dell makes you buy Windows with all their PC's?
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 05:18:27 -0600
No, you said "How come Dell bundles Windows with every PC?"
Answer. They don't. You are wrong.
The price of a machine with Linux is often more because they have to include
more expensive hardware. For instance, you can't include a cheap winmodem,
you need to include a real modem which doubles the price of the modem.
Also, Dell and other manufacturers purchase support licenses from Red Hat,
which they pass on to you.
You're not pay for windows.
"jtnews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Once again, I repeat, yes they offer systems with RedHat, but they are
> NOT
> as cheap as the ones you can get configured with Windows!
>
> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 02 Dec 2000 18:26:18 -0500, jtnews wrote:
> > >How come Dell bundles Windows with every PC?
> >
> > They don't. http://www.dell.com/linux
> >
> > >Same goes for all the other manufacturers.
> >
> > http://www.aslab.com
> > http://www.penguincomputing.com
> > http://www.thelinuxstore.com
> > ....
> >
> > --
> > Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
> > elflord at panix dot com
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 05:31:10 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 1 Dec 2000
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >Themselves, actually.
> >> >
> >> >In order to keep their profit margins up, they must often sell new
> >versions
> >> >to their existing customers. In order to do that, they have to give
the
> >> >customer something they want. No customer throws away a perfectly
good
> >> >product for something that they don't want.
> >>
> >> So you buy a whole new OS every two years, because it has a feature you
> >> want? What are you, stupid?
> >
> >I'm sorry, versus you who does not financially support the people working
on
> >your OS.
>
> ROTFL!
>
> >I believe in compensating people that do things for me which help.
That's
> >why I purchase even multiple versions of Linux rather than just
downloading
> >them.
>
> You are *such* a humanitarian.
No. If you don't compensate people for their work, chances are they will
not continue to offer it. It's called common sense.
If you like something, pay for it. Even if you don't have to.
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 11:34:30 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > >
> > > "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > > Now I've found it.
> > > > > Do you consider unix/linux to be a good OS?
> > > > > Do you consider Netscape 6 to be a good browser?
> > > > >
> > > > > Apperantly, it suffers from exactly the same problem.
> > > > > Netscape 6 require /usr/local/netscape to have read/write to *all*
> > > users.
> > > > > Since it stores *user spesifics* settings in there, instead of
> storing
> > > them
> > > > > in /home/<user>/netsacpe
> > > >
> > > > Not exactly the same case. It's just a suggested default
> > > > path (unwise suggestion, I agree). I didn't like it, and I
> > > > installed to /home/<user>/netscape. Didn't need to get an
> > > > updated version, just entered the right path in place of the
> > > > default. However I'm not sure it was necessary, because user
> > > > specific data are kept in a .mozilla folder on my user home
> > > > directory.
> > >
> > > T. Max & I have been arguing about the HKLM & HKCU in the registry.
> > > I complained that too many programmers don't adher to MS recommendations
> > > about programming, and store user spesific data in the HKLM key in the
> > > registry.
> >
> > Yes I've been following the thread. What I wanted to point out is that
> > the choice of Netscape is undeniably bad, but it may be easily overcome,
> > on Linux, because we're not dealing with a "closed" registry system as
> > in Windows.
>
> closed registry system?
>
I mean that in *nix you only have a filesystem, with some conventional
setting which are intended to provide security. An user or a sysadmin
has easy means to increase or decrease security for a single application
or for a full range of them. Therefore it's possible to run in a safe
mode an application whose programmers screwed up security because of
error/stupidity reasons.
On Windows you don't have such a possibility: the registry has been
designed on a fixed way, you can't move an entry from HKLM to HKCU in a
way transparent to the application, so either the security scheme
designed by MS or selected by the applications suits you, or you're
screwed up.
> > >
> > > BTW, my testing of netscape 6 aren't unusual, so it seems.
> > > http://www.linuxworld.com/linuxworld/lw-2000-11/lw-11-netscape6.html
> >
> > I agree with Linuxworld critics. I too have been unable to use the
> > authomatic download install program, and I have been forced to download
> > via FTP. Then to have the install script to work, I changed on some .ini
> > file the URL to point to ftp://localhost/pub/.... and I faked a download
> > from my very local machine. Not really the easy way!
> > The only point in favor of Netscape6 (Linux version) I've found so far
> > is that it withstands the crashme test without crashing.
>
> Where can I test the windows version?
Easy. You make sure not to have unsaved work around, then, with
JavaScript enabled, you just follow this link:
http://www.crashme.com/
It will give a 1 minute countdown and then it will flood your browser
with random stuff. With it Netscape 4.75 crashes immediately, with
Netscape 6, after I had 36 open windows I got tired, went to a CLI
console and terminated it. If you test also with IE and Opera, I'd be
curious to know the results.
I discovered this site just because of the crashme tests referenced in
this NG. I performed a search for crashme, and, among other stuff, I
found that.
------------------------------
From: Avinash Meetoo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 15:41:33 +0400
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> Avinash Meetoo wrote:
>
> > Many people forget that installing Linux often means installing Linux
> > while preserving Windows (ie do a dual-boot system). And it's pretty
> > normal that doing that is more complicated that simply installing
> > Windows ONLY on a PC.
>
> Not that much more complicated.
>
> > Those who say that Win installation is a breeze should try to install it
> > on a Linux PC and try to get a dual boot system...
>
> What do you think I am running on now? On one disk is Windows, on the other
> is Linux. Not that hard at all.
>
> --
> Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2, dual booting with Windows 98 SE.
Hi Pete,
have you really installed Win 98 SE AFTER having installed Linux ? And
if yes, was that something easy to do ?
Avinash
--
************************* The Mauritius Linux User Group **********
* [ M L U G ] http://pages.intnet.mu/chrisavi/mauritius-linux/ *
********************** Open to all Linux Users in Mauritius *******
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Smith)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: 3 Dec 2000 03:45:46 -0800
Reply-To: Tim Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sat, 02 Dec 2000 18:38:26 -0500, Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>well to be honest the legal system never thought we would have such a
>crybaby loser like we have with Gore so b/c of him we are having a 30
>day election instead of a 1 day election with some votes counted 5 times
>and the other 95% counted once.
So you think Gore should just give up, even though the difference in the
current totals is well under the margin of error for the way the votes
were counted? There are many sources of errors in vote counting, and
normally these don't matter, because the difference is big enough that
even if all the errors went the same way, it would not have made a
difference. That's not so in this case. That fact that every time they
use a more accurate counting method, the difference narrows, indicates
that they have not yet found a good procedure. Gore owes it to those
who voted for him to keep fighting until there is actually good evidence
that he is not rightful winner.
--Tim Smith
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
