Linux-Advocacy Digest #434, Volume #33 Sat, 7 Apr 01 15:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing? (Salvador Peralta)
Re: Screaming wannbie new users. (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Q:Windows NT scripting? ("Mike")
Re: Stupid error message (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a luser... (was Re:
Chinese airforce adopted Win2k infrastructure) (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (Dave Martel)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (Dave Martel)
Re: XP = eXPerimental (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (silverback)
Re: NT is stagnant while Linux explodes (Dave Martel)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing?
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 10:33:47 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Goldhammer quoth:
... snip...
What you have shown is that it's pretty easy to decontextualize and
misreperesent, or outright contrive statements by three of the most
influential thinkers of the 19th century in a flippant way and make
yourself look like an arrogant boob in the process.
"Such genius!"
Kudos.
--
Salvador Peralta -o)
Programmer/Analyst, Webmaster / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Screaming wannbie new users.
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 17:25:10 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Martigan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 06 Apr 2001 15:41:49 GMT
<1tlz6.9715$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> O.k. I have been hearing from some new users that Linux is too hard to
>learn. Why? Does it take a little more brain power? YES! Does it give
>us more options and choices? YES!
>
> Hell I was at a SMALL computer show,
Just out of curiosity, are you referring to (small computer) show or
small (computer show)? :-) My experience with computer shows is that
they tend to be rather large affairs, held in such places as Moscone
Center in San Francisco. (I can't think of an equivalent location
in Rome or other parts of Italy ('.it').) However, I've also been
to computer flea markets.
>Siemens (sp?) was trying to show
>off their wireless networking, on two win NT 4.0 machines. But failed they
>kept locking up.
SNAFU, apparently. :-)
>
> Sun was showing their Network "Service" on a Solaris Term, and a Win Nt
>term. , the Win NT term kept locking up.
>
> Cisco laughed when I said "Why don't you run Win NT?"
>
> So the Big companies run Linux/Unix, or BSD.
>
> If the companies a using them what should that tell you? That they are
>cheap basterds that wanna save money? If so then why did so many servers
>get taken down with "i love you. txt.vbs"? And many companies are still
>fight the VBS scare.
Which is still out there; they're not hard to write at all, apparently.
Regrettably, the person who captured a copy of the Melissa virus has
since left my employer, and the listing is missing, although I
strongly suspect someone else has posted it on the Internet somewhere.
(Perhaps McAfee has a copy? An interesting notion, albeit a
frightening one if some enterprising young hacker decides to copy
or modify it and send it out into the wild -- again!)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- windows NT/Outlook makes it soooooo easy sometimes... :-)
EAC code #191 1d:19h:56m actually running Linux.
The US gov't spends about $54,000/second. I wish I could.
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Q:Windows NT scripting?
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 17:33:10 GMT
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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
HTML is a problem if you want to print the file, so it tends to work
reasonably well for online docs, but not very well otherwise.
Converting Word to PDF is usually not a problem. If you have the full PDF
package, you can use the Word viewer to print to PDF. Otherwise, you can
write to a postscript file, then use the PS2PDF conversion utility that
comes with ghostscript.
To verify this, I just did the following: load a postscript printer driver
onto my Win2k machine, open lccwin32.doc with Word (not the viewer, since I
have the full program), printed lccwin32.doc to a file (lccwin32.ps) using
the PS driver, then ran ps2pdf.bat. Ps2pdf converted 228 pages in around ten
seconds. A quick scan with Acrobat turned up no problems, although I didn't
check everything. I printed out a few pages, and they appear fine.
The only issue seems to be that the fonts used by ps2pdf don't render very
well on the screen. The text appears poorly aligned, with lots of aliasing.
That appears to be just a screen problem, though. The printed version looks
fine.
In general, I've had good success with the ps2pdf converter (although a few
lines of the batch file have to be modified for W2K, and the author no
longer seems to exist, so there's no way to get the patches merged back into
the source). The main problem I've run into is that B size pages don't seem
to convert correctly, but that wasn't a problem in the user manual. I
haven't tried converting documents with combinations of rotated and
non-rotated pages, so I don't know how that would work.
As another alternative, you could try using StarOffice. I've generally found
that StarOffice is not very compatible with Word files, but in this case it
does a credible job. There were a few formatting issues, mainly in tables,
where column widths in Word are adequate to hold a word, but in Star the
word doesn't fit and the last few characters get put on the next row [*].
The result of various translation differences is that the Word document has
228 pages, and the Star version has 222 pages. Star is also horribly,
excruciatingly slow... (the folks on cola have said that's just a problem
with the Windows version of Star).
I also saved the Star version of the file in ps format and converted to pdf,
again with no conversion problems. The format oddities in Star converted
perfectly to format oddities in the final pdf file.
-- Mike --
[*] Here's some real strangeness: I open lccwin32.doc in Word and Star,
paste the offending table from Word to Star, and the formatting is correct.
I pasted the table from Word just above the incorrectly formatted table in
Star, and the table pasted from Word looks fine, while the table read by
Star comes out wrong, even though the column widths, fonts, and font sizes
are exactly the same.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Stupid error message
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 17:33:21 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Bob Nelson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 05 Apr 2001 08:11:31 GMT
<TMVy6.3510$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Henry_Barta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Neil Cerutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> The name specified is not recognized as an
>>> internal or external command, operable program or batch file.
>
>>> Is there any other operating system in the world with such a
>>> stupid and needlessly verbose error message?
>
>> "Press any key to abort or any other key to continue"
>
>...and this from mgetty (snipped from syslog):
>
>Apr 5 03:05:16 renpen mgetty[1669]: wfr: error in read(): Success
I wonder if this sort of thing would show up if a pty or tty were
replaced by a 0-length file...? That is a bit bizarre, admittedly,
to the naive user.
(Side note: ptys are now mounted -- /dev/pts is the mountpoint --
so it would be impossible to wipe them out. The idea is similar
to the /proc pseudofilesystem, AFAICT.)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 1d:20h:22m actually running Linux.
Hi. I'm a signature virus.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 17:35:35 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Dave Martel
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Wed, 04 Apr 2001 05:18:10 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 18:01:00 +0100, Toby A Inkster Esq
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>I also know that I can kill Win98 by a careful combination of
>>connecting by WinModem to the net, forcibly killing (by alt-ctrl-del)
>>the dialer and then checking my mail with Netscape. It works almost
>>without fail and the only way to recover is by hitting reset. I think
>>even Gates himself wouldn't count this as a "feature". It's a crash,
>>although totally expected by myself, given the number of times I've
>>had to kill the MS dialer because it was hanging.
>>
>
><www.autometer.com> locks up my Win98SE hard every time I try to
>access it using Netscape Navigator v4.08. I've got Netscape configured
>to ignore java, javascript, and activeX, but it shouldn't matter
>because my adblocker also removes all three.
>
>Is this any way to run an operating system?
It must work for *somebody*. Microsoft made oodles of moolah.... :-)
(This doesn't mean it worked well, just well enough for people and
companies to shell out hard-earned otherwise-destined-for-profit $$$
for licenses to use it. Hmm....does the fault lie in the OS, or in
our knowledge thereof?)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 1d:20h:26m actually running Linux.
We are all naked underneath our clothes.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a luser... (was
Re: Chinese airforce adopted Win2k infrastructure)
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 17:45:23 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Stephen S. Edwards II
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 5 Apr 2001 15:14:31 GMT
<9ai24n$4nd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>: "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>
>: > Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>: >
>: > : Charles Lyttle wrote:
>: >
>: > : > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
>: > : >> How else do you explain a quick, nimble fighter jet colliding with
>: > : >> a slow, lumbering patrol plane in clear weather.
>
>: > : > The patrol plane cheated. It had 4 engines with propellers.
>: > : > Mao proved that such a thing couldn't fly.
(Side note: I could see Mao proving that he couldn't fly
such a thing... :-) )
>
>: > : No, not really.
>: > : The Chinese plane used Aaron�s self written
>: > : multiuser/multitasking system
>: >
>: > You mean, Aaron's operating system that uses his
>: > PatentedHighlyTechnicalThingies(tm) in it? Yeah,
>: > that's one sweet operating system. My favorite
>: > feature is the high-end stuff that it has in it.
>: >
>: > Of course, in the spirit of Kulkan logic, I'm
>: > using words like "thingies" and "stuff", because
>: > they are things that I know that I know about, and
>: > I don't care to discuss them, because that would
>: > be childish. Oh, and I fought the Japanese Empire
>: > in WWII as well. Piloted a P-51 Mustang, I did.
>: >
>: > </SARCASM>
>: >
>: > Anyone who knows about Kulkan logic should find
>: > this at least mildly amusing.
>
>: Awwwwwww, poow widdle windows wuser.....
>
>Explain this entry from your header:
>
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en]C-CCK-MCD {TLC;RETAIL} (Win98; U)
> ^^^^^
Anyone with lots of patience can do the following:
telnet your.favorite.news.server.here nntp
(or 119 if /etc/services is munged, unavailable, or one is using
a non-Unix operating system)
and then issue commands in accordance with RFC977. Note in
particular that X-*: headers are NOT in the spec, just a convention
adopted by a number of emailers. (At least, that's my recollection.)
One of those commands is in fact 'POST'. As long as the
message is in accordance with RFC822, the newsspool will most
likely accept it, permissions, newsgroups, etc. permitting.
It's not hard, just remember the dot. :-) (At the end, that is.)
I could very probably post with something like
X-Mailer: FUBAR SNAFU 1.0-2x/3
using that method.
Now who would care?
(Side point: One can also telnet into IRC servers using similar
methods. That takes even more patience, but that also can be done. :-) )
>Are you going to stick to the claim that this
>is a "forgery" to fool others? I challenge
>you to prove this is so, by posting the
>portion of the already publicly-available source
>code for Mozilla which you have modified to do this.
>Put up, or shut up, soldier boy.
I don't think he's actually using Mozilla; he's using a
modified SLRN, if memory serves. Personally, I'm not
sure it's worth the trouble; security through obscurity
does not work in the cryptographic field and it's unclear
it would work elsewhere, either -- a hacker with access
to sufficient knowledge would probably just try everything
to get into a system. :-)
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 1d:20h:29m actually running Linux.
This is the best part of the message.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 18:00:54 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Goldhammer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 07 Apr 2001 13:18:47 GMT
<XsEz6.45001$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 01:28:15 GMT,
>Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>Meanwhile, Linux is still trying to get
>[]
>>a decent file system that can support >2GB files.
>
>
>Of the three principles of Microsoft-think,
>here we see yet another manifestation of
>the 3rd.
>
>1. A database is a file.
Well, a file *is* a database -- and the term "database" is
slightly stupidly used, anyway; the correct term (IMO, although
I know at least one person who would agree with me)
is "data retrieval system". A file in such a system might be
a "data retrieval system data storage container". Of course, one
could get arbitrarily verbose here. :-)
But yes, you're right; data retrieval systems such as Oracle
are very flexible, and can use files or partitions. Even
Postgres uses multiple files, as I understand it, although
it's not clear to me whether it can handle a relation > 2GB.
I'd have to poke around in its source code... :-)
Of course, everyone uses the term "database"... :-/
>
>2. A portable application is one which can be
>easily carried from one Windows installation
>to another.
Which is actually not that trivial an undertaking, especially
if the item was originally developed using VxDs on Win95, Win98,
or WinME.
>
>3. An OS is something that runs on an x86.
Indeed.
>
>
>--
>Don't think you are. Know you are.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 1d:21h:38m actually running Linux.
This is not a .sig.
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 00:04:25 -0600
On Sat, 07 Apr 2001 13:57:48 GMT, "WGAF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> TCLPro, Corel PhotoPaint, WordPerfect, Snif+, not to mention the usual
>> apps like GIMP and XEmacs. There's bunches more but it's been a long
>> day.
>
>The TCLPro is available for the Windows platform also for the same cost,
>which is free.
Your original statement, to which I was responding and which you
carefully clipped, was:
>You'd have hard time naming some commercial
>grade application for Linux. Even if you do,
>they won't be free.
It doesn't matter that TCLPro, GIMP, and Emacs/XEmacs are also
available free for Windows, they still prove that statement wrong.
>The commercial software like Corel isn't free as I said
>previously. You can have any versions of the Emacs....
Go to <http://linux.corel.com/download/>. You'll find free downloads
of the linux versions of Corel Photopaint 9 and WordPerfect.
>> Slackware and Debian are robust and they're both free. There are
>> indeed some high-priced distro's that approach the cost of an NT
>> license, but those are aimed at the corporate market and most permit
>> an unlimited number of installations.
>
>Which is understandable. To develop a quality distro will cost money and it
Slackware and Debian are quality distro's and they're both free and
both are far from disappearing. I think what you really mean by
"quality" is "a comprehensive package tweaked and supported for a
specific market". Companies buy such packages because it's cheaper
than having a sysadmin spend a week or two gathering applications,
tweaking one of the free distros, and testing/debugging his work. The
total price doesn't have to get very high before it becomes cheaper to
roll their own.
>needs to be recovered, otherwise the distro will disappear. The point is
>that it won't be long when the Linux pricing will go by licensing the
>distros for corporation based upon the number of installation.
I have no problem with that, since the only way a commercial distro
can survive competition from the free ones is to offer value in
proportion to its additional cost. However, the kernel is still linux
and the applications are still open-source and freely downloadable all
over the place, so there's a rather low real-world limit to just how
much additional value any commercial distribution can possibly
deliver.
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 00:06:52 -0600
On Sat, 07 Apr 2001 14:05:24 GMT, "WGAF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Dave Martel wrote:
>>
>> > On Sat, 07 Apr 2001 03:45:47 GMT, "WGAF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > >You'd have hard time naming some commercial
>> > >grade application for Linux. Even if you do, they won't be free.
>> >
>> > TCLPro, Corel PhotoPaint, WordPerfect, Snif+, not to mention the usual
>> > apps like GIMP and XEmacs. There's bunches more but it's been a long
>> > day.
>>
>> Sorry, for a win-advocate (such as WGAF), unless Microsoft produces an
>> application for Linux, then everything else that runs on it must be
>> sub-standard!
>
>As oppose to a lin-advocate for whom quality doesn't matter as long as the
>software isn't from Microsoft, right?
>
You're confusing glitz with quality.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: XP = eXPerimental
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 18:24:46 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Shun Yan Cheung
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 6 Apr 2001 21:53:13 -0400
<9alru9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <9al6fp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>The Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>X-rated Porn?
>
>Are there any non-X-rated Porn ? :-)
There might be some R-rated erotica flitting about. Of course,
that might merely whet the appetite. :-)
(Personally, I prefer the softer stuff, but it's still pretty
X-rated -- a woman without a bra, with perky nipples and breasts
visible through a see-through negligee, for example,
in a suggestive pose.)
>
>--
>``Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly''
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 1d:22h:14m actually running Linux.
This is not a .sig.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (silverback)
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: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 16:36:34 GMT
On Sat, 07 Apr 2001 09:16:29 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>sliverdick wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 06 Apr 2001 19:36:51 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >Mathew wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > "Scott D. Erb" wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > Alex Chaihorsky wrote:
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > "Scott D. Erb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > > However, I suspect Marx would be spinning in
>> >> > > > > > his grave to see his ideas associated with Stalin or Mao. Ideological
>> >> > > > > > development is complex.
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > I have to address this before I address anything else, because I think
>this
>> >> > > > > is pivotal.
>> >> > > > > Marx was a monster. If you read Manifesto you will find:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Marx was naive. He believed that if you got rid of capitalism you could
>have complete
>> >> > > liberty, the state would whither away, you would end exploitation. He was
>motivated
>> >> > > by the industrial slums, and how horrid the workers were paid. He wanted
>the workers
>> >> > > to rise up against that, and believed if they did they could collectively
>control the
>> >> > > means of production and everyone would be better off.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > And yet, you still promote the policies based on the theories of this
>> >> > man WHO YOU HAVE JUST ADMITTED was a fool.
>> >>
>> >> And you promoted dealing with a totalitarian facist fundamentalist Iran.
>> >> Now tell me how you are not a Commuinist?
>> >
>> >Iran is fascist now....
>> >
>> >Must be some new definition of fascist with which the rest of the
>> >English-speaking is unfamiliar.
>>
>> no Iran is fascist in nature. In fact any theological government is
>> properly classified as fascist.
>
>Once again, Sliverdick proves that he's just throwing out "boogieman"
>terms that he really doesn't know that definition of.
no idiot yer the one that is wrong
>
>
>What part of Islamic theology specifies the vertical integration of
>industry within the country.
fascism is corporate rule dummy. Maybe you should educate yerself and
find out how many of those Iranian corporations are controlled by the
religious allyotahs.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >Or by "fascist" do you merely mean "non-Communist"
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > He was wrong. Dead wrong. Tragically wrong. But there is no way Marx or
>Engels (and
>> >> > > I've read a lot of their private writings, including a lot of Engels stuff
>in the
>> >> > > original German) would have ever supported the kind of brutal tactics of a
>Stalin, Mao
>> >> > > or Pol Pot.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > And yet, you still push for the kinds of policies which can ONLY be
>> >> > successfully implemented by a Stalin, Mao, or Pol P
>> >>
>> >> > Why is that?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > > 1. Complete liquidation of private property
>> >> > > > > 2. Liquidation of the family, introduction of "official, open mutual
>> >> > > > > ownership of wives"
>> >> > > > > 3. Children taken from families are brought up by community (Hillary,
>> >> > > > > hello!)
>> >> > > > > 4. Industrial armies, not employer - employee, (and that is from the guy
>who
>> >> > > > > LOVES proletariat!)
>> >> > > > > 5. Central credit by central banks with total banking monopoly for the
>> >> > > > > State.
>> >> > > > > 6. Age when children start working - 9 years of age (Resolution of Geneva
>> >> > > > > International Congress).
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > If this is not the most monstrous document in the history of the
>> >> > > > > civilization, please, state which one is.
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > This system was implemented four times almost totally - in Hitler's
>> >> > > > > concentration camps, Stalin's GULAG and Mao's re-educational settlements
>and
>> >> > > > > Pol Pots' Cambodia camps.
>> >> > > > > Partially - USSR, Red China, Vietnam, North Korea.
>> >> > > > > Superficially - Poland, E. Germany, Hungary, Mongolia, Czeckoslovakia
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > Why would Marx be spiining other than out of excitment?
>> >> > > > > Typical (I hate this word) socialist attitude - they all have aberrated
>> >> > > > > Marx. NO! THEY DIDN'T!
>> >> > > > > All socialists remain civilized untill they seize the power. Then the
>> >> > > > > Marxist bestiary begins.
>> >> > > > > EVERY TIME.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Marx was fantasizing about what he thought would lead to a utopia. He was
>wrong. He
>> >> > > thought the state would whither away, it didn't. His goal was to end
>alienation and
>> >> > > create perfect liberty, his ideas did not lead that direction. His errors
>were
>> >> > > typical of 19th century social science (over-determination, bad
>predictions), and
>> >> > > ultimately the errors in his theories helped lead to the kinds of horror you
>> >> > > describe. But to demonize Marx personally because of that is simply
>misguided, and of
>> >> > > course irrelevant.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > At the very least now Social Democrats and most leftists recognize that the
>vision of
>> >> > > "scientific socialism" espoused by Lenin and the Communists was not only
>wrong, but
>> >> > > evil in its actions. Social Democracy does not lead to the kind of evil you
>> >> > > describe. Sweden has no gulags, Norway is not run like Pol Pot's China.
>You're
>> >> > > overstating your case. The danger comes not from Marx, but from any attempt
>to
>> >> > > centralize power to try to shape society without that power being
>accountable to the
>> >> > > people. Marx was dead wrong not to understand or realize that, but I am
>convinced
>> >> > > that he and Engels personally would have been appalled by what later was
>done in their
>> >> > > name. Their theory was a failure, but to demonize them is simply silly.
>> >> > > cheers, scott
>> >> > > http://violet.umf.maine.edu/~erb/
>> >> >
>
>--
>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.
***********************************************
GDY Weasel
emailers remove the spam buster
For those seeking enlightenment visit the White Rose at
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
*********************************************
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT is stagnant while Linux explodes
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 00:24:45 -0600
On Sat, 07 Apr 2001 16:48:24 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(The Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>>Let us not forget that Windows has been stagnant for 3 years. 3 years
>>ago, they were at 39%, now they are at 41%. And that is with the
>>strength of a criminal monopoly being leveraged wildly all the way.
>>If with that built-in guarantee, they still cannot cut it. Linux's
>>momentum is astounding; NT's is basically flat!
>
>Even without the combination, it's still fairly impressive (assuming
>the numbers are accurate) to see Linux grow from essentially nothing
>in 1991 to 27% today.
IDC is only interested in market share. I suspect that the actual
number of linux installations is far, far higher than their figures.
For example, I copied my Slack CD's from a friend (who in turn copied
his CD's from someone else) and am now running Slackware on four
systems.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
