Linux-Misc Digest #204, Volume #19 Sat, 27 Feb 99 09:13:09 EST
Contents:
Looking for a cross-compiler (javierlt)
Re: lilo prob ("Nick Warrington")
Re: Clueless newbie modem question (Jet)
Re: enlightenment ("Nick Warrington")
Re: Program to generate the Makefile? ("David Z. Maze")
Re: Mysterious CPU load. (Marco Tephlant)
Re: Pentium III Boycott and survey info (mlw)
Managing X windows ("Paul Davies")
Re: Consumer Poll Says Microsoft Is Good For Consumers (Mayor Of R'lyeh)
Re: sed? 'nuff said. ("David Z. Maze")
Re: Consumer Poll Says Microsoft Is Good For Consumers (Mayor Of R'lyeh)
wysiwyg html editor (Clovis Sena)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: javierlt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help
Subject: Looking for a cross-compiler
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 12:46:14 +0000
I�m looking for a cross-compiler for C++
Any help will be apreciated.
Thanks
--
for answer leave xxx in my email
------------------------------
From: "Nick Warrington" <nick@(NOSPAM_TA_VERY_MUCH)majikman.demon.co.uk>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: lilo prob
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 11:15:54 -0000
Nic Coe wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Hi Nick
>
>i think that dos based OS' (95,98,NT) have to at least have their boot
files on
>the primary master otherwise they won't boot....also they must be on a
partition
>that begins before the 2Gb mark....
>
>with a little disk juggling, possibly making the linux disk the secondary
master
>you should be alright
>
>hope this is of some help
>
>Nic
Thanks Nic
I suspected as much. I shall have to give some thought as to how I will go
about it.
Regards
Nick
------------------------------
From: Jet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Clueless newbie modem question
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 03:52:14 -0800
Thanks. Looks like it's back to the store with it.
J
Micha� Kuratczyk wrote:
>
> Jet wrote:
> >I have a BTC 56K modem with a PCtel PCT388P chipset. I'm using RH 5.2.
> >I used modemtool to configure the port. When I start minicom, it shows
> >the initializing modem message, then the terminal screen. When I try to
> >dial, the timer starts up, but nothing happens. No sound, no dial tone,
> >no error messages.
> >
> >Any idea what might be going on? Thanks. Be gentle, I'm a newbie.
> Probably it is winmodem, so it works only under windows.
>
> --
> Micha� Kuratczyk
--
The human brain is the most incredible structure in the universe.
Yeah, but look what came to that conclusion.
email me at jetgal at earthlink dot net
------------------------------
From: "Nick Warrington" <nick@(NOSPAM_TA_VERY_MUCH)majikman.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: enlightenment
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 11:20:50 -0000
Dan Nguyen wrote in message <7b841j$3cq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Nick Warrington <nick@(NOSPAM_TA_VERY_MUCH)majikman.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>: I am trying to compile the glib library on a newley installed Linux
System.
>: It will not compile because make complains about a missing header file
>: dlfnc.h. The error goes something like '
>
>Make sure you have all the development packages installed from your
>distribution.
>
>
>
>--
> Dan Nguyen | There is only one happiness in
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | life, to love and be loved.
>http://www.cse.msu.edu/~nguyend7 | -George Sand
>
Thanks for the reply Dan.
I considered whether this might be the case. I have checked and there isnt
anything obvious that I havnt installed. (In fact there isnt much at all I
havnt installed from the CD). I have checked the docs that come with glib
and I can not find any dependencies for it. I am still baffled. If there is
anything left, I will install it, but I dont hold much hope.
Thanks again
Nick
------------------------------
From: "David Z. Maze" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Program to generate the Makefile?
Date: 27 Feb 1999 07:30:07 -0500
steven nie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
SN> I know the imake and configure can be used to generate Makefile.
SN> Is there any other choice?
Well, you can also use automake/autoconf. IMHO automake is much
easier to use than imake. The downside is that you also get autoconf,
which I unfortunately seem to have acquired zen for. *sigh*
You also can (and should) bite the bullet and just learn how Make
works. It's not that difficult, and you can create a simple makefile
fairly quickly once you start to understand what's going on.
--
David Maze [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://donut.mit.edu/dmaze/
"Hey, Doug, do you mind if I push the Emergency Booth Self-Destruct Button?"
"Oh, sure, Dave, whatever...you _do_ know what that does, right?"
------------------------------
From: Marco Tephlant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mysterious CPU load.
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 12:05:09 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dan Nguyen wrote:
> Daniel Sladic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : I recently upgraded my system to a K6-2 350 based board and
> : noticed the following very strange problem. If I leave my system
> : alone, the CPU load will jump to 30%. Over the next 5 to 10 minutes
> : it will slowly drop to near 0% and then jump back to 30%. Using
> : top the two processes that are doing this are the X server (Mach64)
> : and Windowmaker.
>
> Probably have a cron job doing something, or some other sleeping
> process wakes to do something.
>
I too get disturbed by Cron thrashing my hard disk for about 10 minutes
each day. It emails me saying it's backed up something, but how can I
examine exactly what its doing and add my own jobs?
--
Marco
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Pentium III Boycott and survey info
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 11:41:22 +0000
Anthony D. Tribelli wrote:
> : The 80286, once flipped into protected mode, was not able to return to
> : realmode without a reset, this instruction, nicknamed hyperspace, was
> : used to allow OS/2 1.x to implement a DOS box. I don't see how they
> : could have removed it without breaking a all of the 16 bit protectd mode
> : stuff.
>
> I don't think there was a reset instruction, documented or otherwise. I
> believe the keyboard microcontroller was asked to reset the main CPU, and
> BIOS could recongnize a cold or warm boot and possibly jump to a location
> specified in RAM (to resume where things left off rather than FFFF:FFF0).
> To expand on your brief mention of 'kernel space', a protected mode OS
> (WinNT and Linux, maybe Win9x) can prevent user programs from doing this
> sort of thing.
>
Sorry, you are wrong. OS/2 1/x was a 16 bit protected mode operating
system. There was an undocumented instruction that is not in most
assemblers, but can be coded with db or emit. The instruction was put on
the chip so test program written by Intel could put the processor into
protected mode and take it back out again.
It is this instruction that Microsoft used to enable its DOS box in OS/2
1.x. I'm pretty sure it is a protected instruction, so a program would
have to be in an unprotected environment, such as Windows 9x or kernel
space in NT. The problem with the instruction was that it clobbered some
range of memory, I think 40H.
I have to remember where I have seen it. I bet Dr Dobbs has an old piece
on it.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit the Mohawk Software website: www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Paul Davies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Managing X windows
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 10:51:26 -0000
I generally have alot of xwindows open during my development session and
find them hard to manage.
Are there any tools available which allow you to 'tile' or 'cascade' the x
windows so they are easy to manage?
Any help appreciated
Paul
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mayor Of R'lyeh)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Consumer Poll Says Microsoft Is Good For Consumers
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 12:47:39 GMT
On Tue, 23 Feb 1999 10:01:53 -0800, Arthur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> chose to
bless us all with this bit of wisdom:
>Mayor Of R'lyeh wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> The point is that even if the car had the device in place, in that
>> particular case the car would have burst into flame anyway. It had no
>> gas cap on. Gas came up through the fill nozzle. It was hit by a Chevy
>> van going 70 mph. Ford's tests showed that the device wouldn't have
>> stood up to that. Then Ford would have sued for not putting the gas
>> cap between the axles. Except the tests showed that even if the tank
>> were placed there it still would have ruptured.
>
>You may have the facts right in the instance cited where 3 women
>died - you haven't cited any source.
Look it up if you don't believe me.
> Michael did cite one source
>for an out of court settlement in a different case involving the
>Pinto gas tank.
Micheal cited one Ford report and then deliberately misinterpreted it.
> I don't have a verifiable source to cite either,
>other than I recall there were more than these two cases. I do
>recall that Ford was not found negligent in the case you're citing.
>My guess (and it's only a guess) is that they settled out of
>court in a number of other cases.
AIRC Ford was found negligent but it was overturned. What's so bad
about settling out of cout? You seem to be implying that there's
something sinister about it.
>
>> So then Ford would
>> have been sued for not having self-sealing cas tanks, etc. There's
>> ALWAYS going to be 'one more thing' that could have been done to
>> improve safety. At some point you have to do a trade off with regard
>> to price. Having the ultimately safe vehicle for sale does you no good
>> if no one can afford to buy it.
>
>I don't think anyone's suggesting that mfgs are liable for every
>instance of death or injury.
Micheal is.
> On the other hand, people should be
>able to have a reasonable expectation of a certain level of safety
>during common use. Tail-end collisions are common. No other auto
>mfg at the time had problems with tanks rupturing in tail-end
>collisions.
No one had a problem at all. There were a few spectactular accidents
and everyone jumped to conclusions. The Pinto gas tank wasn't anymore
apt to rupture in a rear end collision than any other cars. That's the
urban myth I was talking about. A lot of people, to this day, think
that if you kick a Pinto hard the gas tank will rupture.
You may want to look up the GM pickups and side saddle gas tanks. NBC
was so eager to try and defame GM over them that they faked accidents
that showed that those would 'explode'. NBC's lies exposed the issue
for what it was- a shakedown of a company by a bunch of greedy
miscreants and the issue went away.
> Ford doesn't have this problem now. It's likely that
>Ford was aware of the possibility of the gas tank rupturing,
In a high speed rear end collision. I'm sure they were. So is every
other car manufacturer.
> and
>it in fact occurred in more than one instance. That all suggests
>to me that Ford behaved unreasonably in this specific instance.
Ford got put on the hot seat. It was all based on emotionalism. What
got everything started was those three women doing something
monumentally stupid and getting killed doing it. Up until then there
weren't any problems with Pinto gas tanks.
>
>> > Mayor> automakers are in a no-win situation. They are going to be
>> > Mayor> sued after an accident. Usually because they have much more
>> > Mayor> money than the person who actually caused it. They have
>> > Mayor> accepted this as a cost of doing business. What your report
>> > Mayor> is actually an attempt to balance those costs. So long as
>> > Mayor> people are more interested in turning a buck from ever
>> > Mayor> traffic accident instead of getting the bad drivers off the
>> > Mayor> road that's the way it will be. As far as cold-blooded
>> >
>> >Your unproven assumptions are riding on their rims. Bad drivers do
>> >not create exploding gas tanks.
>>
>> The gas tanks did not explode. They ruptured; the gas spilled/sprayed
>> out and caught fire. That's not an explosion.
>
>Semantics - people still ended up dead or badly burned.
There is a world of difference between an explosion and a rupture.
>
>> Not one of the gas tanks spontaneously ruptured. They ruptured after
>> they were damaged in a collision. Usually a high speed collision. I
>> believe the lowest speed was around 35 mph. Its my opinion that
>> drivers who cause high speed collisions are bad drivers. Maybe not all
>> the time but in this one instance they were spectactularly bad
>> drivers. Feel free to argue otherwise if you wish but I think you'll
>> find it to be a tough sell.
>
>Only the Ford Pinto appears to have had this problem,
Ford's tests showed that a great many other cars had this problem as
well. There simply is no way to make a 100% safe car. Why can't you
accept the obvious?
> and it
>appears to have resulted from a conscious decision on Ford's
>part. I don't believe speeds approaching 35 mph were required
>either, but I don't have any evidence to cite to the contrary
>(and apparently you don't have anything to cite either).
Why don't you cite something to the contrary then? This case wasn't
that long ago. It is easily remembered.
>
>> > Immoral men do put earnings ahead of human life.
>>
>> Sure they do. Not nearly as often people want to think though. The
>> notion that going into business makes you some sort of cold-blooded
>> fiend is just absurd. Business people are human beings with all of the
>> concerns and conscience that anybody else has. They do make easy
>> targets for those unwilling to accept resonsibility for their own
>> lives. (I can't get ahead. Its those evil business people holding the
>> little guy down! Its not my fault that I got burned! If those evil
>> business people had made my car safer I could had pulled that idiotic
>> maneuver, caused that accident and just walked away!)
>
>Nice rant, but it doesn't change the fact that Ford probably made
>conscious decisions that resulted in loss of life.
Like what? Like not making a 100% safe car? They couldn't do it no
matter what you and the other naderites want to believe.
> Are you suggesting
>that because sometimes (or even most of the time) it's really the
>consumer who's reponsible that businesses should _never_ be held
>responsible when they are at fault?
Why should a company be responsible for your actions with their
product? If you cause a wreck its your fault. Just because you were
driving a Ford doesn't make it Ford's fault.
>Are you suggesting that major
>corporations like Ford are at the mercy of evil consumers, unable
>to defend themselves?
Are you suggesting that its ok to sue everyone under the sun when you
screw up instead of accepting the responsibility yourself?
>
>[snip PCB story]
>
>And this PCB story excuses Ford's actions how? It's also
>possible to cite cases where business was at fault and
>did behave in a fradulent or willfully negligent manner,
>which also doesn't make any difference to the specifics
>of a particular instance of behavior.
I'd like to see some of them. And remember, I'm looking for incidents
where a business actually behaved that way not one where you
interpreted them as behaving that way.
>
>> >
>> > Mayor> goes, if you really want to see that in action then you
>> > Mayor> need look no further than the lawyers and their clients
>> > Mayor> attempting to profiteer from the deaths and injuries of
>> > Mayor> their freinds and loved ones. While every one has their
>> > Mayor> hands out to the auto companies the driver that caused the
>> > Mayor> accident is usually out driving in his/her piss poor manner
>> > Mayor> again. But no one cares because they're pockets aren't very
>> > Mayor> deep.
>> >
>> >You need to cut back on your consumption of the Jerry Springer show.
>> >It's leading you to all sorts of undemonstrable assertions.
>>
>> Ad hominums show that you have run out of logic and facts. If you
>> actually believe that the guy with the deepest pockets, no matter how
>> far out on the periphery of the case he may be, is the one that gets
>> sued the most to be an 'undemonstrable assertion' then I've got to
>> question how close you pay attention to things.
>
>Why exactly is 'profiteering' by lawyers and clients worse than
>'profiteering' done by companies who knowingly place their
>customers lives in jeopardy?
> Or are you suggesting the latter
>never happens?
>
>Arthur
You think its alright to sue people who aren't at fault for something
just to collect money? How exposing of your naderite tendencies!
"That is not dead which can eternal lie,
And with strange aeons even death may die."
- Abdul Alhazred, Necronomicon
------------------------------
From: "David Z. Maze" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: sed? 'nuff said.
Date: 27 Feb 1999 08:21:44 -0500
Harry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Harry> Out of sheer stubborness I'm trying to write a sed script to
Harry> filter my e-mail archive. I could have written the thing by now
Harry> in C, but I've started with sed and I'm not giving up.
Perhaps you could try doing this in Perl. While sed is probably
powerful enough to do what you want, for anything more powerful than
the 's' command I almost always use some other language...
Harry> Can someone explain the use of curly braces in sed? I've tried
Harry> using them as you'd use them in C, but keep gettina an
Harry> "unmatched "{" error".
Going by the dc.sed example script (this is gunzipped? Wow...) if
looks like the { and } might need to be on the same line. For
example, the line
/./{ s/.//; p; }
appears in the file in one of its less obscure bits.
--
David Maze [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://donut.mit.edu/dmaze/
"Hey, Doug, do you mind if I push the Emergency Booth Self-Destruct Button?"
"Oh, sure, Dave, whatever...you _do_ know what that does, right?"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mayor Of R'lyeh)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Consumer Poll Says Microsoft Is Good For Consumers
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 13:18:47 GMT
On 23 Feb 1999 10:49:47 -0800, Michael Powe
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> chose to bless us all with this bit of
wisdom:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>>>>>> "Mayor" == Mayor Of R'lyeh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Mayor> On 22 Feb 1999 23:23:18 -0800, Michael Powe
> Mayor> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> chose to bless us all with this
> Mayor> bit of wisdom:
>
> >> Even if this were true (your "blame the victim" argument), it
> >> has nothing to do with your assertion that the problem with
> >> Pinto gas tanks was "urban legend."
>
> Mayor> The point is that even if the car had the device in place,
> Mayor> in that particular case the car would have burst into flame
> Mayor> anyway. It had no gas cap on. Gas came up through the fill
> Mayor> nozzle. It was hit by a Chevy van going 70 mph. Ford's
> Mayor> tests showed that the device wouldn't have stood up to
>
>No, the point is that Ford knowingly put a poorly designed product on
>the market and as a direct result of that poor design, people were
>injured and people died.
No Ford put a device that wasn't 100% safe on the market. Of course
they couldn't no matter what but don't let that get in the way of your
ranting. You want to see something? Go out to your driveway. Look at
your car. You know what? It isn't 100% safe either. Who are you going
to sue?
> The people at Ford knew that individuals
>would die as a result of their actions. Now, you can talk all around
>that point all you want; it's not going to go away.
Ford and every other car company knows people are going to die in
their cars. Aspirin companies know that their products are going to
kill some people as well. So what? Should we quit making everything
because somebody, somewhere is going to die by using it? Your demands
for a 100% safe world are unreasonable and absurd. You can wave that
report that you are deliberately misinterpretting all you what. It
won't change that fact.
>
> Mayor> automakers are in a no-win situation. They are going to be
> Mayor> sued after an accident. Usually because they have much more
>
>Perhaps you have some evidence that automotive companies are sued
>after every accident. Or, perhaps, you're only claiming that Ford
>Motor Company is sued after every accident -- so, how about some proof
>for that contention?
I don't believe I said after every accident.
>
> >> Your unproven assumptions are riding on their rims. Bad
> >> drivers do not create exploding gas tanks.
>
> Mayor> The gas tanks did not explode. They ruptured; the gas
> Mayor> spilled/sprayed out and caught fire. That's not an
>
>Alright, a poor choice of words on my part. However, the difference
>between "exploded" and "ruptured, leaked and burst into flames" is
>trivial.
Have you ever seen a large volume of gasoline explode? I have. The
difference between exploding and leaking out and burning is far from
trivial.
>
> >> Immoral men do put earnings ahead of human life.
>
> Mayor> Sure they do. Not nearly as often people want to think
> Mayor> though. The notion that going into business makes you some
> Mayor> sort of cold-blooded fiend is just absurd. Business people
> Mayor> are human beings with all of the concerns and conscience
> Mayor> that anybody else has. They do make easy targets for those
>
>Not absurd at all. I remember some time back, listening to a business
>"theorist" on a radio talk show. He was talking about the Ben & Jerry
>ice cream company. B & J has always been known for their insistence
>on contributing a percentage of their profits to a number of political
>and social causes; and the company also has always stipulated that a
>certain minimum percentage of their raw materials would be purchased
>from their Vermont compatriots, even though this drove up costs.
>Anyway, after B & J went public, this "theorist" was explaining how
>the company could no longer "in good conscience" continue to make
>these purchases because it was now the responsibility of the corporate
>managers to look out after the stockholders, not the Vermont farmers
>who had always provided so much of the milk used in the ice cream. To
>continue to buy the more expensive Vermont dairy products would be
>"irresponsible."
So? Why is buying milk form the farmers of say Washington state or
central Michigan or even Central America immoral but buying it from
the farmers of Vermont not?
>
>The corporatists simply redefine the meaning of the word
>"responsibility" to exclude all factors other than quarterly
>earnings. A redefinition with which you seem to agree.
Like it or not, the purpose of a company is to make money. Its not
there to funnel money to social causes or prop up overpriced
suppliers. Despite you naderite rantings there's still nothing wrong
with turning a buck.
>
>Now, in the real world, I have seen this kind of behavior in action.
>People whom you are accustomed to think of as decent and honorable
>will, at the slightest turn of the screw, carry out abominable actions
>on behalf of their company -- because "it's my job." Back during the
>Reagan years, when there was a lot of contention about the
>government's anti-Sandinista activities, there were frequent votes in
>the Congress about various aspects of this behavior. A day or so
>before a critical vote was to be taken, a national political
>cartoonist (whose name slips me but I think it was MacNelly) turned
>out a cartoon which showed the Congressmen passing through the
>Cloakroom and checking in their spines before entering the Chamber to
>vote. This would be a good analogy for the corporatists, also.
It must gall you that the people of Nicaragua got rid of the
Sandinistas as soon as they could! It seems that the only people who
thought they were great were you and other American socialists.
Corporate headfs make many tough decisions every day. If they didn't
have their spines they wouldn't be able to function.
>
> Mayor> unwilling to accept resonsibility for their own lives. (I
>
>Not surprisingly, you make a big deal of "personal" responsibility but
>deny that a corporation has any responsibility for knowingly releasing
>a dangerous product onto the market.
So long as you continue to define 'dangerous' as not 100% safe you're
going to find plenty of dangerous products to rant about.
> Yet, that decision was made by
>individuals who are protected from the danger of having to take any
>responsibility for their actions -- such protection being the whole
>purpose of incorporation.
What a giveaway! If their was any doubt of your naderite/socialist
roots you managed to dispell them with that one line of BS.
>
> Mayor> can't get ahead. Its those evil business people holding the
> Mayor> little guy down! Its not my fault that I got burned! If
> Mayor> those evil business people had made my car safer I could
> Mayor> had pulled that idiotic maneuver, caused that accident and
> Mayor> just walked away!)
>
>Ah, the old "blame the victim" song again. One of your favorites, I
>can tell. Yep, if only people weren't stupid enough to expect a
>company to act responsibly in its product development and release.
By your naderite definitions no company has ever done anything right
or responsibly.
>
> Mayor> employee of this plant came forward with a tale of woe. He
> Mayor> claimed that the company had given him some insulation from
> Mayor> a defective transformer that had been scrapped. He claimed
> Mayor> that the company had assured him that this insulation was
> Mayor> safe. He had used this insulation in his house. Now he and
> Mayor> his family were suffering all kinds of health problems form
> Mayor> the PCBs in the oil in the insulation.. One of our local
>
>[ story snipped ]
>
>There's no inductive reasoning involved here. One story or a hundred
>will not demonstrate your assertion that all product liability
>lawsuits against corporations are frivilous.
Again, I never said all. I'm willing to bet that at least 99% of them
are miscreants looking for easy money though.
>
> Mayor> Ad hominums show that you have run out of logic and
> Mayor> facts. If you actually believe that the guy with the
> Mayor> deepest pockets, no matter how far out on the periphery of
> Mayor> the case he may be, is the one that gets sued the most to
> Mayor> be an 'undemonstrable assertion' then I've got to question
> Mayor> how close you pay attention to things.
>
>Beyond an anecdote about somebody who you think (but don't know for
>sure) was pulling a scam, where are your facts?
I'm 100% sure he was pulling a scam. I don't know how you came to any
other conclusion.
> It is certainly a
>fact that the Pinto case, which was originally used as an example of
>corporate irresponsibility, was not an "urban legend," as you claimed;
To this day many people believe that a Pinto is a dangerous car. It is
not..at least not any more dangerous than any other.
>but instead, was a number of cases in which Ford was found culpable
>for releasing an unsafe product.
Based on emotionalisms and not facts.
> Their own internal document showed
>that they knew the car was unsafe!
A deliberate misinterpretation! That document shows that they knew it
wasn't 100% safe. There are similar documents for every other product.
Their is no 100% safe product. Life is full of risks. Why can't you
accept the obvious?
> Yet, you continue to deny that
>that document -- which is a fact as big as house -- has any bearing on
>the matter.
Perhaps if you went by what it actually says instead of what you wish
it says you'd see things clearly.
> I haven't run out of facts; but what good are facts in a
>discussion with a person who blindly worships at the altar of
>Business? Since it is your uttered opinion that Business should not
>be held responsible for its actions, no amount of facts will have any
>impact.
Maybe if you'd use some....I see no point in carrying on. You insist
on demonizing everyone who disagrees with you while repeating the same
old naderite lies. It obvious that you hate all free market business
activity and wish it be stopped. Your demands for a 100% safe world
are unreasonable and irrational.
"That is not dead which can eternal lie,
And with strange aeons even death may die."
- Abdul Alhazred, Necronomicon
------------------------------
From: Clovis Sena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: wysiwyg html editor
Date: 27 Feb 1999 13:31:29 GMT
I would like to know of a good program for web design, like frontpage or
claris home page. there is some for linux? I was looking for in many sites
but could not find. I am not happy cause i am working in developping a web
site and i have to do that in windows.
I heard that startoffice has a good tool, but unfortunately i dont have it.
XEmacs does this job??
Thanks for any help you'll give me.
Clovis Sena
================== Posted via SearchLinux ==================
http://www.searchlinux.com
------------------------------
** 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 (and comp.os.linux.misc) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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-Misc Digest
******************************
