Linux-Advocacy Digest #255, Volume #31 Fri, 5 Jan 01 03:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Conclusion (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Big government and big business: why not fear both - www.ezboard.com (Jacques
Guy)
Re: The 2.4.0 kernel was released at 4pm pst. (David Steinberg)
Re: Why NT? ("Todd")
Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft? ("Todd")
Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft? ("Todd")
Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft? ("Todd")
Re: ATA RIPOFF! ALERT! (Tim Smith)
Re: Microsoft hurts the reputation of software engineers. (Michael Vester)
Re: Linux, it is great. ("Todd")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Donovan Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 06:10:46 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 4 Jan 2001 15:32:43
[...]
>> >You do realize that <non windows>+IIS is the *only* thing we can identify as
>> >wrong, do you?
>>
>> I suspect this was a typo, correct? What else have you "identified as
>> wrong", and what bearing does it have on the discussion about whether
>> their uptime numbers are accurate?
>
>No, this is meant to say that we can verify over the Internet very few of
>Netcraft results without being aware of the exact configuration of a site.
So use a sight that you know, or can determine in some way outside of
the Netcraft mechanism, the configuration of, or admit that you have no
data at all that even brings into question the accuracy of the uptime
statistics reported by Netcraft.
--
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: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 06:12:55 GMT
"JM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 03 Jan 2001 23:55:57 -0500, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ("Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
> >Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> >> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:92vara$i8r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >
> >> > "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:kWy46.53665$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > > Yes there is a list of commands, but they don't have much to do
with
> >> > > administering the machine. Where do I find the command that would
> >> > > add or remove an ip addresses for example. There is one, but where
> >> > > do I find it and it's documentation?
> >> >
> >> > ipconfig
>
> >> Let me try again. Where do I find this command and it's documentation,
> >> unless you meant to imply that the correct way to find out about this
> >> hidden functionality is to ask on usenet? Where are the on-line
> >> manual pages for this new stuff?
>
> >Send $5,000 to Redmond, and they'll sell you some books that tell
> >the name of some books that can be obtained for $10,000 which
> >contain the answer.
>
> And then it would just say "Type ipconfig and press enter. Click over
> there for a nice wizard which will guide you through the typing
> process."
Don't be quite so cynical even if it comes naturally from prior
experience with MS products. Win2k really does have some of
the long-missing command line functionality filled in but for some
reason nobody knows anything about it.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 06:15:20 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 4 Jan 2001
05:29:45 -0600;
>"Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Todd wrote:
>>
>> > > Bullshit. It's because they fucking broke the law.
>> >
>> > Nope... appeals *will* overturn the verdict. MS did not break the law.
>>
>> The Findings of Fact and the Findings of Law will stand, whatever the outcome
>> of the appeal, whatever happens in sentencing, whatever else happens the legal
>> record says, for now and forever: "Microsoft broke the fucking law" (or words
>> to that effect)
>
>The Findings of Law is what is most vulnerable on appeal. Findings of fact
>can be vulnerable as well, if there is sufficient reason to believe that the
>FoF were grossly incorrect. It's rare, but not completely unheard of, to
>overturn FoF on appeal as well.
>
>In other words, your absolute statements above are not absolutes. You may
>not believe it to be likely, but it could happen.
His statements were not absolutes, nor are they in error, though they
are, as every statement is, merely opinion. Nevertheless, you haven't
provided the tiniest glimmer of a shred of a hint of a reason why it
might be likely to happen, that anything at all will be overturned,
other than an egregiously bold declaration. So for you to say "it could
happen" stands out as yet another example of your most characteristic
fallacy; the argument from ignorance.
--
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 06:26:42 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Big government and big business: why not fear both - www.ezboard.com
JM wrote in reply to Aaron Kulkis replying to a post from me:
> Why have you given two different responses to the same post?
Well, you know old Aaron, don't you? He zeroes in onto
every piece of Microshit gossip. So what? The fellow in
question, the M$ share holder, was from Shri Lanka,
from a filthy rich family, and living in New York, just
like the Shri Lankan intelligentsia and moneyed ones do:
anywhere but Shri Lanka. It figures. He did not belong
to the intelligentsia, though: in "intellegentsia" there
is "intelligent". And his need for M$ shares to retire
makes me wonder about the filthy rich family bit (it
was not described as "filthy", only "fabulously".Yeah,
right, as in "fables" and "fairy tales".)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: The 2.4.0 kernel was released at 4pm pst.
Date: 5 Jan 2001 06:58:11 GMT
Jim Broughton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: The new linux kernel 2.4.0 has finaly been released.
Hmmm...And just when Chad had convinced me that this whole Open Source
thing was a failure. I guess it's back to being a smashing success again!
--
David Steinberg -o)
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why NT?
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 15:07:01 +0800
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> With operating systems as great as Linux and FreeBSD available for free,
> why would anyone consider Windows NT Server?
>
> I can't think of a single reason why any responsible IT department would
> deploy NT.
Neither can I. We are deploying Windows 2000.
Linux shouldn't be trying to compete with NT. Linux needs to be able to
compete with 2000 - which I don't believe it can do yet, if ever.
-Todd
> --
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft?
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 15:08:02 +0800
"chrisv" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >Nope... appeals *will* overturn the verdict. MS did not break the law.
> >
> >-Todd
>
> You're an idiot, Todd.
We will see when the verdict is overturned. Who will be the idiot then?
-Todd
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft?
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 15:09:08 +0800
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> chrisv wrote:
> >
> > "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Nope... appeals *will* overturn the verdict. MS did not break the law.
> > >
> > >-Todd
> >
> > You're an idiot, Todd.
>
> Specifically, Todd Needham, Microshaft employee
You Linux users are wrong many times. Here is another example.
I am not the same Todd as Todd Needham. I work for HP. With a little
research, you will be able to find my family name. Hint - search
comp.os.os2.advocacy.
-Todd
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
>
>
> H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
> I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
> J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
> The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
> also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
>
> A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
> B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
> C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
> D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (C) above.
>
> E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> her behavior improves.
>
> F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
> G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft?
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 15:12:49 +0800
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Todd wrote:
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:92tuuv$vkf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <92tmli$ojd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > hackerbabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > A quote from http://microsoft.aynrand.org/hate.html, referring to
why
> > > > Microsoft has been persecuted in the anti-trust trial:
> > > >
> > > > "There is only one fundamental reason why great businessmen [like
Bill
> > > > Gates]
> > >
> > > ...or Al Capone, or Manuel Noriega, or John Gotti...
> > >
> > > > or great companies [like Microsoft]
> > >
> > > ... or the Mafia, or the Medellin cartel, or the Hell's Angels...
> > >
> > > > are hated, and it has
> > > > nothing to do with so-called monopolies. [Microsoft is] hated . . .
> > > > because [it is] good, that is, smarter, more visionary, more
creative,
> > > > more tenacious, more action-focused, more ambitious, and more
> > > > successful than everyone else.
> > >
> > > Bullshit. It's because they fucking broke the law.
> >
> > Nope... appeals *will* overturn the verdict.
>
>
> You fucking dumbass.
Are all Linux users like this?
> MS did NOT appeal the verdict.
> They appealed the SENTANCE.
>
> They're guilty as sin, and they know it.
Not unless they are *proven* guilty - and the appeals court will have their
say.
> They're just pissed that the judge handed down punishment which
> will actually put a stop the the criminal activity.
Not yet - appeals will overturn the 'sentence'.
Yes MS is a monopoly on the desktop...
However, you need to be able to prove that MS used its monopoly to stuff out
competition *and* prove that it harmed consumes.
It will be very hard to prove since IE is a far better product than Netscape
(just try to run Netscape under *Linux*, and you will see what I mean).
Also, there are better browsers out their than Netscape. Take a look at
Opera. How did they survive when Netscape didn't? Opera is a better
product.
> > MS did not break the law.
>
> That strange...by failing to appeal the finding of guilt,
> MS's lawyers admit that, in fact, MS DID BREAK THE LAW.
> ( 60 counts, no less!)
Heh. Let's wait to see what the appeals court has to say.
We shall see who is right and who is wrong.
-Todd
> >
> > -Todd
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sent via Deja.com
> > > http://www.deja.com/
>
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
>
>
> H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
> I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
> J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
> The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
> also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
>
> A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
> B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
> C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
> D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (C) above.
>
> E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> her behavior improves.
>
> F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
> G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: ATA RIPOFF! ALERT!
Date: 4 Jan 2001 23:18:40 -0800
Reply-To: Tim Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>This is how Microsoft and appearently IBM plan
>on competing in the future.
Uhm...Microsoft is against it.
--Tim Smith
------------------------------
From: Michael Vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft hurts the reputation of software engineers.
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 00:03:39 -0700
As a former tech support/lan administrator for a Windows
environment, I hang my head in shame. It was humiliating.
Michael Vester
A Credible Linux Advocate.
mlw wrote:
>
> Microsoft's lack of quality, and view that software is, at best,
> ephemeral, make all software engineers look bad.
>
> When my mom works on her computer (No commercial TAX applications for
> Linux yet.) It crashes. She hates windows, but has to use it. She says
> things to me like, "why can't they make this work right?" meaning
> software engineers in general.
>
> People say things at work like "I hate computers" right after Windows
> locks up or crashes. People view software as crap, and under Windows are
> generally correct.
>
> This "reboot your computer to fix a problem" mentality is stupid. We
> have an IT department, smart guys, but been using Microsoft too long.
> Their first response to a problem on Linux was to reboot. Slowly, they
> are coming around because they see that if something doesn't work on
> Linux, it is because of a problem, and rebooting does not make the
> problem go away.
>
> Is Linux right for the home computer? Maybe not yet. But it is very
> acceptable for the workstation and server market. One could easily
> deploy a full Linux network infrastructure, right to the desktop, in a
> company and improve reliability and reduce costs.
>
> --
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, it is great.
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 15:32:06 +0800
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Todd wrote:
>
> > Linux has been getting a *ton* of media coverage - mostly positive. MS
> > seems to be getting kicked around by everybody these days. Seems Joe 6
pack
> > would pick Linux.
>
> Your savvy red herring reader has heard of Red Hat,
> but nope, Joe 6 pack has never heard of Linux...
Well, I have seen countless articles for Linux in the 'webpress'. Many
people I know even talk about Linux, though they don't know much about it.
Many think it is software that runs on top of Windows. However, it is 'in
their mind', meaning *Linux* does have mindset.
> > Then you have very special needs indeed !
>
> Very ordinary really - I use the web, read/write emails,
> play games, do programming and system admintration
> work - Linux is the perfect environment for these sorts
> of things. (unless you need games which only run on
> windows platforms, but I'm already got way too many
> games)
Most people's needs:
Office
Email
Web
Games
Out of these, Office only runs on Windows. As for Web, IE is by far the
best browser with the most capabilities. Many sites on the Internet are
tuned for IE. As for games, the best are only found on Windows.
For the ordinary user, Windows is clearly the better choice.
If you can't face those facts, you will never advance Linux to the next
level where it needs to go. Open your eyes and see the truth. Only then
can Linux improve.
> > > I beg to differ - I find most modern Linux distros far less
> > > frustrating to install than windows in any form.
> >
> > I assume you mean when the hardware is fully compatible?
>
> "fully compatible", meaning fair quality, standard hardware
My RedHat 7.0 installation failed to install my SoundBlaster Live! and my
3Com ethernet card correctly. This is on a brand new 815E PIII 866 system.
Sorry, it ain't there yet.
Windows 2000, OTOH, not only installed everything fully automatically, but
configured my ethernet for DHCP and I was online without doing *anything*.
That is the way it should be.
I will say that RedHat 7.0 did install my video card correctly. I did,
however, have to use XConfigurator to modify the resolution as this is not
very intuitive in KDE. Windows is far more intuitive and easier.
> > In other cases, Linux is a nightmare.
>
> dunno, haven't seen that myself - and I've installed Linux
> on probably 100 different systems over the years.
I've only done it on two and both times is failed on some hardware. My
systems are fairly generic and both new.
> > > You could have gotten it for about $5 from cheapbytes -
> >
> > Most retail stores that I visit (I live in Singapore) only have
RedHat... a
> > few have others - most are above US$50 dollars.
>
> You can order cheap CDs online -
True.
> > > and there are cheaper official versions as well.
> >
> > True - but most users would never be able to install it.
>
> Why? Install procedure is the same;
>
> Insert the CD, boot and install.
Unless you already have another OS as most people do not want or can't give
up Windows.
> > Most people *work* for a living - if there is no money in it, you won't
find
> > much development for the platform.
>
> So, you suppose the engineers at IBM, Compaq, VA Research,
> SGI, SuSE, NASA etc are all working on Linux for free?
The companies that work with Linux exclusively have not made much profit if
any. Look at RedHat for example. IBM is using money from other profit
sources to fund its Linux work.
Simply put, it is hard to make money with Linux.
> > That's just another reason so many 3rd parties ignore Linux and stick
with
> > Windows.
>
> hmm, you have no sense of the trends.
>
> That's how it has traditionally been - and helped reinforce
> the windoze monopoly. But if you haven't yet noticed, you
> might eventually notice that this is changing.
Are you saying that MS no longer holds a monopoly?
> > > > Anyway, given the cost of Linux, it is an impressive system.
However, I
> > > > still feel that Windows 2000 is a technically superior product ( I
work
> > with
> > > > many 2000 boxes everyday ).
> > >
> > > I commend you on having the correct attitude for a microsoft employee
> >
> > Again, I'm not an MS employee. Just because I prefer 2000 over Linux
does
> > not mean I work for MS.
>
> Are you not Todd Needham?
Wrong again :)
No, I'm Todd Kepus. A guy that works at HP. I've used HP-UX extensively as
well as NT and 2000.
> > I believe the MindCraft benchmark (the one that was officially audited
by
> > MS, PCWeek, and RedHat), but those claims to rest. Windows 2000 trouned
> > Linux pretty badly.
>
> You insist on living in the past, don't you? I understand it's
> tempting to just sit back and fantasize about those heady
> days when microsoft proclaimed it's superiority over the
> "upstart" operating system in carefully designed tests.
Carefully designed tests that RedHat agreed to and admitted that Windows
2000 was indeed faster.
> But why not wake up and look at the present situation?
This is the present condition. Windows 2000 beat Linux hands down. Nobody
can refute that. RedHat could NOT refute that even though *they* tweaked
Linux for optimal performance. Linux still couldn't best 2000.
> Linux beats ms on high end web benchmarks.
If you can point me to a benchmark where both MS, a Linux competitor, and a
unbiased 3rd party were present, I would be happy to see it. Note that I am
looking for only audited benchmarks, not those by MS or UNIX supporters.
> > Also, www.tpc.org has official transaction per second results among
other
> > things... guess which OS took the top 4 spots? Guess which OS isn't
even
> > listed?
>
> I guess you will be pretty badly stunned when the Linux results
> are posted -
I'm looking forward to seeing them.
> > Finally, even Tom's hardware states that OpenGL runs slightly faster
under
> > 2000 that Linux with NVidia hardware (pretty much the most common 3d
> > hardware out there these days).
>
> much more mature and highly tuned drivers - and even at
> that the performance is about equal - put that amount of
> effort into the Linux video drivers and let's see who is faster.
True - but it illustrates that Windows 2000 has, again, better hardware
support.
Besides, isn't Linux supposed to be so much faster than 2000 that small
differences in drivers would be made up by Linux' supreme awesome speed
advantage?
(Do you see why it's hard to convince Windows 2000 users now?)
-Todd
>
> jjs
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: 5 Jan 2001 07:41:20 GMT
On Fri, 05 Jan 2001 04:59:43 GMT, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 4 Jan 2001 20:15:39
>>On Tue, 26 Dec 2000 14:19:00 -0700, John W. Stevens wrote:
> [...]
>>The problem is that the naive throw-your-vote-away system doesn't work
>>very well when more than two parties are running. Instant runoffs
>>http://www.fairvote.org/irv/index.html are
>>designed to be robust enough to behave fairly even when third parties
>>are involved. In an instant runoff system, the third party can participate
>>or not without changing the outcome, which seems fair to me -- I don't
>>think the third party running should impact how the major parties do
>>relative to each other.
>
>I believe that is because you think, mistakenly, that a two-party system
>indicates that whoever win has the support of more than 50% of the
>people.
I don't think that at all. That's the problem -- when third parties
join the game, it becomes possible to win without a "simple majority".
>>A major problem with this is that it makes it very hard for third parties
>>to obtain any momentum, because voters move away from them over "wasted
>>vote" concerns, which led to various "vote swapping" scams among other
>>things. The wasted vote issue is created by a poorly designed electoral
>>system that breaks when third parties are added to the game.
>
>Actually, its the 'vote swapping' thing that is problematic for fans of
>two-party partisanship.
No, it's problematic because there are large numbers of people who are
trying to circumvent a flaw in the system, (namely the "throw-your-vote-away"
concern) which is a sign that something is wrong with it.
>Personally, I don't long for a coalition style of government, quite.
Instant runoffs still result in a two party system, because it's not
possible to gain a seat unless you can get more than 50% of the vote.
IOW, if you have 20% of the popular vote, you get 0% of the seats.
To obtain a parliament in which there are several parties, one must
adopt a system of "proportional representation", which means that
N% of the vote =~ N% of the seats.
In Australia, they do this in the senate, and the two major parties
hold about 90% of the seats, and the rest are distributed between various
minor parties.
>An instant run-off is a way to gain legitimacy by gradually restricting
>the choices to the same two choices we end up with to begin with. It
The choices are only gradually restricted if your guy loses. At least
you can register your support for a candidate without fear of "throwing
away" your vote.
>might be considered "fair" in a theoretical sense, and might work for
>very small, closed elections. But the thought of trying to seriously
>apply it to the United States of America federal elections is, if you'll
>excuse me, a bit irrational.
I don't see what the problem is. There are already efforts underway to
reduce such reform in the US.
The US tend to delegate work to the states, so there are 50 concurrent
elections, as opposed to one huge election. That considered, the
elections are not that large (what's the population of the largest
state?)
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
