Linux-Advocacy Digest #413, Volume #33 Fri, 6 Apr 01 09:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Need your recommendation for a full-featured text editor (Matthias Warkus)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (Bloody Viking)
Re: Java, the "Dot-Com" Language? (Jan Ingvoldstad)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (phil hunt)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (Tim Kelley)
Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin (Tim Kelley)
Re: Java (was Re: 696 Native MacOSX Apps So Far -) (pip)
Re: Q:Windows NT scripting? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? (Chris Croughton)
Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? (Chris Croughton)
Re: Something like Install Shield for Linux? ("Andy Walker")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Isaac)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Too expensive, too invasive (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Communism (chrisv)
Re: Something like Install Shield for Linux? ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. ("Alex
Chaihorsky")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To:
24hoursupport.helpdesk,alt.comp.shareware.programmer,comp.editors,comp.lang.java.help,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.java.softwaretools,comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Need your recommendation for a full-featured text editor
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 14:25:33 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Wed, 04 Apr 2001 13:02:42 -0400...
...and Knowledge Seeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am looking for a full-featured yet easy to use text editor to
> replace Notepad. Ideally, I would like a tool that is cross-platform
> or has versions for Win98 and Linux. The main platform requirement
> would be Win98 and the nice-to-have platform is Linux.
>
> There seem to be a plethora of choices that might work:
Only one real choice. Emacs.
mawa
--
It's always September in comp.os.linux.advocacy...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message
Date: 6 Apr 2001 10:20:23 GMT
Anonymous ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: desktop market share
: windows 92%
: linux 1%
: mac 4%
: ha haaaw!
: jackie 'anakin' tokeman
You might want to stick with the fat debate where at least being skinny has
some health merit.
--
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: Jan Ingvoldstad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.arch
Subject: Re: Java, the "Dot-Com" Language?
Date: 06 Apr 2001 12:22:04 +0200
On Thu, 05 Apr 2001 20:46:24 -0500, cjt & trefoil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Not when they're manufactured by Intel.
Considering that the really fast Alphas _aren't_ manufactured by
Intel, it's hardly Intel's fault.
--
In the beginning was the Bit, and the Bit was Zero. Then Someone
said, Let there be One, and there was One. And Someone blessed them,
and Someone said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish
the Word and subdue it: and have dominion over every thing that is.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 01:46:27 +0100
On Thu, 05 Apr 2001 23:24:27 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>If someone has never written code, their opinions on the subject are
>>liable to be taken less seriously than someone who has written a lot of
>>code. That's because people learn from experience; no experience, little
>>learning.
>
>Yes, I know that. So does everybody who gets intimidated by the
>protectionism and elitism of any specialist. I don't, though, so you
>can save yourself the effort.
>
>I have twenty years experience understanding software development, and
>many other aspects of the technology world. If you want to tell me I
>can't program, go to it, but you're wasting your breath.
Hang on, I'm trying to understand something. Are you saying that
(i) you have never programmed
and (ii) you nevertheless understand software development ?
> We aren't
>talking about programming, we're talking about copyright. So if all you
>have is the childish little ad hominem attack, then forgive me while I
>proceed to ignore you and continue with the discussion. Ask questions,
>if you think you're up to it, but spare me your naive opinions
*You* call *me* naive?
--
*****[ Phil Hunt ***** [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]*****
"Mommy, make the nasty penguin go away." -- Jim Allchin, MS head
of OS development, regarding open source software (paraphrased).
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 22:55:42 +1200
Have you ever heard the term, "the best technology doesn't always win on the
day". UNIX has been around for 35 years, and has never been intended to be run on
end lusers systems such as yours, that is why they have stuck with high end
servers and workstations, the area where the end user has some grey matter in
their head. Also, if you were to look at Linux as the Desktop version of UNIX,
considering it has only been around for 9 years, it has made tremendous inroads
into the OS market, considering that not only is it competing against UNIX is
some areas, but the illegally maintained monopoly of Microsoft in the OS market.
I also refute those statistics. Many of them never include the number of
downloaded copies of Linux, or the "borrowed" copy, or the number of people
outside the US adopting Linux as their main OS. It will be rather interesting if
Linux becomes the defacto standard on chinese computers, and even if Linux has a
20% share in the Chinese OS market, that will equal 240 Million copies, thus
definitely putting it a serious position. Also there is a matter with Red Flag
Linux, which, if the Chinese government agrees, could become the standard OS used
on government computers, thus, end users in china will follow suite, and use
linux as well.
Matthew Gardiner
--
Disclaimer:
I am the resident BOFH (Bastard Operator From Hell)
If you do not like it go: [rm -rf /home/luser] and
have a nice day :)
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 11:04:03 GMT
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
> Have you ever heard the term, "the best technology doesn't always win on
> the day". UNIX has been around for 35 years, and has never been intended
> to be run on end lusers systems such as yours, that is why they have stuck
> with high end servers and workstations, the area where the end user has
> some grey matter in
> their head. Also, if you were to look at Linux as the Desktop version
> of UNIX, considering it has only been around for 9 years, it has made
> tremendous inroads into the OS market, considering that not only is it
> competing against UNIX is
I think unix (especially linux) is wonderful as a desktop, and it requires
less knowledge of the user than windows does , certainly. There a few
odds and ends that need to be taken care of before linux hits the
mainstream on the business desktop (the home desktop is another matter
altogether) - printing comes to mind. Then there's the application
problem, but that will eventually disappear.
The biggest obstacle to linux on the workplace desktop are all the idiot
windows admins out there who couldn't understand unix to save their lives.
With windows NT a complete moron can sort of get by knowing almost nothing.
Of course this always ends up badly for them at some point, but that is the
reality.
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 11:13:16 GMT
Craig Kelley wrote:
> But adding in 3rd-party apt sources is a recipe for disaster. Every
> time I've done it it has caused some problem or other (especially with
> Ximian/Helix). To keep debian happy, you should only have sources for
> stuff from debian.org (unless you enjoy manually fixing what apt-get
> happily does and is unable to undo).
Well one just has to be careful. I do not use gnome so I guess the
helixcode problem isn't there for me. I do use a lot of gnome apps,
though, and I get them from helix (I just didn't install the entirety of
helixgnome). I also use KDE2 and some other sources from some debian
maintainers who were nice enough to back-package their unstable work for
potato (like linux 2.4, postgres 7, etc.).
Debian was also the easiest distro to install major kernel upgrades I've
experienced. The guy packaged all the peripheral packages you needed
(modutils, reiserfsprogs, etc) along with the kernel so it was very very
easy.
> Hand-in-hand with this, why can't apt *down*grade a package? Numerous
> times I had to back out of bleeding-edge stuff and I had to hunt down
> everything apt upgraded to fix it's mistakes. Yes, yes, I know, it's
> my own fault for using unstable -- too bad that 'stable' Debian is so
> old.
Yes it does have some shortcomings, but rpm based distros have this problem
as well. Overall I greatly prefer the package based dependencies. One of
my main gripes about dpkg is I can't seem to:
1: generate a list of installed packages (only the names!)
2: find out what package a file on my system belongs to
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Java (was Re: 696 Native MacOSX Apps So Far -)
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 12:16:23 +0100
Fred K Ollinger wrote:
> []
> I liked some of java's OO ideas a lot. I did hear, though that Sun changes
> it's api a bit. This scares me b/c if this is the case then my code may break.
This is a problem. But more often than not it changes over a long few
releases so that you are well aware that there is an issue. Of course -
just as in Linux there is no necessity to upgrade all the time. Also
Java was going though many changes as it developed, but now the Java 2
standard places a proverbial stake in the ground so that we can be
pretty sure that when you build applications the API will not change
significantly, but simply be added to where needed.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Q:Windows NT scripting?
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 11:30:37 GMT
Sean wrote:
>
> Chris
>
> There's also the excellent free C compiler
> for Windows by Jacob Navia and others. It's
> called lcc - see:
>
> http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32/
>
> Nice tool - pity about Windows!
That their manual is in Microsoft Word format
is worrisome to me. HTML or even PDF would
have been better, to my way of thinking.
I'm trying to standardize on GNU code, at least
for now.
Chris
--
[ Do Not Make Illegal Copies of This Message ]
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 23:33:37 +1200
I agree. Also, what is it with the phobia relating to using opensource
applications? I have an alright knowledge about computers, and going from an
Amiga 500 to Windows 95 then to Linux, I can appreciate the good aspects of
Linux. I like it in that it is simple for me to understand. I have
flexibility. When I want to add a hard drive, it is a simple matter of
partition, format, then mount where ever you want, compare that to the hell
Windows puts you through w/ short cuts, directory entries etc etc. I have used
both Linux and Solaris, and belive me, there is very little difference between
Linux and UNIX, and in some cases, Linux has the "developer spirit" UNIX had
back in the 1970s when it was used in Universities (before UNIX was
commercialised), and people were able to view the code, and tweak different
aspects of it. Compare that sort of flexibility to Windows. Unix is kinda
like a car, you can spend all day if you wish, tuning components, cleaning,
modifying, tweaking and customising to what you want it to be. However, Windows
doesn't have the same flexibility as, you get your car, and thats it,
absolutely unflexible.
About the most disappointing thing I found when I moved from the Amiga was how
inefficient Windows was. Here was me, with a Pentium 75 w/ 8MB of ram, and it
took longer for Windows 95 to load, OFF A HARD DISK, than Workbench 1.3.2 on an
Amiga 500 w/ 7.14Mhz CPU and 1.5MB Ram, OFF A FLOPPY DISK. I could not
understand why my 10 year old computer was wiping the floor with the P75, and
in all honesty, I thought it would be faster, what a disappointment. Looking
back, I would have actually been better off going with my gut instinct and
getting an Amiga 1200, add another 4 MBs of memory (to bring it up to 8MB), and
throwing on a CD-ROM drive. Atleast I wouldn't have bitched for the next 2
years wondering why the computer kept crashing, lossing data, file systems
corrupting and registry entries magically disappearing, when my Amiga would
purr away for days on end.
Matthew Gardiner
--
Disclaimer:
I am the resident BOFH (Bastard Operator From Hell)
If you do not like it go: [rm -rf /home/luser] and
have a nice day :)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Croughton)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000?
Date: 6 Apr 2001 11:55:05 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 5 Apr 2001 17:46:42 GMT, Bill Gunshannon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Croughton) writes:
>|>
>|> The second, which asserts an absolute, can't be known absolutely unless
>|> it's a tautology ("I define "junk mail" to include anything in HTML,
>|> therefore all HTML mail is junk"). The trouble with absolutes is that
>|> they cause trouble when they're wrong, perhaps he's missing some
>|> important things buried in the junk and will never know it...
>
>If he will never know, it must not be all that important. My mail
>filters discard anything coming from AOL. I haven't missed a single
>message yet. (I seriously doubt there have been many offers to give
>me large checks coming from that service!!)
If a member of my family died and the message telling me about it were
in HTML, and I deleted it and didn't find out until a lot later, I would
be upset. Perhaps he doesn't care about such things...
Does an email count as a "written warning" at work, for instance? Three
of those and you could be dismissed, even if you have deleted them
unread beacuse they weren't in your preferred format. How about emails
from your bank manager? Mine doesn't yet do that, but I can see it
coming soon, and I bet they'll be in HTML.
I look at where the mail is from, first, and most of my filtering is
based on that (I do have friends who use AOL, and I don't refuse to read
their messages just because they use a system I dislike; for that
matter,I haven't received any UCE/UBE etc. for AOL in several years to
discard). If someone I know sends me something in HTML, I'll try to
read it.
>This is a judegment call and not an absolute. I also delete any HTML
>mail immediately, without even trying to read it. And being as I don't
>use a web browser as a mail client, there really isn't much else I can
>do with it.
Rubbish. Save the file and open it with lynx or some other browser. Or
even attempt to read it directly, not all HTML generators are as bad as
Word. Pipe it through an HTML stripper, or through w3m. There's plenty
you /can/ do, you just don't bother.
>|> Well, if he deletes all HTML mail unread then he never will receive
>|> anything important in HTML mail, so it will be self-fulfilling...
>
>And if it hasn't adversely affected his life up to this point, it was
>most likely also correct.
There are many things which could adversely affect my life which haven't
happened yet, that has no connection with the probability of them
happening in the future.
Chris C
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Croughton)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000?
Date: 6 Apr 2001 11:57:33 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 05 Apr 2001 14:18:30 -0400, Lex Spoon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Incidentally, the "RTF" generated by Word nowadays has lots of
>nonstandard extensions in it that free tools don't understand. So....
>don't trust it. :(
"The wonderful thing about standards is that there are so many to choose
from..."
Thanks for the warning, the last Word RTF file I received imported OK,
but I don't know from which Word version it was created.
Chris C
------------------------------
From: "Andy Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Something like Install Shield for Linux?
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 13:05:29 -0000
Gary Hallock wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>In article <9agu0l$mj9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "David Steinberg"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> And getting all the use that it deserves. Does anyone really believe
>> that InstallShield actually does a better job than dpkg + apt-get or
>> even rpm?
>
>I agree. I would much rather use rpm than InstallShield. Part of the
>problem with rpm is really the way people create packages, not rpm
>itself. Many times people put dependencies requiring a specific level
>of some library when >= would be work. And I believe the dependencies
>can be specified by package name rather than the specific files in the
>package.
>
>Gary
Is there any reason that packages can't include a hypertext link to sites
with the required dependancies, this may be an easy way to solve the
problem. I know exactly what you mean about reporting package names rather
than specific files as I spent ages trying to install KDE2.1 yesterday and
had to give up due to precisely this problem!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 12:00:00 GMT
On Fri, 06 Apr 2001 05:07:37 GMT, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >> Any program that "uses" a library (regardless of the mechanism or
>> >> semantics) but does not require that library in order to be "useful" in
>> >> operation does not infringe, IMHO.
>> >
>> >What part of copyright law says anything about being "useful"? Or
>> >that the covered program must work at all?
>>
>> The one that makes it part of the laws of the United States of America,
>> where epistemological arguments are not allowed to make an individuals
>> rights disappear in a puff of smoke.
>
>Then I guess you won't have any trouble quoting that section before
>going on with any more nonsense.
>
He can't because it isn't in the statutes or in the case law. What the
statutes say is that a work of authorship (that is with some amount of
creativity) fixed in tangible form is protected by copyright at the
moment of fixation. It doesn't matter if at the time of fixation
that work is complete or whether it does or does not have any useful
function. If I film one scene from a play, the film is protected by
copyright.
Further it should be obvious that usefulness is in the eye of the
beholder. Libraries are incomplete but useful collections of functions
to both users and programmers. Libraries only become useful once
some calling program is available, Yet there is no question that libraries
can be protected by copyright law. What is the usefulness of a library
like getopt which parses command line arguments, without some
main program which needs it's arguments parsed? Are buggy
programs unprotectable too?
Code snippets and pseudo code are useful to programmers but not
useful at all directly by non programmers.
Complete programs are useful to some people but useless to others.
Basically, if you want to protect the functionality of code, get a patent.
Copyright law doesn't attempt to address functionality or usefulness.
The problem with arguing with Max is two fold
1. He seems actually proud of his lack of knowledge about both technical
issues and copyright law. I guess this lack of knowledge liberates
him from being bound to conventional thinking and ideas.
2. Max's response to response to losing an argument on a point seems to
be to accuse everyone else of missing some obvious assumption that had
never been part of the discussion before. He stops just short
of accusing people of being malicious liars. He'll never admit he was
wrong or even unclear about anything.
Lots of people think that if they don't correct people who post
goofy, erroneous ideas, that the rest of usenet will be misled and
tricked to their detriment. The truth of the matter is that I
don't really think that anybody is likely to be misled here.
No one is likely to be convinced either.
Isaac
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 08:22:04 -0400
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 05 Apr 2001 06:20:23
>> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> Any program that "uses" a library (regardless of the mechanism or
>>> semantics) but does not require that library in order to be "useful" in
>>> operation does not infringe, IMHO.
>> What part of copyright law says anything about being "useful"? Or
>> that the covered program must work at all?
> The one that makes it part of the laws of the United States of America,
> where epistemological arguments are not allowed to make an individuals
> rights disappear in a puff of smoke.
>
> If it isn't useful or doesn't work, it is not valuable to anybody, hence
> cannot be bought and sold, hence cannot be intellectual property.
In other words, bozo, you're full of shit. Neither copyright treaties
nor US copyright laws require that something work to be protected. In
fact, by default, everything is copyrighted and copyrightable when it's
written -- and there have to be special exceptions to the law to change
that (either in the law or in the choices made by the author).
If you have evidence to the contrary, present it, or shut up ...
because you have no facts.
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Too expensive, too invasive
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 12:40:27 GMT
Richard Thrippleton wrote:
>
> In article <nk3z6.60821$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chronos Tachyon wrote:
> >On Thu 05 Apr 2001 01:15, 667 Neighbor of the Beast wrote:
> >
> >> Chad Everett wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, 05 Apr 2001 17:26:57 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason
> >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> >Oddly enough, and I still haven't figured out quite why, but there are a
> >>> >number of sites which don't seem to render _at all_ using NS4.6 under
> >>> >Linux, but happily render with NS4 under Windows, and also render quite
> >>> >happily with other browsers (IE, konqueror, opera, etc.)
> >>
> >> What is Konqueror?
> >
> >Konqueror is the web browser that comes with KDE. In KDE 1.x, Konqueror
> >was little more than a file manager that happened to be able to have a
> >grasp of HTML rendering slightly more advanced than lynx. However, modern
> >Konqueror is actually a real contender as a replacement for Netscape 4.x
> >under Linux. They finally fixed some irritating 2.0 UI bugs in KDE 2.1,
> >and the Javascript support has been progressing steadily with each version.
> >I use it as my primary browser these days, since it is much faster than
> >Mozilla yet has almost Mozilla-level support of HTML 4.0, CSS 2, Java, and
> >Javascript.
> Sounds tempting. I don't particularly want to run the KDE desktop,
> but would it be possible to just compile KDE support libraries for Konqueror
> to use, without subverting my system to the will of KDE?
>
I made a quick test under Mandrake 7.2, where I have a
number of different desktops available.
If you run Konqueror under Sawfish, it will load kdeinit (34
MB) and kdm (15 MB) besides konqueror (12 MB).
The desktop isn't affected, the window look is that of
Sawfish, but kdeinit and kdm remain loaded after you exit
konqueror, and you must terminate them manually.
As a comparison, using KDE desktop, you find that kdeinit is
almost 100 MB, while kdm and Konqueror keep the same size.
The answer apparently is: if you want to use konqueror, you
must add a kde desktop to your system (in order to have
kdeinit and kdm properly set up), but you may avoid using
it.
--
Giuliano Colla
Before activating the tongue, make sure that the brain is
connected (anonymous)
------------------------------
From: chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 13:06:29 GMT
"Roger Perkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>International law allows for war. You may not like it, but it's legal. And
>that is the point. You don't like it. Do you see killing to stop Hitler as
>immoral?
Good 'ol Adolph. Always there for a "worst case" example.
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Something like Install Shield for Linux?
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 15:08:07 +0200
Ok,
Thanks for the supportive words everyone. I think I can get this thing
going as a nice learning project. I'll be starting this weekend.
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: "Alex Chaihorsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.
Date: 06 Apr 2001 13:08:38 GMT
Reply-To: "Alex Chaihorsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Grey Clod wrote:
> Maybe Erb is a victim of revisionist historians.
I do not mind discussing things with revisionists. They address the
arguments and the best man wins.
No, this is an old, boring Commie trick that they learned since Lenin
discussed things with Plechanov - totally ignore the arguments and move to a
new territory.
In tank tactics it is called front maneuvering. "To avoid centers of
resistance without taking the battle".
Works wonders for tank attacks. Work wonders for Democrat voters with low
IQ. Waste of time here.
Cheers,
Alex Chaihorsky
Reno. NV
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
