Linux-Advocacy Digest #511, Volume #27 Fri, 7 Jul 00 02:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux is just plain awful (jbarntt)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Steve Mading)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Growing dependence on Java (Ian Pulsford)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Steve Mading)
Re: VM Ware looks cool. (Ian Pulsford)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Graham Murray)
Re: C# is a copy of java (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Steve Mading)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (John Dyson)
Re: VM Ware looks cool. (Ian Pulsford)
Re: ## HOT ## Microsoft software for Linux (Atanas Kolev)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (John Dyson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jbarntt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is just plain awful
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 05:33:44 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Joel Barnett"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > <snipped the unimportant parts>
> >
> > Schools out for the Summer, eh ? Pretty unimaginative as trolls go,
> > i.e., obviously bogus storyline, stock Linux complaints,
>
> Oh, yes, there can't be anything to the story at all, especially
> considering that it only rehashes the same complaints you're already
> familiar with...
>
> Now is it just me or does that make no sense? Doesn't it seem as
though
> someone ought to actually look into these complaints and try to fix
the
> problem?
Think about it, a law firm with 14 pc's - why would one of these
lawyers attempt to upgrade them to Linux, w/o backing up the data ?
First, the law firm would probably have a consultant who would not be
so stupid as to forget to do backup's before installing a new OS. Also,
let's assume that of the 14 pc's 2 are servers, say one for file/print
service and one as a proxy server. You might wish to upgrade the
servers to Linux, but probably not the workstations.
There is no problem here, just a lame troll.
>
> From my own experience with Linux, Windows, and Macintosh, I can see
how
> the complaints would make sense. The herd is stampeding to follow a
new
> leader ... only Linux isn't as polished as Windows.
As a workstation, Linux is not as polished as Windows. I doubt a bunch
of lawyers are being stampeded by the Linux "maelstrom". If some
goofball lawyer decided to revamp the firms network on a whim, without
any real knowledge, then he got what he deserved. He would have similar
problems with NT or Netware.
>
> For development machines, servers, embedded apps, and tinker-toys,
Linux
> is great. But is it really ready for commercial software?
Don't know, don't care. Linux is ready to be a reliable server OS. Like
any server OS, you should know something about the OS and sys admin in
general. Like backing up important data on systems before installing a
new OS. This isn't rocket science.
>
> >etc. But keep trying, you might get better. Oh, in order to make a
> >good troll, it helps to know something more about Linux than what
you
> >pickup in COLA.
> >
> > By the way, why did the lawyer lose data ??
> >
> > JBarntt
> >
> >
>
> --
> Woofbert <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>, Datadroid, Infernosoft
> Putting the No in Innovation. www.infernosoft.com/woofbert/index.html
> Infernosoft: Putting the No in Innovation. http://www.infernosoft.com
> "It doesn't matter what I think." -- "Dr." Laura
>
--
jbarntt
<Chocolate Watchband>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 7 Jul 2000 00:34:36 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Sam Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>So the GPL fulfills is goals well enough then.
>
>It provides free software from the perspective of the end-user.
It also prevents a lot of potential useful combinations
of GPL and less restricted software from being distributed
as free software.
>It doesn't matter that some developer somewhere can't use the code in their
>non-GPL compatible work, since the goal wasn't to give them code, but to
>give the end-user freedom.
Or prevent the end-user from getting something that doesn't
exactly match the FSF philosophy.
>The secondary goal was to stop the software from being used in a non-free
>product. It succeeded reasonably well there too, an unfortunate casualty of
>friendly fire are those that want to use GPL code in non-GPL compatable
>free software. But that is necessary to prevent the obvious loop hole.
Yes it succeeds in stopping the software in being used in many
ways. But why is that a goal at all?
>And finally a pool of free software is built up, since developers have
>to release free software if they want to leverage GPL'd code.
The GPL is not necessary for a pool of free software to be
built up. There are plenty of free non-GPL'd projects.
>Software developers can read licenses, the GPL does them no harm (they can
>just pretend that the GPL'd software doesn't exist if they don't want to
>produce GPL compatible software), and does them some good if they are willing
>to pay the GPL compatible price.
But if they want to re-use components from different sources and
give away the result, the GPL'd components are unusable.
>Idiot developers who didn't read the license, will have to implement the GPL'd
>functionality themselves or remove it from their product - which leaves them
>exactly where they would have been without the GPL'd software.
Correct, along with the ones who do read the license and also want
to use less restricted existing code. I don't see why anyone
considers this a good thing.
>I don't see non-free software as an evil force whose developers are
>minions of satan. I thnk non-free software is a waste of resources but
>that's practical not moral...
>
>To the end user though, the GPL is free software license.
Not if they consider all the possible combinations of existing
components that the GPL prevents them from having.
>--
>Sam
>
>I explicitly give people the freedom not to use Perl, just as God gives
>people the freedom to go to the devil if they so choose.
> --Larry Wall
Interesting quote. Larry Wall must have seen the duplicity
of the GPL from the start, and outdid it with his own tricky
language that allows it to co-exist with GPL'd code but
impose none of the restrictions.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: 7 Jul 2000 05:33:11 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Other people half believe it already. They make the assumption that because
: I favour Windows over Linux, I must be a moron or an idiot, or that I can't
: read. They causually insult me, call me "shithead" etc.
No, it's not because you favor Windows - it's because you use
arguments with false premises when explaining why you favor
Windows.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: 7 Jul 2000 00:49:28 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Not that upgrade, the next one. Click the DrakConf button and
>>hit 'Mandrake Update'. But be prepared.
>
>Is this the feature that was partially broken in 7.0 but has been updated
>in 7.1 that presents you with a list of modules to upgrade?
Yes, mine worked flawlessly in 7.0 on several machines although
some of the mirror servers seemed to not have all the files.
On 7.1, though, selecting the kernel rpms went through the
motions but left the machine unbootable. I thought I saw
someone mention that there was a problem with the version
of bash in 7.1 which might explain a lot of the script
problems. If there is a fix it might be a good idea to
get that before trying the kernel, or just get the rpms
and install manually. And have a boot floppy ahead of
time.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 15:47:08 +1000
From: Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Growing dependence on Java
I dream of the day when an app will run on any platform with decent
performance.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 7 Jul 2000 05:45:53 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Steve Mading wrote:
:>
:> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> : And in the fine print: any work done while sitting here must
:> : be given away, along with any tools used to do it. Not
:> : quite accurate, but car analogies are always flawed.
:>
:> Not quite. The GPL does *not* say that derivative work
:> must be given away.
:>
: This statement alone is correct.
:>
:> You can keep it to yourself and that
:> is allowed by the GPL. It's just that *if* you distribute
:> the derived work, then you must GPL it. That's a big if.
:> And remember that "derived work" does NOT include programs
:> that merely used a GPL tool to help make them (for example,
:> gcc), as you implied here. It refers to programs that copy
:> some of the GPL source code of the tool into their own.
:>
: And the inconsistancy of the GPL, is that some people call the
: GPL 'free', and then apply constraints, rules and regulations to
: the redistributions... This makes GPL inconsistant with free
: software.
Well, would you be happier if they said, "As free as is possible
in practice given the FUBar'ed laws in the US courts?" - because
that's the intent of the GPL. The problem is that if the copyright
is not enforced and licensed out, there is nothing to stop the
scenario of some big company usurping your work by adding
incompatabilities and locking you, the original creator, out of
what you created. (Like what MS tried doing to Kerberos.)
The annoying thing is that the laws *insist* that you be anal
with your licenses or someone else can come along and steal your
work from you (by "steal", I mean in the very literal sense, not
the pirating software sense. I'm talking about actually taking
it away from you so you aren't allowed to have it anymore.) IP
laws favor large organizations and screw the individual. The GPL
is a way of twisting those laws to favor the individual at least
as far as is possible within the limits of our litigous society.
So you can only say it isn't "free" if you also admit that
pretty much nothing else is either.
--
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven L. Mading at BioMagResBank (BMRB). UW-Madison
Programmer/Analyst/(acting SysAdmin) mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
B1108C, Biochem Addition / 433 Babcock Dr / Madison, WI 53706-1544
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 15:55:08 +1000
From: Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: VM Ware looks cool.
What are you talking about, OS/2 is not dead, just laying low. Rumours are
that '4.5' or 5.0 may be released in the near future.
"Ferdinand V. Mendoza" wrote:
> Don't equate Laura with your poor mentality. She doesn't want
> to do reboots just to use Winblows. Period.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > If Linux keeps trying to be Windows it is going to die just like OS/2.
> >
> >
>
> Ferdinand
------------------------------
From: Graham Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 07 Jul 2000 05:49:22 +0000
In gnu.misc.discuss, John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Your counter-example is fallacious. An example of a GPL-like parking
> lot is that it is marked 'free parking', but that means that it is
> 'free' to park there. However, a GPL-parking lot requires that you
> pay to leave the lot with your car.
How about another example.
"A free man may not be enslaved, nor may his children".
Does this "restriction" make a man any less free? I think that this is
similar to the freedom offered by the GPL. The program is "free" and
this freedom may not be removed.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: C# is a copy of java
Date: 7 Jul 2000 00:57:14 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 4 Jul 2000 13:03:22 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>You mean you don't like:
>>
>> char *foo="abcd"; foo[2];
>>and
>> "abcd"[2];
>>and
>> 2["abcd"];
>>
>>to all mean the same thing?
>
>They don't all mean the same thing. Two of them mean 'c', while
>the other means "Crash, burn, and dump core, *right* *now*".
A long time ago, back in the K&R days, I fuzzily recall someone
who should have known explaining why a C compiler had to
treat them all the same. I can't do the argument justice
myself, but it involved the steps of turning the string
into a pointer, then turning the subscript operation into
an addition, and it doesn't matter which direction
you add - you end up adding an integer to a pointer either
way and the result is the same.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 7 Jul 2000 05:58:30 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: In article <8k38oe$kso$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>
:>: In GPL terms, this actually means 'you cannot restrict others
:>: *differently* than you have been restricted'; if I want credit for my
:>: work, then I cannot state that I must have credit for my work -- even
:>: if my only restriction is that one restriction.
:>
:>You can do this with GPL software. What you can't do is usurp the
:>GPL software writers' desire to have their *OWN* code remain GPL'ed.
: Perhaps you mean their desire to force the GPL on code that is
: not their own.
I challenge you to find some other way to do it that doesn't allow
for the opposite problem - removing GPL from GPL'ed code. How do
you say something like "The following parts of this source code
file are GPLed: Lines 1,5,10-20,45-76,125,400-732, the characters
from column 5 to column 17 of line 912, everything after the third
comma on line 1025, and everything after line 2501. Any source
not mentioned above is not under GPL, but is instead under this
other license I made..." Editing GPL source code automatically
introduces a mix of original GPL work with your own that is damn
hard to trace if it is anything nontrivial. How do you license
this under two seperate licenses?
:>If you write your own code, your own code can be distributed however
:>you like, so long as it isn't a derivative of the GPL code. (The
:>reason for that last part is to avoid the sticky situation where
:>some shmuck comes along and adds one irrelevant line of code to
:>a GPL tool and then claims it as his own.)
: No, the reason is clearly to take control over the whole of
: anything that can possibly be considered a derived work,
: regardless of the size, value, or author of the other
: parts. Read the FSF discussion of why readline is GPL'd
: as opposed to LGPL'd if you have any doubts about this.
A link to this please?
--
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven L. Mading at BioMagResBank (BMRB). UW-Madison
Programmer/Analyst/(acting SysAdmin) mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
B1108C, Biochem Addition / 433 Babcock Dr / Madison, WI 53706-1544
------------------------------
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: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 01:02:37 -0500
Steve Mading wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : Steve Mading wrote:
> :>
> :> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :> : And in the fine print: any work done while sitting here must
> :> : be given away, along with any tools used to do it. Not
> :> : quite accurate, but car analogies are always flawed.
> :>
> :> Not quite. The GPL does *not* say that derivative work
> :> must be given away.
> :>
> : This statement alone is correct.
>
> :>
> :> You can keep it to yourself and that
> :> is allowed by the GPL. It's just that *if* you distribute
> :> the derived work, then you must GPL it. That's a big if.
> :> And remember that "derived work" does NOT include programs
> :> that merely used a GPL tool to help make them (for example,
> :> gcc), as you implied here. It refers to programs that copy
> :> some of the GPL source code of the tool into their own.
> :>
> : And the inconsistancy of the GPL, is that some people call the
> : GPL 'free', and then apply constraints, rules and regulations to
> : the redistributions... This makes GPL inconsistant with free
> : software.
>
> Well, would you be happier if they said, "As free as is possible
> in practice given the FUBar'ed laws in the US courts?" - because
> that's the intent of the GPL.
>
Nope, that is not correct. A simple counter example is the new
BSDL (not necessarily the old one.) There are also other, freer
than GPL licenses. If the GPL wasn't so un-free, then we might have
a reasonable point of argument. The author tries to maintiain control
of derived works under the GPL, and as such isn't necessarily a bad
thing. That doesn't make the software free though.
>
> The annoying thing is that the laws *insist* that you be anal
> with your licenses or someone else can come along and steal your
> work from you (by "steal", I mean in the very literal sense, not
> the pirating software sense.
>
You cannot steal something that has 1000's of copies already on the
net.
If you are arguing that there might be some kind of bootstrapping
issue associated with free software -- that might be true. Justifying
the incorrect description about the GPL being free is still wrong.
John
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 16:04:19 +1000
From: Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: VM Ware looks cool.
Laura Goodwin wrote:
> I agree that the software is rather pricey. I built PCs myself, and I
> disagree that you can buy a decent computer for under $300.00, but a
> junker, yes.
For $300 Australian I can get a Pentium Pro 180 upgrade kit from Australian
Computer Recyclers www.pcrecylcers.net
including:- 32M ram + 2M v svga card.
Well for $300us I could get the P233mmx + 64M + 8M svga card + 1G HD at
least.
I reckon that's a decent computer.
IanP
------------------------------
From: Atanas Kolev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.best,alt.linux.sucks,be.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: ## HOT ## Microsoft software for Linux
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 08:39:01 +0300
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
==============B2EE7198C6EDA396D6552DFF
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
This is not the only Microsoft program for Linux.
For a long time exists Microsoft Netshow (like realplayer) for Linux - check
the microsoft site.
==============B2EE7198C6EDA396D6552DFF
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=x-user-defined;
name="atanas.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Atanas Kolev
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="atanas.vcf"
begin:vcard
n:Kolev;Atanas
tel;home:9728-8662230
tel;work:9728-8635435
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
url:http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/6268/index.html
org:Israel Electric Corp.;Control Dept.
adr:;;P.O.B. 10;Ashdod;;;Israel
version:2.1
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Computer Programmer
x-mozilla-cpt:;-18624
fn:Atanas Kolev
end:vcard
==============B2EE7198C6EDA396D6552DFF==
------------------------------
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: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 01:06:31 -0500
Graham Murray wrote:
>
> In gnu.misc.discuss, John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Your counter-example is fallacious. An example of a GPL-like parking
> > lot is that it is marked 'free parking', but that means that it is
> > 'free' to park there. However, a GPL-parking lot requires that you
> > pay to leave the lot with your car.
>
> How about another example.
>
> "A free man may not be enslaved, nor may his children".
>
> Does this "restriction" make a man any less free? I think that this is
> similar to the freedom offered by the GPL. The program is "free" and
> this freedom may not be removed.
>
An analogy about 'free men' and 'free software' has already been handled
by our resident linguist.
By encumbering the works of others, the originator of the free software
looses a the moral high road in calling their work free. This changes
the set of choices for future developers of the code. If one doesn't
call the works 'free', then the GPL becomes a simple license, and
it can say anything legal that it wants.
The inconsistancy is that claiming that the software is 'free' and then
adding restrictions on it's use (or reuse) partially by explicitly
enucumbering future work by others is very inconsistant.
John
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
