Linux-Advocacy Digest #481, Volume #27 Wed, 5 Jul 00 20:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Where did all my windows go? (Perry Pip)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Re: I hope you trolls are happy... ("Colin R. Day")
Re: VM Ware looks cool.
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Mark Seaborn)
Re: VM Ware looks cool.
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (John Dyson)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (abraxas)
Re: Where did all my windows go? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 22:42:06 GMT
On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 19:07:04 GMT,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip) wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>Why are you telling Leslie this? Has Leslie used these terms? Should
>>we be griping to you about terms like "Linsux" and LIE-nux"??
>
>Maybe he hasn't but other people do.
And people say "Linsux" and LIE-nux" as well, but it's totally irrelevent.
(restoring quoted text that Pete snipped to cover hypocracy)
>>>Or to stop making statements like "Linux is 3
>>>times faster than Windows" without pointing out what they really meant
>>>to say was "Linux is three times faster than Windows for a specific set
>>>of tests".
(/restoring quoted text that Pete snipped to cover hypocracy)
>>You really are being a hyprocrite, Pete. Instead of saying "Linux lags
>>behind Windows" you should be saying "Based on my personal subjective
>>limited experience, the Mandrake 7.1 default desktop lags behind the
>>Windows 2000 Desktop."
>
>Other people agree with me: Linux lags behind Windows.
Where? And it doesn't justify your own hypocracy shown above.
>I would agree with
>the KDE developer who said "Linux is catching up with Windows".
I don't believe cihl is a KDE developer. I could be wrong though.
>Of course, you realise what I mean by Linux here don't you?
I realize you are playing games with semantics to stretch the
truth. That's basically what someone who is a KDE developer said to
you today: http://x75.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=642710102
fg
y
y
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 22:52:37 GMT
On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 22:34:06 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Why do you have such a difficult time accepting an end result?
The end result isn't under dispute, the root cause is.
You are spinning the situation to fit your particular
anti-foo agenda.
>
>My car starts when I turn the key. I don't care who made the ignition
>lock.
Your mechanic does.
>
>My doorbell rings when I push the button. I don't care who made the
>wires.
>
>Windows works. Supports virtually any piece of hardware. Mac supports
>a lot of this hardware as well (USB).
>
>Linux does not.
This is a bald faced lie.
Linux supports a lot of hardware as well. To claim otherwise
is simple FUD.
>
>Stop blaming everyone in the world for the lameness of Linsux. If
>manufacturers choose to not write drivers for Linux maybe there is a
>reason.
Here is more of your "lets blame the victim" mentality when
the root cause rests squarely on the shoulders of those who
choose to sell you hardware. It matters not what fantasy
motivation you choose attribute to vendors.
>
>Until they include drivers in the box with every new release of
>hardware, Linux will lag well behind Windows and it doesn't matter who
>is responsible, it is the end result that counts.
Except that condition is changing for the better. Also that
condition is not universal for WinNT, Macintosh (a token
3rd party system you seem to champion these days to make
yourself look less like a Monopolist sychophant) or WinDOS.
Furthermore, "not popular" does not mean that a particular OS
and the collection of hardware that it does support can't be
just as useful as "more popular" systems.
This is merely FUD.
It doesn't matter if the OS is QNX, GEM/68K, Be or Linux.
Infact, I have hardware that is a superset of the functionality
of yours which is quite well exploited by Linux.
>
>On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 21:44:03 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 21:21:43 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>>On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 20:53:27 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 20:44:46 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>>>>Let me add to the list:
>>>>>
>>>>>1. Canon flatbed scanner. Works on Windows and on my daughters iMac.
>>>>>
>>>>>2. Canon printer. Half works. Never could make it print from
>>>>
>>>> ...this is what USB device standards are supposed to be for...
>>>
>>>Well apparently Windows and Mac got it right and Linux didn't because
>>>it works fine on those 2 systems.
>>
>> It's not at all apparent that "mac and Windows" got it right.
>> It might be more accurate to state that Canon bothered to
>> accomdate those particular systems.
>>
>>[deletia]
>>
>> IOW: it's a 3rd party support issue.
>>
>> If you have a Mac, you might be a bit more lucky with who has
>> decided to be nice.
>>
>> If you have NT, you might be a bit more lucky with who has
>> decided to be nice.
>>
>> If you have any of them including WinDOS, you still have to
>> be wary against buying a overpriced paperweight. Plus,
>> you have to put up with WinDOS.
>>
>> IOW: caveat emptor still applies for PC hardware in general.
>>
>> It only takes a little bit of bad luck to negate the whole benefit
>> of "runs everything" for a particualar end user.
>
--
It only takes a little bit of bad luck to negate the whole benefit
of "runs everything" for a particualar end user.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 22:54:40 GMT
On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 17:19:28 -0500, John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jay Maynard wrote:
>>
>> On 05 Jul 2000 12:38:02 -0400, Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[deletia]
>It is wrong to call GPLed (or GPV'ed :-)) software free, and then demand
>some behavior that takes alot of that 'freeness' away. My position has
>changed on this (now disagreeing with you) ONLY because I have come to
>the conclusion that the mistake that I have made is in the assumption
>that the truth was being told about the GPL describing a 'free'
>license.
No, you are just confusing anarchy for liberty for the benefit
of your own little rant in some hope that common misconceptions
regarding such terms will allow your misrepresentation to slide by.
>
>The GPL is yet another commercial license (with source code available)
>in sheeps clothing :-).
--
It only takes a little bit of bad luck to negate the whole benefit
of "runs everything" for a particualar end user.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I hope you trolls are happy...
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 18:54:32 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Bernie
> --
> Thomas --- Jefferson --- still surv--
> John Adams
> 2nd President of the US
> Last words, 4 July 1826
Actually, Jefferson had died earlier that day.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: VM Ware looks cool.
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 22:55:29 GMT
On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 17:23:29 -0400, Laura Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm excited about VM Ware, which makes it possible to run more than one
>OS at a time without special partitions or rebooting. Too bad it's so
>expen$ive - $300.00! I expect a less expensive version or cloneware
The personal version is only $99.
[deletia]
The rebadged version of Merge for Linux is only $49.
(Win4Lin)
--
It only takes a little bit of bad luck to negate the whole benefit
of "runs everything" for a particualar end user.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Mark Seaborn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 05 Jul 2000 17:20:41 +0100
Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I assume that in the UK, like in the US, essentially anyone may start
> a newspaper or a magazine, or write a book, or run for office. The
> people who "control" the media and the government have achieved that
> position through popularity, not force. It still sounds to me like
> you don't happen to like the outcome of such popularity contests.
You sound like Dr Pangloss in Voltaire's _Candide_, whose philosophy
is that ``we live in the best of all possible worlds'', despite all
the things that happen that contradict this. (Take a look at
<http://www.literature.org/authors/voltaire/candide/index.html>.)
--
Mark Seaborn
- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://members.xoom.com/mseaborn/ -
...And to everyone else, the secret is to bang the rocks together, guys!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: VM Ware looks cool.
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 23:02:10 GMT
On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 22:43:18 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>You could buy a whole freaking PC for $300.00 less monitor.
...but will it include any system software, or would it just
be a PIA with Linux preloaded. Would it be any version of
Windows worth putting up with (IOW NT4 or NT5). Or perhaps
would you end up stuck with some assinine 3 year service
agreement with some obsolete style ISP.
>
>If you want to run Windows applications, run Windows. If you want to
>run Linux applications (if you can find any useful ones that is) run
>Linux.
Actually, that's precisely what VMWARE does.
>
>
>If Linux keeps trying to be Windows it is going to die just like OS/2.
...yet the Macintosh seems to be going on strong despite of
this syndrome...
[deletia]
While WinDOS may still have lock currently on "runs everything",
many people have higher computing standards and would rather not
reboot into an inferior OS merely to deal with legacy vendorlock
issues.
--
It only takes a little bit of bad luck to negate the whole benefit
of "runs everything" for a particualar end user.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 18:12:41 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 17:19:28 -0500, John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Jay Maynard wrote:
> >>
> >> On 05 Jul 2000 12:38:02 -0400, Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [deletia]
> >It is wrong to call GPLed (or GPV'ed :-)) software free, and then demand
> >some behavior that takes alot of that 'freeness' away. My position has
> >changed on this (now disagreeing with you) ONLY because I have come to
> >the conclusion that the mistake that I have made is in the assumption
> >that the truth was being told about the GPL describing a 'free'
> >license.
>
> No, you are just confusing anarchy for liberty for the benefit
> of your own little rant in some hope that common misconceptions
> regarding such terms will allow your misrepresentation to slide by.
>
Actually, I am not talking about 'liberty', I am talking about the GPL.
You
continue to create straw-men by adding in superfluous notions. Lets
argue
about the moon being made of green cheese also, but that doesn't offer
any
help on the issue of the GPL being non-free.
> >
> >The GPL is yet another commercial license (with source code available)
> >in sheeps clothing :-).
>
Ditto...
John
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: 5 Jul 2000 18:10:16 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>I take it you haven't done the Mandrake 7.1 update to get the
>>2.2.16 kernel yet, since you haven't whined about how you
>>were too lazy to make a boot floppy first and it made you
>>system unbootable. (I don't know if it will help, but it
>>doesn't make sense to complain about less than the latest
>>version).
>
>Oh I did the upgrade all right. It took three hours to do and I was left
>with a bootable system. The fact that the menus were mangled and Linuxconf
>was broken were a cursory detail.
>
>So, I reinstalled 7.1 from scratch. Things went much better this time.
Not that upgrade, the next one. Click the DrakConf button and
hit 'Mandrake Update'. But be prepared.
>>It's pretty easy to find the vendors that have linux driver on
>>their web/ftp sites - before buying something that encourages
>>vendors that don't support Linux.
>
>I bought a 3DFX because I happen to like their 3D implementation. Glide
>etc. seems to be well supported on a lot of games. Unreal Tournament runs
>beautifully with it; Quake III Arena nows runs in 1024 x 768 mode without
>stuttering.
And you couldn't do that with a card that supports Linux? The
nvidia drivers are easy to find. 3dfx might have some but
if they do they have hidden them well.
>I could buy myself a cheap PC just to run Linux. A CA810 system comes to
>mind. Nice and cheap. Ah, but I've got no room left in my house for a third
>PC. What about a laptop? Hmmm... where can I find a list of Linux
>compatible laptops?
Start with: http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/kharker/linux-laptop/
>
>>You probably could get up back with the frame buffer version
>>of X.
>
>I think I tried the SVGA version; all I got was a nice band of garbage
>across the top of the screen. I will be working away looking for a solution
>to this, but I'm not expecting an answer any time soon.
The frame buffer is different - there were directions around for
running the ATI 128's in this mode before the real drivers
were done.
>>That's backwards: the vendors of those products support Windows. There
>>are also vendors that supply Linux drivers or at least the info
>>needed to write them.
>
>Then Linux is backwards. It's still playing catchup. Everyone out there
>falls over themselves to support Windows. Linux is usually an after
>thought, if at all.
It's all a matter of numbers - let the vendors know what you want.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 23:29:06 GMT
On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 22:52:37 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 22:34:06 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>Why do you have such a difficult time accepting an end result?
>
> The end result isn't under dispute, the root cause is.
> You are spinning the situation to fit your particular
> anti-foo agenda.
No I'm not, I'm simply saying that folks don't give a hoot about the
root cause of Linux's lack of hardware support. Chances are good they
own the hardware (pre-load) and may be curious about Linsux.
When all that Win hardware or even (as in my case) non Win hardware
fails to function Linux will be deep sixed and the Linvocates can
argue over who is responsible till they are blue in the face. Won't
matter because they have lost another customer.
>>
>>My car starts when I turn the key. I don't care who made the ignition
>>lock.
>
> Your mechanic does.
It was an illustration. You missed, or more than likely, ignored the
point.
>>
>>My doorbell rings when I push the button. I don't care who made the
>>wires.
>>
>>Windows works. Supports virtually any piece of hardware. Mac supports
>>a lot of this hardware as well (USB).
>>
>>Linux does not.
>
> This is a bald faced lie.
Pete posted a list. I have posted a list. Not ONE piece of Win
hardware and indeed very common hardware and it doesn't work under
Linux.
Mine even works under an iMac.
But Linux? Braindead as usual.
> Linux supports a lot of hardware as well. To claim otherwise
> is simple FUD.
Sure, it runs great on those 486/33's we all have hanging around the
closet.
>>
>>Stop blaming everyone in the world for the lameness of Linsux. If
>>manufacturers choose to not write drivers for Linux maybe there is a
>>reason.
>
> Here is more of your "lets blame the victim" mentality when
> the root cause rests squarely on the shoulders of those who
> choose to sell you hardware. It matters not what fantasy
> motivation you choose attribute to vendors.
I'm not blaming the victum. The victum is the poor sucker who tries
Linsux, finds out none of his hardware that he bought as a pre-load
works and then if that isn't bad enough he finds out that Linsux
formatted his drive and all his data is lost.
That's the victum!
A victum of Linsux, the ultimate zero in user friendliness.
>>
>>Until they include drivers in the box with every new release of
>>hardware, Linux will lag well behind Windows and it doesn't matter who
>>is responsible, it is the end result that counts.
>
> Except that condition is changing for the better. Also that
> condition is not universal for WinNT, Macintosh (a token
> 3rd party system you seem to champion these days to make
> yourself look less like a Monopolist sychophant) or WinDOS.
Yawwn...Sour grapes. The Mac market isn't that overwhelming yet the
hardware still works on Mac.
The Win2k market for multimedia is dismal based mostly on peoples
experience with NT's sore lack of multimedia support. Still it has
Livewire for SBLive. Where is Linsux's version?
How about that alliance with Corel and Creative?
Yawnnnn.... This is getting broing....
> Furthermore, "not popular" does not mean that a particular OS
> and the collection of hardware that it does support can't be
> just as useful as "more popular" systems.
Sour grapes.
We have all the good support and you have none....
> This is merely FUD.
Prove it....
> It doesn't matter if the OS is QNX, GEM/68K, Be or Linux.
>
> Infact, I have hardware that is a superset of the functionality
> of yours which is quite well exploited by Linux.
But is isn't even supported by Linsux, much less exploited.
Linsux has less than thrilled the hardware manufacturers becasue after
their collective market studies they realize that there is virtually
NOBODY actually using Linsux at home or on the desktop where the
greatest amount of money can be made.
>>
>>On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 21:44:03 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 21:21:43 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 20:53:27 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 20:44:46 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>>>>>Let me add to the list:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>1. Canon flatbed scanner. Works on Windows and on my daughters iMac.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>2. Canon printer. Half works. Never could make it print from
>>>>>
>>>>> ...this is what USB device standards are supposed to be for...
>>>>
>>>>Well apparently Windows and Mac got it right and Linux didn't because
>>>>it works fine on those 2 systems.
>>>
>>> It's not at all apparent that "mac and Windows" got it right.
>>> It might be more accurate to state that Canon bothered to
>>> accomdate those particular systems.
>>>
>>>[deletia]
>>>
>>> IOW: it's a 3rd party support issue.
>>>
>>> If you have a Mac, you might be a bit more lucky with who has
>>> decided to be nice.
>>>
>>> If you have NT, you might be a bit more lucky with who has
>>> decided to be nice.
>>>
>>> If you have any of them including WinDOS, you still have to
>>> be wary against buying a overpriced paperweight. Plus,
>>> you have to put up with WinDOS.
>>>
>>> IOW: caveat emptor still applies for PC hardware in general.
>>>
>>> It only takes a little bit of bad luck to negate the whole benefit
>>> of "runs everything" for a particualar end user.
>>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 23:31:00 GMT
On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 22:45:00 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 22:40:02 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>It's far more believeable than the one sided tripe you post here.
>
> In what manner is my description of the situation "one sided".
> Playing an audio CD is indeed merely a matter of executing a
> single ioctl. It's not a process that requires any non-trivial
> amount of processing (assuming you want to display some sort of
> ticker) unlike mp3 decode or DVD decode.
That's all well and good, and they do play but all the technobabble
theory in world won't make the damm thing eject.
Here's another one for you:
How come if I am playing an audio CD and I try to aopen Agent under
Wine it will hang until I close the audio application?
> If anyone has a nasty habit of posting one sided tripe it is you.
>
> I would (and have) at least give Be it's due in this sort of situation.
Software manufacturers are dumping Be.
I may be incorrect but I believe either Steinberg or Emagic has thrown
in the towel.
>[deletia]
>>On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 21:39:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 21:25:08 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>>>Yea and when I played audio CD's using X11Amp the CD wouldn't eject
>>>>and even after 10 tries if it happened to decide it wanted to eject,
>>>>any subsequent CD I put in the player, audio or data, would fail to
>>>>read.
>>>>
>>>>Not to mention all the skips and slowdowns just playing an audio CD
>>>>and trying to do something else.
>>>
>>> ...yeah, sure.
>>>
>>> We're supposed to believe you when you try and tell us that a
>>> process that consists of "Hey CD, start playing" causes load
>>> and concurrency issues.
>>>
>>>[deletia]
>>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 5 Jul 2000 23:31:27 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Mandrake 7.x (not 7.1).
>
> Load Audio CD.
> Play audio CD.
> Try to eject Audio CD.
> Will not eject most times even with button on drive.
> IF it decides it WILL eject, CD drive no longer works.
>
You need to unmount it first, brainiac. Some 'filemanager' type
things (kde) attempt to do this for you, as well as some cd playing
software.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 23:31:35 GMT
On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 22:42:06 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
wrote:
>And people say "Linsux" and LIE-nux" as well, but it's totally irrelevent.
And it certainly does.
Suck that is.....
>(restoring quoted text that Pete snipped to cover hypocracy)
>>>>Or to stop making statements like "Linux is 3
>>>>times faster than Windows" without pointing out what they really meant
>>>>to say was "Linux is three times faster than Windows for a specific set
>>>>of tests".
>(/restoring quoted text that Pete snipped to cover hypocracy)
>
>>>You really are being a hyprocrite, Pete. Instead of saying "Linux lags
>>>behind Windows" you should be saying "Based on my personal subjective
>>>limited experience, the Mandrake 7.1 default desktop lags behind the
>>>Windows 2000 Desktop."
>>
>>Other people agree with me: Linux lags behind Windows.
>
>Where? And it doesn't justify your own hypocracy shown above.
>
>>I would agree with
>>the KDE developer who said "Linux is catching up with Windows".
>
>I don't believe cihl is a KDE developer. I could be wrong though.
>
>
>>Of course, you realise what I mean by Linux here don't you?
>
>I realize you are playing games with semantics to stretch the
>truth. That's basically what someone who is a KDE developer said to
>you today: http://x75.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=642710102
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>fg
>
>y
>y
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 23:29:37 GMT
On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 18:12:41 -0500, John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 17:19:28 -0500, John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Jay Maynard wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 05 Jul 2000 12:38:02 -0400, Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [deletia]
>> >It is wrong to call GPLed (or GPV'ed :-)) software free, and then demand
>> >some behavior that takes alot of that 'freeness' away. My position has
>> >changed on this (now disagreeing with you) ONLY because I have come to
>> >the conclusion that the mistake that I have made is in the assumption
>> >that the truth was being told about the GPL describing a 'free'
>> >license.
>>
>> No, you are just confusing anarchy for liberty for the benefit
>> of your own little rant in some hope that common misconceptions
>> regarding such terms will allow your misrepresentation to slide by.
>>
>Actually, I am not talking about 'liberty', I am talking about the GPL.
>You
>continue to create straw-men by adding in superfluous notions. Lets
...and the GPL speaks of freedom as in Liberty.
Liberty, as in the case of that commonly abused notion of the
enlightenment implies a rule of law or an order that must be
necessarily imposed in order for freedom to exist. This order
ensures that those that would abuse others would be hindered.
Otherwise, the ensuing anarchy would allow for those with the
ability and inclination to be more at liberty than others at
those "others" expense.
Such is classically the case with commercial, proprietary
vendorlock software. Those that would chose not to expose
their code and their data formats to the light of day are
exactly the sorts that would use both to trap customers and
prevent them from fully exercising their liberty int the
free market during subsequent purchase.
>argue
>about the moon being made of green cheese also, but that doesn't offer
>any
>help on the issue of the GPL being non-free.
The GPL is meant to provide a framework for liberty. It does
just that. It does that at the expense of those that would
set themselves up as warlord in an anarchy that would deteriorate
into despotism mislabeled as freedom.
Why microbes such as yourself object to such things is confounding
to say the least.
>
>> >
>> >The GPL is yet another commercial license (with source code available)
>> >in sheeps clothing :-).
>>
>Ditto...
Although, the only reason the GPL has as much popularity as it
does is because corporate boot lickers such as yourself have
allowed intellectual property to be so skewed in the favor of
potential monopolists as it is now.
Were copyrights functioning in their traditional manner, Free
Software of any kind would be redundant.
--
It only takes a little bit of bad luck to negate the whole benefit
of "runs everything" for a particualar end user.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
** 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.advocacy) 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-Advocacy Digest
******************************
