Linux-Advocacy Digest #338, Volume #31 Mon, 8 Jan 01 17:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Why Hatred? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Predictions ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: Predictions (featuring Drestin Black) ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: Linux *has* the EDGE! ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: kernel problems ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Why Hatred? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Microsoft releases Games console ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Linux *has* the EDGE! (.)
Re: KDE Hell (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: KDE Hell (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: KDE Hell (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: You and Microsoft... ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: You and Microsoft... ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: You and Microsoft... ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Microsoft releases Games console ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: kernel problems ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Could only... (JM)
Re: Could only... (JM)
Re: Could only... (JM)
Re: Could only... (JM)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (JM)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (JM)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 19:55:13 GMT
Tom Wilson:
> MODULE HELLOWORLD;
> FROM InOut IMPORT WriteLn,WriteString,WriteInt;
Note that with some compilers you had to write
FROM InOut IMPORT WRITELN,WRITESTRING,WRITEINT;
It was perhaps the only language where HELLOWORLD
was not portable...
> VAR
> SomeInt:INTEGER;
> BEGIN
> SomeInt:=5;
> WriteLn;
> WriteString("Hello World");
> WriteLn;
> WriteString("Each scalar type such as this int,");
> WriteInt(SomeInt,1);
> WriteString(", has its' own damned output function!");
> WriteLn;
> WriteString("Is this strong typing not anal-retentive???");
> WriteLn;
Put("No problem with strong typing: "); Put(SomeInt);
Put_Line(" if the language provides overloading, like Ada...");
Gautier
______________________________________
http://www.diax.ch/users/gdm/gsoft.htm
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Predictions
Date: 8 Jan 2001 14:15:04 -0600
"Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:935kn8$8lg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<snip crap>
> I'm all for successful "capitalism." Just not organized crime.
>
> Most grown-ups do know the difference between the two.
And as a grown-up I recognize that what MS does is not even remotely a
crime, let alone an organized one. They are a successful company and a huge
one at that - how else would you expect the largest software company to act
and be reacted to by the smaller companies and wannabe's? Let MS fall, fine.
Now let Oracle step up - do you expect anything different? Do you think if
MS fell and RedHat became the next biggest software company in the world
(divine intervention assuming) - would they do anything differnt? Hell no,
they are in it for the money. Period.
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Predictions (featuring Drestin Black)
Date: 8 Jan 2001 14:17:08 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jan Johanson wrote:
> >
> > "Arthur Frain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Conrad Rutherford wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Arthur Frain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > >> Funny you should mention Drestin and MSFT stock in the
> > > >> same sentence. Anyone recall Drestin's recommendation
> > > >> on COMNA (back around Valentine's Day IIRC) to buy
> > > >> MSFT (at over 100) because MSFT *always* goes up
> > > >> upon a new OS release - W2K at the time. He sure
> > > >> got that one right, didn't he? MSFT closed at 58 and
> > > >> change today - a 40+ % loss.
> > > >>
> > > >> Drestin hinself was going to buy 1000 shares. Hope
> > > >> he did, but I suspect that was more of his usual BS.
> > > >> It's all on deja if anyone wants to check it out.
> > > >>
> > > >> My investment advice would be to buy stocks that
> > > >> actually increase in value. (And nope, I wouldn't
> > > >> recommend RHAT or LNUX either)
> > >
> > >
> > > > Gee, so the guy buys 1000 shares of a technology stock that has had
a
> > > > company history long record of increasing and recovering higher than
> > before
> > > > after any fall and it hasn't rebounded yet. Is there anyone who
> > seriously
> > > > believes MS stock will stay so low (other than penguin lovers and MS
> > > > haters)? I've watched MS climb and fall but in the long term climb.
I
> > fully
> > > > expect that it will recover it's value and more.
> > >
> > > Aw, c'mon. You can pick almost any stock and
> > > find it increased in value substantially in the
> > > last ten years (although I've managed to buy
> > > some that haven't). The point is Drestin was
> > > claiming a particular point in time was perfect
> > > to buy MSFT, when it was obvious to anyone with
> > > a clue that it was a good time to get out of
> > > MSFT because it was overvalued, the DOJ suit
> > > judgement was coming, and there was no eager
> > > anticipation of W2K by corporate customers.
> > > Even Ballmer said it was overvalued just a
> > > few months earlier.
> >
> > Actually if you guys looked back you'd see that he purchased (if he
really
> > did) the stock at 10 points under where it topped out. What is not to
say he
>
> but at what price?
>
> a 10-point move up from $5 is a 200% profit.
> a 10-point move up from $100 is only 10%.
So...
>
>
>
> > didn't bail at that level? Or perhaps when it fell back to his purchase
>
> If he was so free with his "Buy Microsoft" advice, why did he not
> also provide advice as to when to sell?
Perhaps because I don't recall him posting anything since then. I don't see
any posts by him for some time. Perhaps he's back on his feet now. Don't ask
me. Any why should he anyway?
>
>
> > price he sold then? Why would you assume because someone bought the
stock
> > high that he just kept holding on as it fell almost 100 points? Tell the
>
> Because Drestin professes to be even-handed and NOT a Microshaft shill.
Just because someone advocates for their choosen OS doesn't make them a
shill for that OS maker. Think what that says about your own posts...
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux *has* the EDGE!
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 20:16:39 GMT
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93d4vh$bfd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> You're using the wrong driver, assuming that for once what youve typed
> is true.
You mean the wrong XServer, don't you? He's using Linux Mandrake, isn't he?
Why on earth should he have to go out on his own, and obtain functionality
that's supposed to come out of the box. It's not like Matrox is a
speciality brand.
> > I also don't see anything running faster than the equivalent
> > application does on Windows 2k on the same machine.
> > Just bringing up any one of the file managers for example.
>
> Apache runs much, much faster.
What does Apache have to do with file management?
> > Starting StarOffice? Go get a cup of coffee.
>
> Ok, for the sake of argument, I just started up staroffice on this
machine,
> and it took all of 7 seconds to load. Hardly enough time to go get some
> coffee.
StarOffice 5.2 takes 21 second to load from my UDMA33 drive on a Duron 700
with 128mb RAM. It's possible you just have a faster hard drive, but my
Windows version also takes 20 seconds to load, on my 7200RPM drive. Either
way, Staroffice is a big program.
> > MusicMatch Jukebox? Same thing. Sugar and milk please.
>
> Why do you want to use such shit software? Even under windows, I used
> it once and tossed it. Its crap.
I'm sorry, I like Music Match, it's integrated, and somewhat intuitive. It
ain't winamp, but sometimes you don't want Winamp. He's right, the Linux
version is awful, period.
> > They call this "streamlined" or "not bloated" but what it amounts to
> > is featureless and crude.
>
> So stop using beta software, brainiac.
It's Linux, it's 79% BETA and "pre-release" version software. It's scary.
> As ive said, it works perfectly for me. You're doing it wrong, claire.
Here's that adage again; "It works fine for me, so YOU must be doing
something wrong..." Ever stop to think that there are a lot of people with
this problem, a LOT?! No. Because you don't ever stop to think for a
second that Linux is anything but perfect, therefore "it's the user, it MUST
be, because Linux is perfect".
What "impeccable logic."
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: 8 Jan 2001 14:23:19 -0600
"2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:936gbr$put$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "The 2.4 kernel is compatible with upcoming generations of computer
> microprocessors, including Intel Corp.'s (NasdaqNM:INTC - news) upcoming
> 64-bit Itanium chip, and supports symmetric multiprocessing, which allows
> machines to run up to 32 computer chips at once."
> See http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010105/tc/linux_torvalds_dc_2.html
>
Wow! 32 "computer chips" at once! Is that like counting the CPU, memory HUB,
BIOS, hard drive controller, sound controller, etc? A whole 32 chips! woo
hoo!
p.s., W2K can support 64 CPU's (and lots more computer chips too!) at once
(as opposed to one at a time in order I suppose) and far larger hard drives,
far larger individual files, has a journeling file system and can support
much more physical as well as virtual memory. And support for a chip that
isn't even out of development yet ... big deal? Do you really think itanium
will ship before it runs Windows? (p.s., there is a beta of Windows 2001
that will run Itanium, butthead)
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: kernel problems
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 20:18:06 GMT
Thanks, I'll take generic platform compilation over having to fight my way
through the orgy of dependencies, conflicts and downright absent
functionality present in a Linux system.
God, 800 megabytes of platform, half of which is totally redundant. No
thanks.
"Peter K�hlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 08 Jan 2001 02:53:25 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > >I need some help. I try compiling a kernel, completely stripped down
with
> > >only the necessary stuff I need for my comp, and I always use modules
> > >when
> >
> > Welcome to Linsux!!
> >
> > You mean the simple make makedep make install didn't work properly?
> >
> > Oh my gosh this can't be?
> >
> > I mean Linsux is perfect is it not?
> >
> > ****Sarcasm on****************
> >
> > It worked fine for me.
> > You must be an idiot.
> >
> > *****Sarcasm Off*****
> > Flatfish
> > Why do they call it a flatfish?
>
> Because youre a flathead.
> Even if building a kernel for linux results in total failure, it is still
> way better than the kernel-build you can do yourself (take whatever
> win-version you wish)
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 20:38:23 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, T. Max Devlin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Mon, 08 Jan 2001 03:39:49 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Said The Ghost In The Machine in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 08 Jan
> [...]
[snip -- attributions lost somewhere]
>>>Also, Win32 is not actually a "specification" anyway! It is, however,
>>>"widely implemented across the industry" even if it is technically inferior
>>>to Linux, which is far less commonly implemented at present.
>>
>>Pedant point: apples and oranges; you should probably be comparing
>>Win32 to X.
>
>Not hardly. X is a remote display terminal mechanism; Win32 is an
>entire pile of OS, middleware, and application APIs. X is network
>transparent; Win32 is entirely opaque. It might be best to compare it
>(Win32) to GNOME, or its would-be commercial rival, KDE. But generally,
>its just middleware, as far as I am concerned. X might seem to serve a
>similar purpose in end-user operation, but the functionality is entirely
>different.
I will note that Win32 has drawing instructions, so it's not entirely
middleware. OTOH, it also has event handling gadget creation, and
even some stuff handling multimedia.
>
>>Of course, X doesn't seem to have MulDiv().... :-)
>
>Wassat?
Dunno, but it's in Win32, as far as I can tell, and has been for
awhile. This obviously further corroborates your point above;
Win32 is a lot of functionality, but it's a bit of a mess,
organizationally speaking.
My guess is that it's some sort of support for 32-bit
multiplication/division -- a holdover from pre-386 days.
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
up 96 days, 21:45, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft releases Games console
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 20:57:32 -0000
>Where's the Linux games console? Has anyone invented one yet? Linux is
>quite capable of it - so why not? Why is it not even a starter?
>
Try www.indrema.com for a linux console.
Also, if windows is so good at Video applications then why is there no
windows
based video recorder system like the linux based TIVO device
( http://www.tivo.com/what/how2.html - it runs Linux on a PowerPC chip).
There
is also no reason why this TIVO code cannot be ported to intel to build a
combined
Indrema games console and TIVO video recorder - how would MS compete with
this.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux *has* the EDGE!
Date: 8 Jan 2001 21:00:40 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:93d4vh$bfd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> You're using the wrong driver, assuming that for once what youve typed
>> is true.
> You mean the wrong XServer, don't you?
No.
> He's using Linux Mandrake, isn't he?
> Why on earth should he have to go out on his own, and obtain functionality
> that's supposed to come out of the box. It's not like Matrox is a
> speciality brand.
It does come "in the box", however you do have to select it.
>> > I also don't see anything running faster than the equivalent
>> > application does on Windows 2k on the same machine.
>> > Just bringing up any one of the file managers for example.
>>
>> Apache runs much, much faster.
> What does Apache have to do with file management?
"I also don't see anything running faster than the equivalent
application does on Windows 2k on the same machine."
No mention of file management. And mc comes up in less than a second.
>> > Starting StarOffice? Go get a cup of coffee.
>>
>> Ok, for the sake of argument, I just started up staroffice on this
> machine,
>> and it took all of 7 seconds to load. Hardly enough time to go get some
>> coffee.
> StarOffice 5.2 takes 21 second to load from my UDMA33 drive on a Duron 700
> with 128mb RAM. It's possible you just have a faster hard drive, but my
> Windows version also takes 20 seconds to load, on my 7200RPM drive.
I have a much faster hard drive. Reading files is not the only thing that
happens during the staroffice launch though.
> Either
> way, Staroffice is a big program.
Very true, its ridiculously big. Thats why I dont generally use it.
Which is also why I dont generally use windows or word.
>> > MusicMatch Jukebox? Same thing. Sugar and milk please.
>>
>> Why do you want to use such shit software? Even under windows, I used
>> it once and tossed it. Its crap.
> I'm sorry, I like Music Match, it's integrated, and somewhat intuitive. It
> ain't winamp, but sometimes you don't want Winamp. He's right, the Linux
> version is awful, period.
Theyre equally awful.
>> > They call this "streamlined" or "not bloated" but what it amounts to
>> > is featureless and crude.
>>
>> So stop using beta software, brainiac.
> It's Linux, it's 79% BETA and "pre-release" version software. It's scary.
Thats not true at all. I'm running a debian install at work that is running
absolutely no beta software at all.
>> As ive said, it works perfectly for me. You're doing it wrong, claire.
> Here's that adage again; "It works fine for me, so YOU must be doing
> something wrong..." Ever stop to think that there are a lot of people with
> this problem, a LOT?! No. Because you don't ever stop to think for a
> second that Linux is anything but perfect, therefore "it's the user, it MUST
> be, because Linux is perfect".
The only person with this problem who is posting here is claire.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: 8 Jan 2001 21:07:13 GMT
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001 05:12:32 -0500, Donn Miller wrote:
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> KDE, KDE, KDE. Its all I hear about any more. Why do I hear so much
>> about KDE?
>
>I prefer WindowMaker, myself.
Window maker is not a competitor to KDE
KDE is not a window manager
KDE is an application development framework, and some apps that use
that framework.
Window maker is not an application development framework.
> It seems like KDE has everything in it but
Yes, it has a development framework, and some applications.
But it is not a monolith. You need the framework to run the applications,
but you don't need any particular set of the applications to use
the framework.
>the kitchen sink, and it IS a pretty nice desktop environment. Yet, it
>lacks the simple features I use most, such as the ability to switch virtual
>desktops with the keyboard.
\
You're confusing kwm with KDE. They are not the same.
KDE IS NOT A WINDOW MANAGER
Sorry about the caps, I'm just tired of saying it.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: 8 Jan 2001 21:08:30 GMT
On Mon, 08 Jan 2001 15:30:15 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Mon, 08 Jan 2001 03:35:45 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>KDE, KDE, KDE. Its all I hear about any more. Why do I hear so much
>>about KDE?
>
>1. It is the default Window manager for some distributions.
KDE is not a window manager
KDE is not a window manager
KDE is not a window manager
KDE is not a window manager
KDE is not a window manager
KDE is not a window manager
KDE is not a window manager
KDE is not a window manager
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: 8 Jan 2001 21:10:41 GMT
On Mon, 08 Jan 2001 03:35:45 GMT, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>KDE, KDE, KDE. Its all I hear about any more. Why do I hear so much
>about KDE?
Because it's at the core of several Linux GUI applications (the only
thing that comes close is GNOME which you probably hear even more about)
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 21:09:30 -0000
>> You will never be able to install Microsoft Windows via the
>> internet.
>
>But you need a machine on the internet to install it in the first place!
>
You mean you cannot make a windows bootable disk to connect to the
internet and start the installer then - this is possible under linux (some
distro's still allow this - mandrake can install from an ftp site but may
need the CD put in your own ftp server as I am not sure if their server
has all files from the CD).
>Closed source != security problems
>
How can you tell without access to the source - do you trust microsoft
code to be secure when a hacker managed to stay on their own network
for 6 months before being spotted?
>> You will never find a version of Microsoft Windows which can
>> achieve an uptime of over a week.
>
>That's why a web server was up for over a month.
>
That is due to clustering not individual PC uptime - you can easily
keep a website up permanently on machines with 1 day uptime if
you can afford a couple of hundred machines. See Netcraft uptime
ratings and you will notice that MS based networks lose individual
IP addresses more often than sites based on any other server.
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 21:18:24 -0000
>You'll never be able to install Linux (or any other OS) without at least 2
>reboots. Reboot 1 to boot from floppy or CD to start the installation
>process, and reboot 2 to load the newly installed kernel with new
>configuration.
>
Have you tried SUSE Linux - insert CD, install OS, kernel starts and runs
the installed system with no reboots between installing the OS and using
it - 1 boot needed to start CD then it is running for as long as needed
which
could be years for a sever with reliable mains supply. This works on
versions
6.4 and 7.0 (I think my old 6.1 may have been the same but I am not sure).
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 21:19:58 -0000
>hmm, like I've said before the only possible way to crash an nt4 sp6a
>server is by administrative ignorance!
>
Or forgetting to reboot once per week.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Microsoft releases Games console
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 21:21:42 GMT
In article <w4o66.161895$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Linux kernel 2.4 released
>
> Microsoft releases Games console
>
> The Register: And so Xbox is 'launched'
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/15885.html
>
> Where's the Linux games console? Has anyone invented one yet? Linux is
> quite capable of it - so why not? Why is it not even a starter?
>
> --
> Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
>
>
http://www.indrema.com
HTH.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: kernel problems
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 21:27:22 -0000
>You mean the simple make makedep make install didn't work properly?
>
So how do I compile a customised version of windows kernel then arsehole.
Linux comes with pre-built kernels which work for anyone but some users
want the latest cutting-edge version which is the only time kernel
recompiles
are needed. Where can you obtain the latest copy of MS's source to compile
it then. The only reason windows doesn't have this problem is you are stuck
with whatever MS chucks in the box and cannot get cutting-edge source.
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Could only...
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 21:33:45 +0000
On Sat, 6 Jan 2001 14:15:53 -0800, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)) wrote:
>>>>>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.
>>>Only an idiot worries about the weapon rather than the wielder.
>>>Remember, there are no dangerous weapons, there are only dangerous people.
>>Such as the dangerous people who have easy access to guns.
>And drugs, and other illegal substances. Are you somehow under the impression
>that the violent criminal element suddenly becomes law abiding where a gun law
>is concerned?
And how does someone use drugs to murder someone else? They can't.
Anyway, drugs should be legal.
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Could only...
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 21:33:46 +0000
On Sat, 6 Jan 2001 14:17:29 -0800, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)) wrote:
>>>> >> Well, you're right, nothing will happen until a leader with a bit of
>>>> >> backbone, grabs the US by the balls and drags it out of the gun crazed
>>>> >> culture that has bred itself into the US citizens sub conscience.
>>>> >Guns are freedom and safety.
>>>> Yes, being shot at whenever you go outside is really "safe".
>>>Since when have murders started obeying gun laws?
>>So some people will get them anyway, therefore they should be
>>legalised?
>Since violating the rights of the many, without affecting the few lawbreakers
>who are the problem in the first place, has no positive affect on crime, why do
>it?
Peace of mind.
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Could only...
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 21:33:48 +0000
On Mon, 08 Jan 2001 02:05:25 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?
>Well, if you INVITED somebody over to your house then would THEY be
>a burglar or intruder? Nope.
But someone else in the house wouldn't know that, and may confuse them
with an intruder.
>>>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?
>Absolutely. Our government has concerns about the weirdest of issues.
>
>Case in point, we let go countless thousands of murders and rapist from
>the 1960's thru the 1990's until they brought the death penalty back.
Ah, legalised murder.
>>>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.
>Nope, you have a government which doesn't trust it's own people.
Because they can't.
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Could only...
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 21:33:49 +0000
On Mon, 08 Jan 2001 02:16:11 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)) wrote:
>>>Guns are freedom and safety.
>>Yes, being shot at whenever you go outside is really "safe".
>To read this it's appearent the author lives in a warring nation
>over in Africa.
When did I ever say otherwise?
>>>Look at Australia...they banned guns, and the murder rate TRIPLED.
>>That's such a fallacy it's untrue.
>Nope. It's statistics.
Wrong statistics? In my book that counts as a fallacy?
>>>This indicates that private ownership of guns PREVENTS more murders
>>>than it causes.
>>Yes, your attacker having a gun PREVENTS him murdering you.
>The idea is you shoot him before he shoots you.
And how are you going to do that?
>>>> Unfortunately this will not happen until the the election system is
>>>> overhalled so that scumbag organisations like Microsoft and the NRA keep
>>>> out politics and that elections are based on policies, not, "oh, I'm not
>>>Preserving the right to gun ownership *IS* a policy.
>>The right to go outside without being armed to the teeth should be a
>>policy.
>You have that right if you want it.
Except you won't be able to defend yourself when some nut goes mad and
starts shooting everyone with a gun he's bought from the local corner
shop.
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 21:33:51 +0000
On Sun, 07 Jan 2001 18:30:12 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>> Linux is like a McIntosh sound system; unless you actually understand what
>> you're listening to, you wont see what all the hooplah is about. There
>> are no useless bells and whistles unless you add someone elses peripherals;
>> which are almost exclusively inferior to what is built into the system
>> itself.
>so what you are saying is that the linux kernal is brilliant. it's just the
>interfaces and applications for linux that suck. except of course your analogy
>fails on the fact that last time i check McIntosh speakers were not free. not
>even close.
>
>anyway, a computer platform is not merely the theoretical core it is based on.
>it is a sum of all it's parts.
If you check the name of the group you'll see it's called
comp.os.LINUX.advocacy, and I read somewhere that Linux only refers to
the kernel, not what's on it, so we only have to advocate the kernel.
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 21:33:53 +0000
On 7 Jan 2001 17:52:07 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)) wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I find your directed hatred toward an individuals religious choice to be
>> hideously ignorant, and inconsiderate.
>
>Neat, someone who doesnt understand linux OR scientology.
>
>> Scientology may not be a respected religion, but people DO follow it. Their
>> choices are their own, and if they decide to follow the obligation to send
>> all personal earnings to "The Church", that is they're right (with the
>> exclusion of Germany as I recall, but that lay may have changed...)
>
>The church of scientology is evil and retarded, as are ALL of its members.
>
>EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM. ALL OF THEM, WITH NO EXCEPTIONS AT ALL.
Nearly as bad as Christianity.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
