Linux-Advocacy Digest #301, Volume #33 Tue, 3 Apr 01 00:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Communism ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: AMD is to Intel as "What OS" is to Windows? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Things Linux can't do! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: AMD is to Intel as "What OS" is to Windows? (none)
Re: My take on GPLed code as free software (was: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and
lies about free software) ("Les Mikesell")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,us.military.army
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 23:51:38 -0400
Fulcanelli wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Scott Erb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > >
> > > Scott Erb wrote:
> > > > Too simplistic. Here is a bit about fascism:
> > >
> > > Naturally a 4-line summary is going to be a simplification.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Fascism:
> > > >
> > > > The basis of fascism is irrationality -- it starts based on conservative
> > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > >
> > > This is true of ALL forms of socialism.
> >
> > No, fascism is nothing at all like socialism. You really need to learn
> > the basics of political ideologies if you want to avoid looking like a
> > fool on the internet.
> >
>
> Interesting how many of these opponents of Socialism are also irrational.
> . .. just like the Fascists.
>
> > Socialism has many forms. Marxian socialism is based on certain beliefs
> > about philosophy and science which form a rational (if wrong) ideology.
> > Rational means that it has premises and core assumptions which are built
> > upon to develop the ideology, and which determine what the ideology is.
> > Most modern ideologies are rational in that sense, you can trace their
> > basic assumptions and beliefs. Fascism rejects rationality and the use
> > of reason as a limitation on human will and spirit, the exact opposite
> > argument of socialism. It is an essentially different ideology.
> >
> > > > irrationality. It is also anti-communist and anti-liberal.
> > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > >
> > > The only redeeming values it has.
>
> Both of these ideologies, in their true forms, are progressive and
> interested in the betterment of the working classes, so Fascism truly has
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> no redeeming qualities.
If a doctor professes to be "interested in the health of his patients",
but his procedures cause every one of his patients...even those with
mild colds, to die within days...because his methods call for ingesting
large doses of strychnine and cyanide....would you say that this doctor's
work has redeeming qualities?
Translation: The road to hell is paved with "good intentions"
Intentions are worthless (and besides, they are sooooooo easy to
lie about). The ONLY thing that matters is results.
ALL forms of Socialism (Fascism, Communism, and middle-of-the-road
socialism) all cause GREAT amounts of harm and very very little good.
In the year 1900, one could be excused for not knowing.
In the year 2000, claiming to not understand that socialism is
evil is inexcusable for anybody who claims to be educated.
>
> >
> > Note here that liberalism as an ideology traces itself back to Locke,
> > and the view that individual rights are paramount, specifically life,
> > liberty and property. In the US both Democrats and Republicans can
> > trace their ideological roots to liberalism. Liberalism split between
> > "classical" liberalism (more free market) and "new" liberalism (growing
> > from people like John Stuart Mill, who argued that equal opportunity
> > required more state action).
> >
> > > > Conservatives: society is important, traditions of nation and culture.
> > > > Fascists: STATE is important, embodies society.
> > > > NATIONALISM: as protection of traditions of nation
> > > > WAR/STRENGTH: Social Darwinism applied
> > > >
> > > > At base, fascism is a social darwinist form of ultra-conservative
> > > > thought. BUT, calling it conservative is a disservice to real
> > > > conservatives, just as Stalinism is not a form of Social Democracy.
> > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > >
> > > Who, other than you, is claiming that Stalin was a "Social Democrat"
> >
> > No one. Read more carefully and you'll see that the point is that even
> > though both conservatism and fascism are on the "right," they are
> > opposed to each other, just as Social Democracy and Stalinism on the
> > Left are opposed to each other. The point is that one can't
> > simplistically link all of the "left" or "right" together.
> >
> > > Actually social democrats tend to be closet-communists who lack
> > > the balls to admit it.
> >
> > Your assertion, besides being unsubstantiated, is denied by history. A
> > lot of the most vicious political battles, often turning into street
> > fights, have been between Communists and Social Democrats who have very
> > profound differences.
> >
> > > > Liberals: humans have the capacity for rational thought, to improve
> > > > society.
> > >
> > > Except for the current variety known as the "Liberal Democrat" in
> > > American society. These self-proclaimed liberals maintain that the
> > > average citizen is incapable of rational thought...therefore, a
> > > myriad array of government bureacracies must be set up to do
> > > his/her thinking for him/her.
> >
> > I have never known any liberal who believed that, you're simply being
> > bombastic now. Cool if you want to try to arouse reactions, but not
> > very rational on your part.
> >
> > -snip-
> >
> > > You must be one of those over-educated morons who can't see that
> > > which is freaking obvious to even a 4-year old child.
> > >
> > > Indeed, race DOES exist. However, making one's legal standing
> > > dependant upon one's race is outlandish.
> >
> > Race is a social construct. There are genetic differences galore among
> > humans, some particular diseases stay within groups where genetic
> > differences exist, such as families, groups separated from others over
> > time by geographic region, etc.
> >
> > > Question: Why are sickle-cell anemia public service announcements
> > > aimed only at blacks?
> >
> > > Conversely, why is Down's syndrome almost unheard of in black >families?
> > >
> > > Indeed, race DOES exist.
> >
> > No, you're missing a step here. Genetic differences exist, and in
> > groups (sometimes small ethnic groups) particular diseases and traits of
> > that group form. Not just groups defined by skin color, there are a
> > myriad of ways of dividing people. The concept of race and the focus on
> > that particular distinction is a social construct, it could be done many
> > different ways. I suspect what we consider "race" was chosen because
> > skin color is so obvious, and the people looked different. But religion
> > is another way of socially constructing division, as is gender, eye
> > color, or whatever we choose. Genetic differences exist, the idea of
> > "race" is a human idea, a way people have categorized others for their
> > own purposes.
Scott admits to the existance of ethnic groups with high corelations of
genetic traits....and then goes on to deny that this is PRECISELY
what race is.
> >
> > > By the way...in light of the fact that one's legal standing before
> > > the law should NOT be dependant upon one's race....what does that
> > > make of Affirmative Action programs and other public policy
> > > where race is the primary, or even ONLY consideration for
> > > one's standing in relationship to these laws?
> >
> > Since race is a social construct (and social constructs are real, even
> > if contingent on human ideas and actions), it has real, social
> > ramifications. Discrimination in the past according to race has led to
> > structural inequities between groups, and affirmative action is one
> > attempt to try to undo past damage. This is not focused only on race,
> > of course, but also gender and other aspects of ethnic heritage. It's
> > dangerous to use that kind of policy because it could become a cure as
> > bad as the disease, but used as a "tie breaker" rather than a
> > determining factor for who gets a job seems reasonable.
> >
> > > Jest askin'.
> >
> > And you're getting answers.
And all the ones from you (Scott) are quite stupid.
> >
> > > Scape-goating...you mean line blaming all of society's ill's on
> > > "dead white men", followed closely behind by "living white men"
> >
> > Those would be examples. So would blaming Communists, or socialists, or
> > liberals.
Wrong. Communists, socialists and modern liberals are blamed BECAUSE
OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR BEHAVIOR.
> > It's all the same, people trying to find some "enemy" to
> > blame problems on so they can feel all good and righteous out on some
> > crusade. Rather pathetic, but a lot of poor souls fall into that trap.
> >
> >
> > > The same can be said for Communism.
> > >
> > > They're an improvement over anarchy...but then again, so is
> > > everything else (including dictatorship).
> >
> > Perhaps. Though I doubt even a chaotic anarchy would have had the 20
> > million or so deaths attributable to Stalinism, or 11 million to Nazism
> > (not counting the war dead, that adds even more!)
> >
> > > I notice how you spend a lot of time pointing out the flaws in
> > > right-wing socialism,
> >
> > Socialism is, quite obviously, an inappropriate word. The differences
> > are immense. Fascism is appropriate.
> >
> > > but only one sentance devoted to the
> > > problems of left-wing socialism.
> > >
> > > Why is that?
> >
> > Because I posted info on fascism. If I was posting info on communism
> > (as I have), I would point out the dangers inherent in centralizing
> > power, a planned economy, and all that. But the issue at hand was
> > fascism, so that is what the post was about. Suffice it to say I'm just
> > as completely appalled by Stalinism as I am by Nazism.
> > cheers, scott
> > http://violet.umf.maine.edu/~erb/
>
> --
> To email me, remove "NOSPAM" from my address.
--
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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: AMD is to Intel as "What OS" is to Windows?
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 23:53:12 -0400
Cat wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> > Your assumptions for why Windows is dominant is flawed. You assume that it's a
>good idea
> > to try and emulate Windows by "engineering an OS from scratch with the objective
>of being
> > as close to the windows platform as possible". It is not.
> I never said that windows was a great design I just said that it is 95% of the
>desktop market
> and incompatible with Linux etc. The objective is to open up the market.
>
No...the objective is to IMPROVE THE STATE OF COMPUTING.
Replicating the same stupid errors as Microsoft won't accomplish anything.
> Cat
>
> http://www.ratrobot.com/sport/sport.htm NEW THIS MONTH Would you cheat in a $100
>million
> dollar lottery if you knew they wouldn't catch you? This is the problem with drugs
>in sport.
> How do we solve it?
> http://www.ratrobot.com/java/ratrobot_help.jar FREE APPLETS JARS EDITORS CHOICE
> www.ratrobot.com Articles that challenge your ideas about yourself and the world you
>live in.
>
> "Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Your assumptions for why Windows is dominant is flawed. You assume that it's a
>good idea
> > to try and emulate Windows by "engineering an OS from scratch with the objective
>of being
> > as close to the windows platform as possible". It is not.
> >
> > Your statements about Linux are also incorrect (see below).
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 3 Apr 2001 01:19:01 +1000, Cat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >I was considering the reasons for windows dominance of the OS market and the huge
>problems
> > >of getting developers for Linux, Mac etc. Linux is a solution to a different
>problem that
> > >just happens to have been successful in some desktop areas. It's a port of Unix
>to a Intel
> > >box pure and simple. The Mac OS developed before and simultaneously with windows
>platform
> > >and so it fundamentally different to it.
> >
> >
> > Linux is NOT a "port of unix to a Intel box pure and simple". Linux runs on x86,
>AMD,
> > PowerPC, Alpha, IBM S/390, embedded devices, and probably more that I am
>forgetting. This
> > is clearly more than "unix ported to an Intel box pure and simple"
> >
> >
> > > I was wondering if anyone has ever considered doing to the OS market what AMD
>did to
> > > the
> > >chip market. Why not engineer an OS from scratch with the objective of being as
>close to
> > >the windows platform as possible for application development? You could make it
>open source
> > >and free and include Java and other cross platform API in all distributions.
> > > It would certainly be a big investment but their would still be enough money
>in the
> > >coffers of companies like Sun and IBM to do it. Assuming that they had the right
>business
> > >plan from the start. Which is to make it free for the client side and low cost
>and scalable
> > >for the server side until you got a significant % of the client side market.
> >
> > You have many flawed assumptions in your above statements.
> >
> > > If I could run a free OS that allowed me to run virtually all of the software
>that runs
> > > on
> > >windows I would even think about paying for windows.
> > >
> >
> > Huh? Just buy Windows then.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----= 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! =-----
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
>
> iQA/AwUBOsh/YSh0Y2LcENUAEQJs1QCfR5VEQdl3Iziyl1hQ/3NqC2bkKd0AoJSg
> vujF5nZ0viGDW3FD+vtIiNb3
> =U/2J
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 23:53:22 -0400
Toby A Inkster Esq wrote:
>
> In our last episode, Andy Walker wrote:
>
> :Linux can't crash at random every five minutes.
>
> It can is you write your own "crash daemon" and run it under root.
>
But, by definition, that's not a crash.
A crash is an undesired system failure.
IF you write and install a script for a system which you own, which
does this...then obviously, the system is exhibiting the desired
behavior (for the owner), and thus, it's not really a crash.
> ;-)
>
> - Toby Inkster ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
--
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: none <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: AMD is to Intel as "What OS" is to Windows?
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 23:56:05 -0400
On 2 Apr 2001 18:55:20 -0700, pete@- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <9aaslu$vq3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "2 says...
>
>>This being the case, then the open source movement, already having an OS,
>>needs a framework and execution engine of its own.
>>
>
>No they don't. Java is here.
Hail hail the all powerful Java! No one needs anything else!
>What is it that you need that Java and corba and RMI and XML do not
>give you?
how about "good client side performance"? Or haven't you noticed how
few real applications there are written in 100% Java?
>the .net and c-hash is a desparate attempt by billy to keep control
>inside him, and it failing miserbly.
how is it failing?
If you want to talk failures, lets talk about Jini.... oh, you don't
want to?
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
With Seven Servers In California And Texas - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: My take on GPLed code as free software (was: Richard Stallman what a
tosser, and lies about free software)
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 04:08:06 GMT
"Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >One reason for paying extra for closed source software is
> >that the vendor does in fact fix the bugs before you get it and
> >does a better job than you can do yourself. Of course there
> >are popular examples where this has not been the case, but
> >that does not mean you should eliminate the possibility.
>
> I don't eliminiate the possibility, but those popular examples are
> precisely what I mean with "being at the mercy of". Thanks for helping
> my case.
If there is any case there, it is about choosing your vendors carefully,
not killing them all.
> >You can't use something that can't be distributed to you. You are
> >skewing your view by only considering the existing software that
> >meets the GPL requirements and is thus not affected by the restrictions.
> >Consider instead all of the potential combinations that might exist
> >and without the restrictions might be allowed to be distributed to
> >you. Then you might understand that the GPL'd code is not at
> >all free to be distributed or used by you in those situations.
>
> GPLed software *can* be distributed to you, only not in a fashion that
> you or someone else in the distribution line can prevent any freedom of
> use of that software. I see no reason why all those wonderful
> combinations cannot be GPLed as a whole.
Does that mean you don't recognize any existing intellectual property
rights that have not been assigned under the GPL, or you don't
think anyone needs any of that? Do you understand way there
cannot be a new GPL'd gif-writing program? Or DVD-decoding
program?
> >> I asked for an example where the GPL has prevented *using*, not
> >> *sharing* the software.
> >
> >Everyone who could not obtain that program was prevented from
> >using it. You can play all the word games you want, but they could
> >not use it as a direct result of the GPL.
>
> As a direct result of the GPL *AND* the fact that you were unwilling to
> GPL the resulting program.
Perhaps you have forgotten: the program consisted of 3 pre-existing
components. The two other than GNUtar were freely redistributable
but under non-GPL terms. I did not want to add any additional restrictions
to the part I added but could not change the terms on the other components.
Only the GPL prevented redistribution.
> >> >If something can't be distributed to you, how do you manage to use it?
> >> You can't. Does that make distributing and using the same thing? Does
> >> that mean that GPLed software cannot be distributed at all?
> >
> >Unless you are a programmer and willing to repeat the work of building
> >a program that combines GPL and non-GPL components, you cannot
> >use it.
>
> Because you don't have it? Of course not! As far as such a user is
> concerned such program does not exist.
Of course they exist. People put them together all the time and are
prohibited from sharing them by the GPL.
> >Thus for most people, the ability for someone to distribute a
> >program to you is an absolute requirement for using it. GPLed software
> >where the 'work as a whole' meets the GPL requirements is not affected
> >by the restrictions and can thus be distributed and used. But those
very
> >non-free restrictions prevent any of that code from being used in a
> >near-infinite set of combinations with other code by people who are
unable
> >to build those programs themselves.
>
> It's not only the GPL that prevents this, it's the GPL *in combination
> with* the unwillingness of the programmer to GPL the result that really
> prevents this.
It is impossible for the programmer to change the terms on the
other existing components they use. The GPL makes it impossible
to share this work even in the case where the potential recipients
already have the right to use the other necessary parts or where those
parts are more free than the GPL'd work.
> The GPL was carefully crafted to prevent "embrace and extend" by less
> honest parties, based on GPLed code. You still have not provided me with
> a single example where someone was limited in the use of a piece of
> GPLed software that they have.
That is about as self-referential as you can get. The GPL prohibits the
users
from having this software, so of course the problem isn't with software
they have.
> I'd say that their freedom to use the
> software as they please does qualify it as "free software".
And I say that not being allowed to have modifications of it distributed
to them qualifies it as the opposite of free.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
