Linux-Advocacy Digest #223, Volume #32 Thu, 15 Feb 01 21:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Interesting article (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Uh... WOW! ("Dr. Ram Samudrala")
Re: The Windows guy. ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux (Bloody Viking)
.NET is plain .NUTS (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation (Bloody Viking)
Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
Re: WindowsXP - Pay us to solve our bugs (Bloody Viking)
Re: Interesting article (Steve Mading)
Re: Interesting article (Steve Mading)
Re: Win2K - Minuses outweigh plusses ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Interesting article (Steve Mading)
Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux ("Adam Warner")
Re: I will give MS credit for one thing (Bob Hauck)
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. (Steve Mading)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Robert Surenko)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 00:49:31 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:10:15 GMT
<brRi6.38966$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Mike Byrns wrote:
>>
>> > Such weighty content Aaron ;-) UNIX doesn't really "develop".
>>
>> What is this I've been imagining the last 8 years then?
>>
>> The Unix systems I've used - Linux, Solaris, BSD - keep
>> gaining new features and refinements, and contrary to the
>> assertions of the misinformed, are still alive and well.
>>
>> > It's an old
>> > picture from the 60s that was done developing long ago.
>>
>> Sounds like you've sat through one too many windows pep
>> rallies there bubba -
>
>No, really, what has changed dramatically in Unix in the
>last 10 years?
>
>We still use telnet
I use ssh. I also note that "crappy old telnet" has an SSL option
on Debian, although I haven't tried to use it. My main worry is
whether "crappy old" (i.e., "non-encrypted") telnet sessions can
be disabled therein.
>We still use crappy old XWindows
It's more intelligent than Win32 at the protocol level!
Consumes less bandwidth, too.
It was designed at the outset way back in '84 or thereabouts to
allow for remote window display; most of the bugs are now gone.
(If there were any -- I don't know admittedly.)
>Unix still has the brain-dead permission bits security.
As opposed to DACLs, I guess. I don't know DACLs from cackles
(although I did once work for a time on Apollo DOMAIN Aegis, which
had access control lists), so dunno if this is an issue, or not.
One worry, of course -- how long does it take to process the list,
and is it dependent on the length of the list? One could do some
extremely stupid things with DACLs (i.e., specifying each user individually)
which might be better handled by a group ID check.
>Even though many Unix vendors have implemented DAC, many
>people still insist on using permission bits.
>
>Nothing's really changed.
Does something really have to? Change for change's sake is kinda useless.
Give me specific examples of what DACLs can do that the traditional
Unix/Linux user, group, read, write, execute, sticky, and setu/gid cannot.
In the process, I hope to learn what DACLs actually accomplish.
I know of one already: the ability to exclude a user from a set
of permissions. This might be useful, although the same effect could
be had by duplicating the group, removing the offending user from the
second group, and changing the file's group ID to the new group.
An alternative would simply be to remove the user from the group -- although
that will cut off all access to all files with that group ID, not
just the one file. That, however, might be to the sysadmin's advantage.
>
>-Chad
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 10d:09h:52m actually running Linux.
This space for rent.
------------------------------
From: "Dr. Ram Samudrala" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.music.4-track
Subject: Re: Uh... WOW!
Date: 16 Feb 2001 00:40:28 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
George Perfect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"arkk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>> "Free" software
>> model has already proven its viability (in the UNIX/Linux world).
>Please provide a list of ten companies who have posted profits in the
>past two years based only on their work with Linux or any other
>"free" software.
http://www.linuxlinks.com/Companies/
Just for starters (I'll let you figure out which ones are the
profitable ones or derive a portion of their profits from Linux). I
myself have made a profit from working with Linux.
Cross-posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy. They can handle it better there.
>I don't think you will be able to.
>However, I can provide a far longer list of companies that have already
>become bankrupt and others that must constantly seek refinancing to stay
>afloat.
>This situation hardly resembles 'proven viability' in my mind.
You could say the same about the .coms here, but I do think .com
companies have proven their viability.
--Ram
--
email@urls || http://www.ram.org || http://www.twisted-helices.com/th
The heart has 4 chambers. ---Jan Pedersen
But not one good plate reverb. ---Derek Sivers
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 00:56:04 +0000
>> > The buffer size is only important if your system can not respond to
>> > interrupts quickly enough. RAM is expensive, so for all these CDRs
>> > with huge buffers, just so Windows can burn a CD, we users of real
>> > operating systems have to pay the bill for your crappy OS.
>>
>> Not true. I have a P133 and can happily burn CDs at 8x (under Linux, of
>> course). I probably wouldn't be able to do much reliably without
>> burning coasters if the CD-RW didn't have a reasonable buffer. But,
>> I'll admit that this is an unusual case.
>>
>
> Wow, I'm impressed - the machine we use at work is a Cyrix P166 (
> actually it's really an overclocked P133 - may reduce it back soon as
> it's recently started intermittently locking up being overclocked for
> over 2 years) with HP 7000 series 2x speed IDE burner. Buffer never
> drops below 89% full for local writes and 65% full for burns over
> network ( only drops below 89% if other workstations cause high-ish
> network traffic during burn).
The only time it ran out of juice was when I was creating an ISO9660 on
the fly from an ext2 file mounted via the loopback device from a fat32
partition residing on a HDD on the same IDE channel as the CD-RW. Poor
thing, when I tried to run netscape from the same drive, it made a
coaster.
> Our original burner was a large external philips 2x speed SCSI with 256k
> buffer and on it's original PC ( 386DX33 with 4mb ram) under DOS the
> buffer rarely dropped below 50% full. Same burner under win9x or NT on
> a P90 buffer stays around 5 to 10% full during burn and often buffer
> under-runs yet under linux on same PC buffer rarely drops below the
> same 89% fill value I get with more modern burner.
There is still plenty of use to be had from those `obsolete' boxes still
hanging around. They can still do some jobs easily as well as the top of
the line computers. Why buy a 1 GHZ/512Meg computre for burning CDs when
an old P133 will do the job easily?
> Out of curiosity, this old burner still works after roughly 8 years use
> yet it's replacement (a ricoh 1420) only lasted 2 years - the HP has
> also lasted over 2 years so far (apart from needing to be taken apart
> to have laser cleaned) so maybe there is some truth in the saying that
> 'they don't make things like they used to'
All my vintage computers still work fine (some are getting on for 20
years old).
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
Date: 16 Feb 2001 00:58:17 GMT
petilon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: After killing innovation in the web browser market by distributing
: IE for free, Microsoft is now calling Linux a "threat to innovation"
: because it is being distributed for free.
And don't forget the bit with calling the GNU movement fascist.
namecall -black <pot >kettle
Anyways, GNUware is protected by free speech. Free speech includes all manner
of works, including software and licencing agreements.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.windows.advocacy, comp.os.windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: .NET is plain .NUTS
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 01:04:00 GMT
Okay boys and girls.
We all have employers. Even if you own your own business you have employers.
And from my own experience working in the world of Windows, producing code
for even the LARGEST of multi billion dollar companies, I'm ashamed to
say that they *ALL* cheat.
They *ALL* take one copy of NT and install it across 50 machines or more.
They *ALL* take one copy of Word and install it across 50 machines or more.
30% of which I've noticed do it deliberately!
The other 70% attempt to keep records but the fucking employee's go out
there on their own and install all kinds of unauthorized software anyway.
If your going to play the Windows game legally, you have to buy the license.
I feel the *REASON* why Windows is still the most preferred desktop is
because the *EMPLOYERS* are treating Windows like it were shareware
or even GPL'd Linux. I even remember one company who loaned *THEIR* copy
of NT to a customer just so they could get NT installed to use *OUR*
application!
CRAP!
There is *NOBODY.COM* who has a competant license management program.
And as I've already indicated, 30% of the business community has reputations
concerning licensing which are indeed lower than snakes piss.
.NET is Microsoft's answer to a two part question.
#1. It eliminates the use of unauthorized, unlicensed software completely.
#2. It eliminates the effect of a court ordered breakup by ensuring
that *ALL* Windows software, whether written by Microsoft or another
company, WILL BE NET ENABLED AND AUTHORIZED!!!!
It is *MY* humble opinion, knowing the fine group of REPUBLICAN CITIZENS
who own some of these billion dollar companies, that they have just fucked
themselves in the ass. Whether they realized this or intended this, they
have fucked themselves in the ass.
And my 2005 prediction for Linux world domination is still on.
I predict that once these kind, humble, REPUBLICAN tin cans, find out they
actually *HAVE* to *PAY* for their use of Windows for a change, they will
abandon it in droves.
Clearly,
Just the idea of having Microsoft catalogue all your corporate or
home use software is similar to telling these people they can't
have prayer in schools. It's like telling them they have to
register all their guns. It's even more disasterous than
telling them they have to accept flag burnings.
This is the way REPUBLICANS take care of business.
Instead of holding Microsofts hand and walking them thru these difficult
time's of court battles and threatened breakup, they will leave Microsoft
the same way they leave grandma's house after Thanksgiving dinner. With
a final insult, a passing of the gas and a car door slam they will drive
off into the sunset on their way to their next free meal.
MICROSOFT!
.NET It's where *THEY* want you to be.
REPUBLICANS!
.RIP It's where *THEY'LL* will be going!
This .NET thing is the *WORSE* case of REPUBLICANS attempting to fuck
REPUBLICANS I've ever seen in my life.
And REST ASSURED, if you're the corporate manager who's just set your
company a course on Microsoft's path, REPUBLICANS will blame you for
this disaster and they will *FIRE* you.
*BANK* on it junior.
--
Charlie
**DEBIAN** **GNU**
/ / __ __ __ __ __ __ __
/ /__ / / / \/ / / /_/ / \ \/ /
/_____/ /_/ /_/\__/ /_____/ /_/\_\
http://www.debian.org
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation
Date: 16 Feb 2001 01:06:12 GMT
Robert Nicholson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: It must be so great to be Linus and go to bed at night and know all the
: time that Microsoft are getting more scared by the day. That would be my
: Ego wonders of good.
Maybe Microsoft execs should start taking Paxil and benzos and chill. Won't be
too long when the rats start abandoning ship. The GNU copyleft could end up
being the ultimate computer virus, a virus that crashes Microsoft itself.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 01:15:31 -0000
On 16 Feb 2001 00:58:17 GMT, Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>petilon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
>: After killing innovation in the web browser market by distributing
>: IE for free, Microsoft is now calling Linux a "threat to innovation"
>: because it is being distributed for free.
>
>And don't forget the bit with calling the GNU movement fascist.
>
>namecall -black <pot >kettle
>
>Anyways, GNUware is protected by free speech. Free speech includes all manner
>of works, including software and licencing agreements.
However, you're forgetting bad precedents. (like decss)
[deletia]
--
Common Standards, Common Ownership.
The alternative only leads to destructive anti-capitalist
and anti-democratic monopolies.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: WindowsXP - Pay us to solve our bugs
Date: 16 Feb 2001 01:27:36 GMT
Aaron Kulkis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Electrified rail. We really should get cargo transport OFF of the
: interstates and back onto heavy rail. Use piggy-back or containers,
: and then do quick-pickups/drop-offs at the rail terminals.
Definitely would save energy and is badly needed. Now, another transportation
issue is that commute to work. Commuting is the No. 1 most energy-intensive
economic activity ever invented. And of course most Yanks will be hard to
drag out of their cars. Worse, the suburbs are diffuse enough that setting up
transit is a real bitch.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: 16 Feb 2001 01:22:20 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: No, really, what has changed dramatically in Unix in the
: last 10 years?
: We still use telnet
Never heard of ssh?
: We still use crappy old XWindows
Xwindows is so low-level that there isn't much TO
change about it. Most of the stuff to change is stuff
that sits on top of it, and that HAS been changing
over the last 10 years. Still using twm, Chad?
: Unix still has the brain-dead permission bits security.
: Even though many Unix vendors have implemented DAC, many
: people still insist on using permission bits.
The above complaint is based on the implied premise that DAC
is better than bits in all cases. Not true. While DAC is
certainly capable of doing a superset of what bits do, it
cannot do it as simply. Bits are more limited, but what
they *can* do, they do much more easily.
: Nothing's really changed.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: 16 Feb 2001 01:27:31 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy David Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: But Linux has come from being a
: system that looked about as friendly as DOS
It was never quite that bad.
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Win2K - Minuses outweigh plusses
Date: 15 Feb 2001 19:30:10 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 13 Feb 2001 21:27:10
> >OK:
> >
> >He can't boot from the CD but the CD boots other OSes fine. Uhhuh, like
that
> >happens.
>
> That *Windows* won't boot from a CD, but others do, is something that
> does not seem incredible to me.
Then you don't play with many bootable CDs do you? I've never seen a machine
that can boot one and not the other, especially since the bootstrap code is
the same, regardless of OS.
>
> >Next, he claims he had linux on the machine first then tried to FDisk to
> >kill the partitions but they were reportedly containing driver letters.
> >First, if they have drive letters then he'd be able to see them.
>
> I'm not an expert on fdisk, but I don't believe this is the case, as
> "drive letters" only have meaning to DOS, and fdisk is typically at a
> "lower level" than an OS, I believe.
AND he said he had linux on there before which doesn't use DOS drive letters
so it's even more unbelievable.
>
> >If he could
> >see them he can delete them.
>
> If it was working correctly, perhaps. That is a much larger 'if' in the
> Windows world than you might believe.
FDISK is not the windows world, it's a utility that's been around since the
early 80s and doing it's job for, what, 15 years, until this yutz comes
along...
>
> >If it was originally a linux system, Fdisk
> >wouldn't report anything other than an unrecognized partition type and
allow
> >you to delete it without much warning. Linux wouldn't present apparent
drive
> >letters.
>
> Nor did it. The fdisk which mentioned 'drive letters' was the Microsoft
> version.
BUT it wouldn't mention drive letters if the previous partition was linux,
it ONLY recognizes partitions of the DOS type ande everything else is
represented simple as "unknown partition" and you can delete it with just
three keystrokes EVERY single time. That's another reason to know it's a
faked scenario. I've never had fdisk not delete an unknown partition, never
in 10+ years.
>
> >In using Fdisk for, what, 10 years? I've never seen this behaviour
> >and can find nothing documenting such a condition occuring. Hmm... gee...
Oh
> >but after he does an Fdisk the CD rom suddenly can boot? Um, yea right!
>
> One presumes that after the fdisk, he was able to get a boot image on
> the drive, so he didn't *need* to boot from the CD. Get it?
fdisk doesn't do that and why presume when he's just so detailed about
everything else? why not deride us for how it took making a boot image and
how tough that was and where he lost the cd but blames ms for it... etc etc.
uhhuh...
>
> >Anyone can tell you the ability of a CD rom to boot the system is 100%
> >independent of the hard drive. [...]
>
> If its just going to keep on going like this, I'll give up now. Your
> claim that the original message was 'unbelievable' seems to be
> hyperbole.
in fact, I think I've proved it in many many ways. I think you gave up cause
you could see where I was going. Too much evidence and you really have
nothing to refute it with except "I think that could happen"... whereas I'm
in the trenches doing it every day and know what I see and know what happens
and what I've seen happening (and not happening) in 10+ years!
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: 16 Feb 2001 01:31:57 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: The only information I saw in this regards was an ESTIMATE of the
: TOTAL size of the OSS COMMUNITY (not just Linux). And it was around
: 250k. However, there are about as many projects going on, so it
: averages to about 1.2 developers per projects. Which explains why
: nothing is getting done.
Assuming facts not in evidence again, Chad. "Noting is getting done"
is a lie. But, you knew that, didn't you?
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 01:41:27 GMT
Hi "petilon"
> After killing innovation in the web browser market by distributing IE
> for free, Microsoft is now calling Linux a "threat to innovation"
> because it is being distributed for free.
>
> "There is always something enamoring about thinking you can get
> something for free." says Jim Allchin of Microsoft.
>
> Read the outrageous story at:
> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-4833927.html?tag=owv
It seems this story was so infamous at Slashdot that it has taken out
their database. After the Slashdot overload hit 7 or so, every post has
disappeared:
http://slashdot.org/
Here's the specific article, now without any posts!
http://slashdot.org/articles/01/02/15/1825221.shtml
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: I will give MS credit for one thing
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 01:43:43 GMT
On 15 Feb 2001 00:48:42 -0600, Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I am no MS advocate. But, I will admit one thing: Windows Media player is
>much better than the video MPEG players I have used on Linux.
That's good. You're gonna be using it a lot if MS gets their way:
<http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/16959.html>
They never give anything away for free without a good reason.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls.
Date: 16 Feb 2001 01:49:16 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Demonizing another organization doesn't really help, I'm afraid. IBM
: doesn't monopolize consumer OSes.
Well, not recently anyway. Their past monopolizations are
singlehandedly responsible for EBCDIC and COBOL lasting much
longer than they had any right to as viable choices.
------------------------------
From: Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 01:54:03 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:00:09 GMT, Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In comp.os.linux.misc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 20:38:45 GMT, Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>In comp.os.linux.misc Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Mercer) writes:
>>
>>Perhaps, although humankind existed for 100,000 years without
>>formal science... 3 or 4 hundred years is probably not enough time
> So. That doesn't have any relevance to your own existence.
I'm sure that ethics had a part to play in my eventual existence.
Our parent's didn't strangle either of us at birth. I can't imagine
Science had anything to do with that.
> That is just empty rhetoric on your part. The fact still
> remains that you only exist because technology has allowed
> you and your forebears to live and thrive. Unless you are
> Amish, just about anything you have is a result of this
> 'highly questionable' scientific method that is taken on
> faith.
I agree, so what. I'm saying that Science depends on faith.
You ask that I fall on my knees and thank the higher power
"Science" for my existance. I prefer to thank it's creator.
>>
>>I proposed several hypothesis as to why the Scientific Method
>>appears to work. No speach... just some questions.
> They are irrelevant. They all resolve to the same outcome.
What is that, and why?
> God and faith become meaningless when they don't have any
> impact on your life. Even if this is some strange game,
> the fact remains that we seem to be figuring out the rules
> rather well.
I've demonstrated that a Materialist needs faith to believe
in Science.
Or for those with a sophist bent...
The "rules" in science change so quickly they can't really be
called "rules" at all.
> It is not up to us to disprove your absurdities. OTOH,
> proof by counterexample should be trivial enough that
> you would be willing to take on that burden.
Do all scientist call alternative hypothesies "absurdities"?
Each one fits all the facts. Pick one and tell me why.
>>
>>>>Science comes up with stuff that works... but it does not lead to
>>>>truth.
>>
>>> No one with any clue claims that it does. It suffices that
>>> it works remarkably better than following church doctrine.
>>
>>It appears so, for matters of the five senses.
>>It fails miserable when it comes to ethics or phylosophy
>>or religion.
> Who claimed otherwise?
This thread has had many posters, It started out by tring to
define the word "atheist". Many claimed that they could be a
atheist without having any faith.
I said that you can't even get to work in the morning without faith,
never mind believe in something like Science....
I also claimed that one could not believe in Science without
examining phylosophy and that science is a very bad way to understand
phylosophy.
Are you agreeing?
> [deletia]
> The rest of your rant is irrelevant to the point at hand.
> If you wish to force "god" to be considered relevant for
> discussions of ethics or philosophy, then that is another
> matter. I would disagree with you in such an argument as
> well.
I can't and won't force God into anything. I'm in a disscussion
with atheists and brought up God. I've never "forced" anyone to
consider anything. Furthermore I've identified a field of thought
where you have beliefs and you can't use the Scientific Method
to learn anything about them.
However, in a single post you have labled my ideas, "irrelevant"
"absurd" questioned my intelligents with the "OTOH" comment, claimed
I was "ranting" and demanded in a very judgmental and angry tone
that I bow down to your God.
Are you OK? Relax it will be alright.
> Man will always spoil enlightenment. So any talk of god
> is meaningless when it comes to just about anything.
> For "god" is just the agenda of man in disguise.
Far too often true, just as some Scientific developments and ideas
can be used for evil. Can't be used to argue the "truth" about either.
I'd like to examine your .sig. It explains the problem
quite nicely.
>
> Having seen my prefered platform being eaten away by vendorlock and
> the Lemming mentality in the past, I have a considerable motivation to
> use Free Software that has nothing to do with ideology and everything
> to do with pragmatism.
Interesting idea. The word Ideology means, "the doctrine, opinion,
etc. of an individual, class, etc."
>
> Free Software is the only way to level the playing field against a
> market leader that has become immune to market pressures.
>
> The other alternatives are giving up and just allowing the mediocrity
> to walk all over you or to see your prefered product die slowly.
Sounds like an opinion (or doctrine) of an individual (or group) to me!
>
> |||
> / | \
--
=============================================================================
- Bob Surenko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- http://www.fred.net/surenko/
=============================================================================
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
