Linux-Advocacy Digest #254, Volume #31 Fri, 5 Jan 01 01:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Could only... (JM)
Re: Could only... (JM)
Re: Could only... (JM)
Re: Could only... (JM)
Re: open source is getting worst with time. (JM)
Re: open source is getting worst with time. (JM)
Re: The 2.4.0 kernel was released at 4pm pst. ("Adam Warner")
Re: The 2.4.0 kernel was released at 4pm pst. ("Adam Warner")
Re: Why Hatred? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Conclusion (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Red Hat dead/dying? (Donn Miller)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Could only...
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 05:51:11 +0000
On Thu, 04 Jan 2001 05:18:00 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)) wrote:
>> It is illegal to discharge a weapon with the intent to murder
>> another human being.
>We could shorten this to it's illegal to murder.
>But it is definitely not illegal to hose down a burglar, or intruder on
>your own premises in over 1/2 the states of this nation.
So if someone has invited you to their house, someone else in the
house could just kill you?
>>All of those activities WERE ALREADY ILLEGAL....so, exactly *what*
>>would another law do, exactly?
>Nothing. I often MARVEL at our seatbelt laws. Or how about the
>ones which force you to buckle up on an aircraft.
And this is relavent how?
>We even have a new felony law which states if you travel more than
>1/4 mile from the red lights of a police vehicle OR you turn off
>on another street or exit a highway while being followed by a
>police vehicle with it's red's on, you are automatically guilty
>of a felony. Not seeing the lights is no excuse.
And this is relavent how?
>>Do you think it would have prevent those with criminal intent from
>>getting weapons? If you believe that, you're insane.
>You can buy almost any kind of pistol at your local truckstop for
>under $300.
Yes, anyone who feels like causing trouble can wander into their
corner shop.
<irrelevent drug talk snipped>
>>> example, a person who owns a gun, must have it locked in a safe place to
>>> ensure that it is out of the reach of kiddies and undesirable
>>> characters.
>>How many undesirable characters obey such laws?
>None.
And what about everyone else? What about people who just decide to
leave it on the table, then some 10 year old comes and steals it
before gunning down some people outside.
>>> If you fail to hear to this requirement, you are liable for
>>> any damage that occurs if the gun is stolen and was not safely stored.
>>How many undesirable characters obey such laws?
>None.
How can they decide not to be held liable for what happens with their
own guns?
>>> We maybe a shitty little country in the south pacific and that 99% of
>>> American youth don't know wheren the hell it is, but at least we have
>>> out shit together.
>>Well, you are turning away from Socialism...but, any man who is
>>prohibited from carrying a weapon to defend himself is only a serf.
>Anybody who lives in a nation which doesn't trust it's own citizens
>to carry a firearm is living in a dictatorship or a communist country.
Anyone who lives in a nation which allows its citizens easy access to
tools designed to murder people is living in a anarchist country.
>You have no freedoms. Don't think you have freedoms if you can't
>even carry a lousy pistol.
Don't think you have freedoms if people are free to carry about
weapons and could just shoot you if you happened to disagree with
them.
>>Gun control laws are merely a re-establishment of the medieval class
>>system: The elite get to arm themselves, while the un-washed masses
>>are targets for crime.
>I think it's merely a setup for a total police state where
>"criminals" and "citizens" don't exist seperately.
Or a society where those with guns get to bully and threaten those who
don't.
>I am 100% in favor of banning all financial aid and military support
>for countries which don't even support the right for their own
>citizens to bear arms.
I'm all in favour of banning all financial aid and military support
for countries which don't even support the right for their own
citizens to feel safe in their own country.
>If the government doesn't trust it's citizens to carry their own
>arms then what kind of government do you have?
An government that realises people can't be trusted to have casual
access to guns.
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Could only...
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 05:51:12 +0000
On Thu, 04 Jan 2001 08:17:19 +0000, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>Charlie Ebert wrote:
>> If the government doesn't trust it's citizens to carry their own
>> arms then what kind of government do you have?
>Do you know that in New South Wales (Australia), it is technically
>illegal to carry a Swiss knife? "Technically" because really the
>police is not so stupid as to enforce such a cretinous law. I look
>forward to the day when some politician thinks it a good idea to
>have fingernails pulled out at birth. And teeth too. They can do
>a lot of damage, you know.
Only an idiot would compare a gun to a knife.
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Could only...
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 05:51:13 +0000
On Wed, 03 Jan 2001 17:37:39 -0500, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>kiwiunixman wrote:
>> We have hardly any guns in NZ, yet we are able to maintain a level of
>> civility and respect for each other..maybe a certain country could learn
>> from this.
>Hint: it's not the gun that's the problem...it's the sick brain in
>control of it.
And if you allow those sick brains easy access to guns...
>Notice how when Australia banned guns, the murder rate TRIPLED.
False.
>Why? Because criminals realized that their intended victims, if
>law abiding citizens, would be unable to use enough force to
>credibly deter them.
>
>Also, Hitler and Stalin both disarmed the populace of their respective
>countries before carrying out their pograms.
Yawn. Anyone who comes up with that argument obviously has run out of
ideas.
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Could only...
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 05:51:14 +0000
On Thu, 04 Jan 2001 18:09:36 -0500, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>> >Hint: it's not the gun that's the problem...it's the sick brain in
>> >control of it.
>> And vice versa --- it's not the sick brain that is the problem, it's
>> that it is in control of a gun. Cut's both ways.
>Sick minds will ALWAYS get guns.
That is incorrect.
>Do you think muggers, etc. just do it on impulse?
How many of them use guns? And I bet lots of murders are done on
impulse.
>Most of these people are repeat offenders. It's pre-meditated.
Murders? I think not.
>When you see that EVERY country on the face of the earth is overflowing
>with contraband items, making a new class of contraband items does
>NOTHING other than remove them from the hands of LAW ABIDING citizens.
And stops them turning into criminals.
>Criminals, as usual, will continue to purchase, posess, and use
>contraband items.
Therefore they are irrelevent to the discussion.
>> Later in the night, a couple of blokes were having a rather serious fist
>> fight right in front of me (well, it *is* Oz, and it *was* NYE, and I *was*
>> in city central...). At that moment, it was quite clear they hated each
>> other's guts and were trying to inflict as much pain as possible. Was I
>> annoyed? Yes, sure --- I went there to listen to the music. Was I at any
>> point feeling unsafe? Nope, no risk for anyone uninvolved. And apparently,
>> everyone else around me thought the same thing, as nobody dived for cover.
>In the United States, leftists were predicting "wild west" gun
>fights in every state where the legislatures DEMANDED that local
>gun boards issue Concealed Carry permits to any and all *law*
>*abiding* and mentally competant citizens who apply for one.
>
>In the last 50 years, only ONE legal civilian CCW permit holder has
>committed a murder in the US....even during the 1950's and 60's when
>CC permits were handed out like candy.
That's a completely different situation.
>Conversely, we have numerous police convicted of murder every year.
Like when they shoot black people and make up excuses about thinking
they had a gun.
>Given these statistics, I'll trust my law-abiding neighbors with
>a concealed firearms LONG BEFORE I'll trust the police.
Even if your neighbour decides to kill you?
>> >Notice how when Australia banned guns, the murder rate TRIPLED.
>> No, I didn't. I live here, you don't. I looked at the statistics from
>> the Australian Bureau of Statistics, you didn't.
>Whoops...my mistake..it was England where it tripled....
That's even more wrong. Gun crime hardly happens here AT ALL. You
speak some bollocks.
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 05:51:15 +0000
On Wed, 03 Jan 2001 23:19:27 -0500, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>> > What the f*? That's standard American English. And yes, we won our
>> > revolution, so we're entitled to change the spelling. Or do you expect
>> > us to retain the King's/Queen's English after rejecting the monarch?
>> >
>> > Colin Day
>> hmm, The rest of the world plays Cricket whilst you play Baseball
>> The rest of the world plays Rugby whilst you play Gridiron
>> The rest of the world uses 240v whilst you use 110v
>240V is more efficient (lower distribution losses), but also more
>dangerous.
It's not meant for children like you to stick your finger in.
>Also, the US is the ONLY country that has properly designed electrical
>equipment. Here, the two poles of an electric plug are NOT interchangeable.
Since when are they anywhere else? How are you supposed to put them in
the wrong way with the Earthed pin in the way?
>> The rest of the world uses the metric system whilst you still use
>> the imperial system (which is surprising, you still have not
>> dropped even though its origins are from the Monarchy).
>We only use it for household goods, things the typical joe 6-pack and
>susy housewife buy.
I agree. Imperial is MUCH more useful than metric in every day life.
cm are too small, metres are too big, kg are too small etc etc.
>But..you see, this is a free country. Sellers can use whatever
>measurement system they like. And if it appeals to purchasers,
>great. If it doesn't appeal to consumers, so be it.
However, thanks to European dictatorship, it's illegal to sell in
metric.
>> America = Microsoft, non-standard system.
>> Rest of the world = Linux, open-standard, that everyone else has adopted
>Actually, Unix was invented in America....
Besides the point...
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 05:51:16 +0000
On Thu, 04 Jan 2001 20:49:23 -0500, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>> > What the f*? That's standard American English. And yes, we won our
>> > revolution, so we're entitled to change the spelling. Or do you expect
>> > us to retain the King's/Queen's English after rejecting the monarch?
>> >
>> > Colin Day
>> hmm, The rest of the world plays Cricket whilst you play Baseball
>That's odd. Baseball is much more popular than cricket in Japan and
>Laitn America. I don't recall cricket being an Olympic sport.
And I don't recall cricket players needing giant gloves just to catch
an already over sized ball.
>> The rest of the world plays Rugby whilst you play Gridiron
>Probably soccer more than rugby.
What's gridiron?
>> And yes I do expect you to retain the kings/queens english! It is the
>> standard way of spelling words.
>Don't hold your breath.
Why not?
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The 2.4.0 kernel was released at 4pm pst.
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 18:51:59 +1200
Wow. That's fantastic.
And to think Wired made it No. 4 in their "Vapourware 2000" article.
On the day in history that Linus releases the 2.4.0 kernel Microsoft
releases another build of Whister:
http://www.wininformant.com/display.asp?ID=3043
But this build is designed to stop you installing the operating system on
all but one computer (read it to see).
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The 2.4.0 kernel was released at 4pm pst.
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 18:54:27 +1200
Oops spelling mistake (Whistler):
> Wow. That's fantastic.
>
> And to think Wired made it No. 4 in their "Vapourware 2000" article.
>
> On the day in history that Linus releases the 2.4.0 kernel Microsoft
> releases another build of Whistler:
>
> http://www.wininformant.com/display.asp?ID=3043
>
> But this build is designed to stop you installing the operating system on
> all but one computer (read it to see).
>
> Regards,
> Adam
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 06:02:54 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 4 Jan 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 31 Dec 2000
[...]
>> Well, we've all heard this before. "Linux just can't replace Windows;
>> if it could, I'd be using it." I'm afraid I'm going to have to say that
>> it does sound like a rather tired defensiveness, thinly veiling the...
>> discomfort, shall we say, at the thought of Windows losing its...
>> ubiquitous nature. Many of the Linux zealots, after all, have indeed
>> replaced Windows, and go on to consider it a superior replacement.
>> Granted, they lose out on the use of Win32, but to be honest, that's
>> hardly debilitating functionally. Regardless, there are people who use
>> Linux on their desktop PC, and they get along just fine. Now, I'm not
>> one of those people, we all know, not yet, anyway.
>
>Fine, Linux can't replace windows on the majority of users systems (yet).
That's where your wrong. According to your own "any script on Unix can
be done on NT" logic, Linux is perfectly capable of entirely and
completely replacing Windows on every user's system. It just can't *be*
Windows.
>Perhaps someday it can, but Microsoft isn't known for standing still.
No, its known for breaking the law and establishing the largest criminal
monopoly the world has ever known, actually.
>Unlike all the competitors MS replaced, MS actively keeps enhancing most of
>it's products.
MS didn't "replace" competitors; it destroyed competition. Microsoft
constantly churns its product; inside communications reveal that this is
done knowingly to prevent competition on the merits, despite the
knowledge that it is a detriment to the consumer.
>MS got to be #1 in all of it's markets due to it's
>competitors incompentancy.
Ad hoc, ergo proctor hoc.
>I can say that easily because I also can see
>competant competitors that don't let MS get a foothold, such as Intuit and
>AOL.
Hyuk. If only we were all so naive.
>> But the difference between you and I, Erik, is that I recognize the
>> reason your self-referential "if it was better I'd use it, and I'm not
>> using it, so its not better" claims to technical objectivity is an empty
>> charade. You don't have a fair market to make your decisions on. All
>> of those "I picked Amiga over DOS, until DOS was better" conveniently
>> occur just before Amiga becomes "a niche product". You're a victim of
>> the monopoly, same as I am, but you don't seem to be aware of it.
>
>The Amiga died not because of competition, but because it's parent company
>was incompetant. [...]
Enough with the drivel.
>Windows is in fact a reliable, efficient and effective for me. [...]
I noticed the subtle yet glaring ad hoc qualification, there, Erik.
What's up with that?
>I don't claim inexpensive, but then again, it's awfully expensive to retrain lots of
>people.
Huh, what? Is this the excuse? NT is more expensive than WinDOS
because of 'retraining' costs? Retraining who? And what possible
relationship would that have causing NT to necessarily cost several
times what WinDOS does?
I think its awfully shameful that people don't recognize NT pricing for
what it is; a complete sham. Its a scam; a way to increase prices. NT
software doesn't inherently *cost* any more to produce. Microsoft
doesn't include the cost of any support for the product, there are no
outrageously exorbitant OEM license fees that MS has to pay, the CDs are
not a thousand times greater in quality. The only thing that makes it
more reliable is its replacement of DOS with this VMS-like thing to
support the Win32 API.
Microsoft, as I've noted, has been rather busy lately coming up with
ways to force consumers to pay more for the product that MS says they
want everyone to buy, NT/2K/Whatever, to replace WinDOS. But any
profit-seeking company can tell them how to do that; charge less money
for it. Less then you are, hell, less than WinDOS. It doesn't actually
*cost* any more.
>> Perhaps sufficient users wouldn't agree with you that they'd appreciate
>> the choice. Perhaps it really does fill you with... discomfort, to
>> contemplate people learning how to use computers, and being free of
>> Microsoft and its software and their dependency on paying someone else
>> to gain value from their own property. I know it might sound really
>> outlandish, but I can't for the life of me figure why anyone would be
>> *so concerned* about something like how configuration is done. You seem
>> to be trying to *insist* that consumers *could not* select a cheaper,
>> more reliable, higher performance OS given the trade-off of needing to
>> get used to text file configuration. (Those familiar with computers
>> would be happy to point out that they will be more empowered in the long
>> run, and will consider the mechanism to be as transparent, but far more
>> effective and controllable, than the clicky-clicky method that Windows
>> users are forced to hunt through like a rat in a maze, when they are
>> unlucky enough to be unable to avoid it.)
>
>What you labor under is the assumption that people *WANT* to learn about
>computers.
Some do, some don't. Some will at any one time. Most will at some
times, and won't at others. I am under no assumption that it is to my
benefit to second-guess the market.
>The vast majority of people who use computers don't want to know
>how or why it works. They just want it to work.
And here we get to the problem.
>Each release of a MS OS
>get's closer and closer to the ideal of the user not having to know much of
>anything in order to install and use it and it's applications. Linux
>distros, on the other hand take very small steps (if any at all).
That's because the "closer and closer" that "each release" of an MS OS
is supposed to be taking has been covered with existing computing
technology for decades. The "ideal" is to not have an "ideal"; there's
no one right way to run a computer, just the way you want to, and
possibly the way someone else does. Linux distros don't *have* the
kinds of problems that MS OSes have, regardless of your confusion based
on the problems which you report that you did have. I don't care if you
have problems; everyone has problems. Those who use MS OSes have more
problems, whether its contrary to your personal experience or not. And
that's where the added "bonus" of "not wanting to know how or why it
works" comes to bear on the difference between plain shoddy goods, and
monopoly crapware. You and your intentional ignorance. Fuck it.
>Fact: People don't want to become computer literate.
Fact: People don't want to do anything but sit on their ass and have sex
and watch TV.
Fact: People deal with the real world, where skills have to be learned
in order to benefit from them.
>They use the computer
>to do their job, and most of the time because they are forced to. A doctor
>should not have to become a computer expert to maintain his patient records.
>He's a doctor, not a computer scientist.
That's what they said when they invented the microcomputer back in the
seventies. But what they meant was that he would know how the computer
works, without having to get into the deep magic. At the time, it was
assumed they'd learn to program. Now all they have to do is learn to
use applications, and run the computer itself. That's called
'administration', BTW, unless he can pay someone to run it for him. If
a doctor wants to use a computer, fine. If not, OK. Its not like he's
a computer scientist.
You don't have to be a mechanic to drive a car. But that doesn't mean
driving a car does not require skill and knowledge.
>> Why don't you just shut up and let the market decide, eh, Erik? Quit
>> proclaiming Windows is superior until active competition can prove the
>> case.
>
>Active competition won't occur until at the very least an equivelant OS
>exists.
Ad hoc, ergo proctor hoc.
>Linux is not that OS (yet). The market *HAS* decided (for now)
>that Linux is not yet acceptable for the vast majority of users.
The other side of the coin is that it is obvious there is no free
market, until it decides there can be a suitable substitute for Windows.
That seems to be more reliant on how bad Windows gets, rather than how
much Linux might improve.
[...]
>> No, we gripe about Windows. That's not FUD; that's being stuck with
>> monopoly crapware.
>
>Stating things that are untrue is FUD, or lying. Take your pick.
We gripe about Windows; we don't state things which are untrue.
>> >I do participate in them, but not so often,
>> >and then it's usually in reference to actual problems i've encountered
>> >(which Linux zealots like to pretend don't exist).
>>
>> Kind of like you pretending Windows problems are all drivers and
>> hardware and operator error, huh? Not that these "Linux zealots"
>> actually exist.
>
>You're claiming Linux zealots do not exist? What planet do you live on?
No, I'm saying that those Linux zealots you were referring,
specifically, do not exist, apart from your own perceptions. Indeed,
there are Linux zealots. Even more so than you might expect by looking
at the number of Mac zealots, Sun zealots, or even IBM zealots. Linux
tends to collect zealots, because there is so much to be a zealot about.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 06:08:27 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 04 Jan 2001 01:04:38
[...]
>T. Max is just waxing moronic again. This just proves, again, that Netcraft
>has no accurate way of determining what is just a firewall/loadbalancer/server-
>side-cache and what is actually a web server. The uptimes reported could be
>from any machine in the chain.
I don't recall anyone ever disputing that. In fact, I specifically
recall discussing it several days ago, and pointing out that it is
meaningless which "machine the in the chain" is be reported. I'd call
it 'waxing moronic' to bring it up, in fact; a good phrase, that.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 01:08:48 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: Red Hat dead/dying?
James Hutchins wrote:
>
> http://www.wired.com/news/linux/0,1411,40513,00.html
Typical business downsizing. I've always maintained that the best jobs
were with universities doing research. At CMU (Carnegie Mellon
University) in Pittsburgh, certain staff/research positions involving
hacking on the Linux kernel, and getting paid to do it. That would be a
decent job to have, seeing as to how a lot of people do hacking on the
Linux kernel in their free time. I think universities should be doing a
lot more of this. I say this because Berkeley produced a fine unix
distribution like this, and I don't see why the trend couldn't
continue. I'm not saying run the colleges' budgets dry developing
Linux, BSD or whatever. Rather, unix open source development should be
fit in where ever possible. The result is that they would get a return
on their own research, that is, a great operating system for free.
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
