Linux-Advocacy Digest #199, Volume #33 Fri, 30 Mar 01 17:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux dying (WesTralia)
Re: Linux needs a standard, user proof distro (WesTralia)
Re: Fun With Parallel Ports. (Roy Culley)
OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Communism (Mathew)
Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing? (Goldhammer)
Re: Communism (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing? (Goldhammer)
Re: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("RTO_Trainer")
Re: WFW3.11 uptime (and other thoughts on desktop computing) (Shane Phelps)
Re: MS patents ones and zeros... ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing? (Claus S�rensen -
Formand for KLID)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: WesTralia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dying
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 14:22:50 -0600
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >
> > > But still, it's manually initiated. Not to mention the fact that
> > > the FCC won't allow you to use your cell phone in-flight.
> >
> > How's NET going to communicate then?
>
> Well, it'll be however the airline or ticketing web site implements
> it, but the demos that MS showed with Expedia.com was that,
>
> [...]when
> you purchase a ticket, you check off the people you wish to be
> notified of your arrival during the checkout porition of your
> purchasing session. [...]
Oh but Chad! You said this was all automatic! Filling out
forms with other peoples phone numbers is not automatic --
not to mention a headache. Besides, I may not know who I
want or need to pick me up until the last minute.
>
> It's quite simple, really.
>
Pssssssssst.... a cell phone is simpler.
> It knows when your arrival time is and will send out an IM at
> a specific time before your arrival.
And it sends a message to everyone on the form that I filled out
and now I have a group of people picking me up at the airport.
Cool....
--
------------------------------
From: WesTralia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux needs a standard, user proof distro
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 14:31:35 -0600
Warren Bell wrote:
>
> With all the stuff I'm hearing about Windows XP and the WPA, that will
> require you to have MS activate your PC after makeing any hardware
> changes, makes me wish there was somthing out there to compete with
> Windows. I mean really compete.
>
> Linux is a great OS and is getting better all the time, but the average
> computer user won't want to use it. What I think Linux needs is a
> light, user freindly version that anyone can use. Somthing that's
> stripped of most of the server functions and is made for a single or
> multi user home system. Somthing that even the untechnical user can use
> without too many problems. Here are some things that I think would be
> needed to make this work:
>
> - A standard GUI that all Linux distros could use.
> - A GUI that's feels lighter and faster.
> - All the most used admin (root) functions available from point and
> click.
> - All makers of the lighter distro to follow standards so all the
> distros are similar.
> - Of course, more programs that people need for everyday use.
>
> I'd like to see Linux come out with somthing that would really compete
> with windows and give people who arn't tech savvy a choice. Any
> thoughts on this? Any distros that are trying to move twards an OS like
> this?
Sounds to me that you are describing the Mac OSX. I haven't used it or
even seen it in "person" but I like the idea of the Aqua GUI, Unix kernel,
and the fact that you can use either the command line or the GUI for real
work.
I just wish the Mac people would port OSX to the PC and sell the OSX separately.
In fact, that's my quiestion for the day: why don't they?
--
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roy Culley)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Fun With Parallel Ports.
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 21:42:31 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <9a0tcv$4kb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking) writes:
<snip>
Why did you cross post this to comp.os.linux.advocacy and alt.destroy.microsoft?
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: 30 Mar 2001 21:10:23 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Roger Perkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Lets see... anti-constitutional subversive activity. Like you saying those
: who believe in a different economic system should be shot? Now that's real
: "constitutional" of you, aaron. You can't have it both ways -
: constitutionally and your way. And that is why you are considered ignorant
: and a nazi by the adults here.
Actually, according to the U.S. Constitution and federal law, Aaron is
mostly correct.
If you're a U.S. Citizen, but choose to make war against your own
country, or give aid and comfort to its very numerous enemies (foreign
or domestic), then you're guilty of treason, a capital crime.
Also, if you conspire to violate the Constitutionally guaranteed
rights of any U.S. Citizen under color of law, you're guilty of a
felony, which becomes a capital crime if loss of life results.
Regarding the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), membership in it was once
held to be illegal for this reason - not because you aren't entitled
to hold and express any opinions you wish, but because you are not
entitled to conspire to violate the rights of others.
But right now the CPUSA, though obnoxious, is among the very least of
our problems. Both of the "mainstream" parties are much worse, since
they have much more power.
Both major parties advocate and practice socialism (in varying
degrees), both have *knowingly* caused massive loss of life, liberty
and property, which they were supposed to protect, and both have
conspired, very successfully, to make this nation an oligarchy
masquerading as a democracy, rather than the Republic that by law it
must be.
Hence, there are a LOT of traitors in our midst. And given the threat
that they pose to the life, liberty and property of all people (both
inside the U.S. and elsewhere), I think it is not only reasonable, but
necessary, that the worst of them be dealt with as the law requires.
Aaron is not advocating that we round up everyone - just those who are
the most blatantly and obviously guilty. And, so long as these folks
get an *exceedingly* fair trial, and as long as their sentences are
somewhat commensurate with their crimes, I am in total agreement with
him.
I don't want more bloodshed. I think there's been too much already
(the left's war on unborn children, the right's war on drugs, and
other kinds too numerous to list). But it is absolutely necessary
that the crimes against peaceful and law-abiding U.S. Citizens, not to
mention the nationals of many other countries who have been harmed by
actions of our so-called "government," be ended. Hopefully, by the
most peaceful means possible.
I too took an oath to defend the United States, its lawful government,
its Constitution, its citizens, and its valid laws against all threats
whether domestic or foreign. So have millions of others. We are
greatly outnumbered by the traitors at the moment, but times and
political winds do change, and I remain hopeful that someday we will
be able to return to a legitimate, federal, Constitutional, republican
form of government.
Joe
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
From: Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 07:25:25 +1000
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> Mathew wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> >
> > > Anonymous wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett) eeped:
> > > > > On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 01:59:15 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> > > > > >Barry Manilow wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Craig Kelley wrote:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Barry Manilow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > GreyCloud wrote:
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > I have freedom to make as much money as I know how.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > The problem with this freedom is that this right ends up killing a lot
> > > > > >> > > of hard-working, decent human beings. That is why capitalism is a
> > > > > >> > > murdering system. It kills millions of people every year in the
> > > > > >> > > world.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > As opposed to *what*, exactly.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Cuba, North Korea and China are not paragons of virtue.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> China is practically a capitalist country right now.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Yes, they are beginning to see the light.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >However, the brutal ways of their Communist Revolution and
> > > > > >subsequent Cultural Revolution are still with them.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > comp.os.linux.advocacy.and.debate.on.communism.vs.capitalism
> > > >
> > > > yay capitalism!
> > > > speaking of which, microsoft has done rather well under the free market
> > > > system don't you think?
> > >
> > > Actually, Microsoft has practiced a deliberate campaign of subverting
> > > the free market.
> > >
> > > That's why their always in court.
> >
> > Its called monopoly.
>
>
> Having a monopoly is not illegal.
>
> Engaging in a pattern of anti-competitive behavior to gain and hold
> the monopoly *is*.
Numerous monopolies work on this premise.
>
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > jackie 'anakin' tokeman
> > > >
> > > > tee hee!
> > > >
> > > > p.s. why are so many linux users fat ugly beardos?
> > > >
> > > > jest axin
> > > >
> > > > men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
> > > > more even than death
> > > > - bertrand russell
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Aaron R. Kulkis
> > > Unix Systems Engineer
>
>
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
>
> K: Truth in advertising:
> Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
> Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
> Special Interest Sierra Club,
> Anarchist Members of the ACLU
> Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
> The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
> Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
>
>
> 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....
>
> 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
>
> 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"
>
> G: Knackos...you're a retard.
>
>
> F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
> E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> her behavior improves.
>
> D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (C) above.
>
> C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
> 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.
>
> A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Goldhammer)
Subject: Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 21:28:38 GMT
On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 23:33:56 +0000,
Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>2. Biological evolution is not guided (there is no master plan behind
>it), it just happens. - Software development is _always_ guided (no
>programmer sits behind his console just tapping blindly at the keys (*);
>he wants to create something, and usually has a pretty good idea of what
>it is going to be).
Human languages: do they evolve? Is their evolution
guided ("master plan") or unguided ("just happens")?
Or is it something else? If so, then the guided/unguided
dichotomy is dubious.
--
Don't think you are. Know you are.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 21:36:17 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 30 Mar 2001 06:35:13 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 10:29:22 -0800, Gunner � <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Id love to see your cites on the Mexican border/Berlin comparison.
>> >Please provide them. I do not recall ever hearing about the AirForce
>> >shooting down unarmed civilian aircraft intentionally knowing full well
>> >that they were unarmed civilian aircraft.i
>>
>> I didn't say the airforce killed anyone on the border. It's usually up
>> to border patrols, or the good citizens of the US.
>
>
>You're saying private citizen and law-enforcement, armed with, at
>best, semi-automatic weapons, are gonna take down a private aircraft
>flying at over 100 MPH and a few thousand feet of altitude?
>
>just hitting a STILL person at that range is damn near impossible.
An aircraft is a slightly larger target. :-) However, assuming
the muzzle velocity of a bullet is 1,000 MPH (1,600 KPH) or 440m/s,
equation
mv^2/2 = mgh
suggests that h = v^2/2g = 193600 m^2/s^2 / (2 * 9.78 m/s^2)
= 10,000 m, so in theory it's possible. However, I don't know how
to account for air resistance, and it's possible that the combination
of the two will result in the bullet going "doink!" on the hull --
if it gets there at all.
The time the bullet will take to reach the peak of its flight is 2d/v
= 10,000m / 440m/s = 22 seconds, by which time the aircraft has
moved almost a kilometer. (The reason it's not d/v is because it's
decelerating.) I'm not sure how long it would take for the bullet
to reach an arbitrary altitude, as opposed to its peak,
but 10,000 m (30,000 feet)isn't uncommon for transcontinental aircraft,
if memory serves. Whoever's taking potshots at the civvy craft
will have to compensate with a more sophisticated aiming device than
a simple gunsight.
I'd worry more about guys on the ground. :-) Now, if he had a
Stinger, that's a different story.
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 53d:12h:32m actually running Linux.
The EAC doesn't exist, but they're still watching you.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Goldhammer)
Subject: Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 21:45:00 GMT
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 08:01:44 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Science and philosophy walk hand in hand. One can not realize that
>truths about physical universe and not internalize them. Philosophy
>is what bridges knowledge and understanding. A theory as profound
>as the origin of species must generate a philosophy. One may not
>agree with it, nor even intend it's creation, but it will exist.
But what if it is the case that Darwinism is actually
a philosophy which generates "sciences"? For example:
memetics, evolutionary optimization, cladistics, ev-psych,
eugenics, social darwinism,... possibly even evolutionary
biology itself.
--
Don't think you are. Know you are.
------------------------------
From: "RTO_Trainer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 21:45:38 GMT
Hey Joe,
"Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9a2snv$kv6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Roger Perkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : Lets see... anti-constitutional subversive activity. Like you saying
those
> : who believe in a different economic system should be shot? Now that's
real
> : "constitutional" of you, aaron. You can't have it both ways -
> : constitutionally and your way. And that is why you are considered
ignorant
> : and a nazi by the adults here.
>
>
> Actually, according to the U.S. Constitution and federal law, Aaron is
> mostly correct.
>
> If you're a U.S. Citizen, but choose to make war against your own
> country, or give aid and comfort to its very numerous enemies (foreign
> or domestic), then you're guilty of treason, a capital crime.
>
> Also, if you conspire to violate the Constitutionally guaranteed
> rights of any U.S. Citizen under color of law, you're guilty of a
> felony, which becomes a capital crime if loss of life results.
>
> Regarding the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), membership in it was once
> held to be illegal for this reason - not because you aren't entitled
> to hold and express any opinions you wish, but because you are not
> entitled to conspire to violate the rights of others.
>
> But right now the CPUSA, though obnoxious, is among the very least of
> our problems. Both of the "mainstream" parties are much worse, since
> they have much more power.
>
> Both major parties advocate and practice socialism (in varying
> degrees), both have *knowingly* caused massive loss of life, liberty
> and property, which they were supposed to protect, and both have
> conspired, very successfully, to make this nation an oligarchy
> masquerading as a democracy, rather than the Republic that by law it
> must be.
>
> Hence, there are a LOT of traitors in our midst. And given the threat
> that they pose to the life, liberty and property of all people (both
> inside the U.S. and elsewhere), I think it is not only reasonable, but
> necessary, that the worst of them be dealt with as the law requires.
>
> Aaron is not advocating that we round up everyone - just those who are
> the most blatantly and obviously guilty. And, so long as these folks
> get an *exceedingly* fair trial, and as long as their sentences are
> somewhat commensurate with their crimes, I am in total agreement with
> him.
>
Have you been reading Aaron's posts for a while?
He throws around accusations of Communism and Nazism very easily. What it
amounts to is rounding upo everyone who disagrees with him. I know you
don't agree with that, I remember you from m.a.m. (I used to be Son of
ATF).
> I don't want more bloodshed. I think there's been too much already
> (the left's war on unborn children, the right's war on drugs, and
> other kinds too numerous to list). But it is absolutely necessary
> that the crimes against peaceful and law-abiding U.S. Citizens, not to
> mention the nationals of many other countries who have been harmed by
> actions of our so-called "government," be ended. Hopefully, by the
> most peaceful means possible.
>
> I too took an oath to defend the United States, its lawful government,
> its Constitution, its citizens, and its valid laws against all threats
> whether domestic or foreign. So have millions of others. We are
> greatly outnumbered by the traitors at the moment, but times and
> political winds do change, and I remain hopeful that someday we will
> be able to return to a legitimate, federal, Constitutional, republican
> form of government.
>
>
> Joe
>
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: WFW3.11 uptime (and other thoughts on desktop computing)
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 08:46:50 +1100
David Punsalan wrote:
>
> Hey all you fanatics,
>
> I've got nothing against linux, but I thought I'd just share an
> anecdotal story in response to a thread I read some time ago about
> uptimes and windows.
>
> In short - I've got a Windows for Workgroups box that I set up in my lab
> that logs temperatures and pressures and runs and ftp server and has
> simply never crashed on me - not once!
>
> I telnet in to unix servers to check email, down/upload datafiles,
> manipulate datafiles with Excel and it all runs smoothly on a 486DX266.
>
> It does exactly what I need it to do and I am perfectly happy with it.
> Implementation was effortless and I'm no pro.
>
> Why am I posting this? I just think it's appropriate to balance all the
> legendary stories we see about linux. Unfortunately, I wish my AMDK6
> 400Mhz with Win98 ran with as few crashes as my WFW3.11 box does.
>
> Ofcourse - I'm not running Word, Excel, Powerpoint, IE (with
> streaming video), Acroread, Kaleidiagraph, EndNote, Winamp, WarFTP,
> Napster all at the same time on the old clunker. In all fairness -
> considering the fact that this list is the typical load (and I stress
> TYPICAL) of what I run on my machine (400MHz,Win98,128MB RAM which
> nowadays is a modest amount of muscle) - I really can't complain if it
> crashes three or four times a year. I have NEVER had to worry about
> running too many apps at the same time on this beast. On X, however, I
> have had a MUCH different experience.
>
In my experience, Windows 3.1 was more stable than WfW 3.11. If you're
only using TCP/IP networking that probably improves the stability. I
assume you're using Trumpet Winsock rather than the FTP or Novell
(LAN Workplace) version.
Windows 95 seemed to have been a bit more stable than Windows 3.x, but
probably not by much. The stability problems seem to have come in with later
versions of Windows 95 and the subsequent 9x series. NT 4 is quite a bit
more robust than the 3.x or 9x line, and W2K is more stable again. I'd rank
W2K slightly above SCO Open Server 3, and certainly below any current unix
variant in terms of stablity.
For your purposes, stability isn't really a major concern as long as it's
stable enough. If you had 1,000 lab boxes spread over 1,000,000 square
miles it'd be a diferent matter :-)
[ snip ]
>
> - David
>
> "Talent imitates. Genius steals."
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS patents ones and zeros...
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 00:00:05 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Donn Miller"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yep, we all knew it was coming.
>
> http://www.cnn.com@sci-tech@3520040376/new_010325/alert/breakingnews.html
>
> Darn, I guess it's back to analog computing with op-amps for the rest of
> us "little people".
>
>
> -----= 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! =-----
Sorry,
This is too bloody obvious to be a good April Fools' joke. I liked the
one in the april issue of Linux Magazin (german magazine) a lot better.
They posted 'evidence' of a backdoor in the Linux TCP stack, and as a
solution offered to run WINSOCK.DLL under WINE. Too bad that article
isn't online.
Mart
--
Write in C, write in C,
Write in C, yeah, write in C.
Only wimps use BASIC, Write in C.
http://www.orca.bc.ca/spamalbum/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Claus S�rensen - Formand for KLID)
Subject: Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing?
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 22:06:45 GMT
On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 19:38:49 +0200, Wilbert Kruithof
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Open Source started with the first algorithms programmed
for computers because the scientist always shared their
ideas.
In a world where everyone have access to all information
Open Source is the best way to develop programs
because:
- you only have to develop once and then reuse it
- you can take elements from other sources and
combine them to new programs
- you can share the programs with who ever you want
This way the world will be a more innovative place
because you can focus the development on new
features, algorithms and optimize the existing programs
instead of trying to make clones of properitaire systems.
When the software industry open their eyes and sees
that you get more involved coworkers when they
program cutting edge or customer solutions.
There are no goldrush in Open Source products but
instead you can make a solid business instead
because the income is almost proportional with the
work - there are no lottery tickets.
See Red Hat - the got a great result for the last
quarter - a plus a quarter before they have predicted.
And this is in the software business where most of
the other goes down.
But it takes time before the traditional IT companies
shift to Open Source products in general because
it is a paradigme change - so be patiented.
The most enjoyable greetings
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
