Linux-Advocacy Digest #335, Volume #33 Wed, 4 Apr 01 01:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Windows "speed" (667 Neighbor of the Beast)
Re: Baseball (Chad Everett)
Re: Hailstorm: Heed the Warnings (Don't Ask)
Re: NT multitasking: some humiliating defeats! :) (667 Neighbor of the Beast)
Re: Java, the "Dot-Com" Language? (Ed Allen)
Re: Democratic Republics (Was: Communism, etc.) (d'geezer@d'geezer.net)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Det2)
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised (Alan Baker)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Hey, JS PL was Re: Microsoft abandoning USB? (Alan)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (Michael
Ejercito)
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised (Glen Bradley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: 667 Neighbor of the Beast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Windows "speed"
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 20:41:13 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 3 Apr 2001 23:39:44
> >"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:Ulry6.518$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > You are bashing Windows, right?
> >> > At least do so *intelegently*!
> >>
> >> intelligently, perhaps?
> >
> >I've have the excuse of english being a second language (well, forth
> >language, actually).
> >
> >> Anyway, how am I not being intelligent? I would really love to know how
> >you
> >> think not looking up every flaw in Windows (fuck, there's a task) to post
> >to
> >> a newsgroup is not being intelligent.
> >>
> >> To put it another way, what did I say that was blatantly stupid?
> >
> >Take the SpecWeb99 we had a while ago (not you an me, the whole *.advocary
> >groups)
> >There has been a lot of points about 3% difference on identical machines,
> >remember?
> >And all this time, *no one* brought this numbers:
> >
> >http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2001q1/web99-20010122-00096.asc
> >http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2001q1/web99-20010117-00093.asc
> >(IIS5, dual CPU, 1117 & 1159)
> >
> >http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2001q1/web99-20010122-00095.asc
> >(Tux 2.0, once CPU, 1438)
> >
> >You *see* what I'm talking about?
>
> Look, dude, we only have so much time. You're blaming *us* because we
> can't keep up with the outrageous amount of evidence condemning both
> Microsoft and their sock puppet supporters? We provide sufficient
> evidence; the Specweb troll (a real favorite for Chad, though Erik
> didn't shy away from it, IIRC) was beaten to a pulp, even without these
> particular results.
>
So take it apart, Max. I missed out on it.
--
Bob
Being flamed? Don't know why? Take the Flame Questionnaire(TM)
today!
Why do you think you are being flamed?
[ ] You crossposted
[ ] You continued a long, stupid thread
[ ] You started an off-topic thread
[ ] You posted something totally uninteresting
[ ] People don't like your tone of voice
[ ] Your stupidity is astounding
[ ] You suck
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Baseball
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 3 Apr 2001 22:47:38 -0500
On Wed, 4 Apr 2001 14:37:58 +1200, Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>That sounds pretty stupid. For the record, I am not from the UK, I'm from
>New Zealand.
>
>Also, that was the typical septic tank reply I was expecting. For a country
>that raises their youth to only know what happens in Septic Tank Land, I am
>surprised you don't have more problems than you do now. A president that
>wants to screw the earth. A ex-president who couldn't keep his dick in his
>underwear, high school shootings left, right and centre, KKK - created in a
>country that promots "racial tolerance", Jahova Witnesses and Mormons - only
>country that accepts weird, screwed up cults, I swear, I have never met a
>New Zealander or an Aussie who is a Johava witness, and if I do meet one in
>New Zealand, they are a septic tanks, still using imperial measurements,
>which is quite surprising that you (Septic's), tried to rid yourself of all
>things associated with the UK, except you missed that minor detail, a
>country whose population throws out 25% of the worlds pollution, cars that
>are so big and chew through petrol so fast, I swear a hot curry would stay
>in me longer.....need I go on further?
>
>
New Zealand....a bunch of Australian wanna-bees. The only thing on New
Zealand worth anything are the sheep...and there's LOTS of those.
Can you say: "That's my Da-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-d"? Sheesh, you guys don't
even have a constitution...some thing you all wrote up in 1986 but you
still haven't enacted it. Probably too busy trying to get Australian
work visas. And what's with that flag with the little union jack in
the corner? Couldn't you come up with something original? Of course,
the only people with any brains in New Zealand are the Maori people.
All the europeans are a bunch of mongrol rejects from English
orphanages and debtors prisons. Even the Australians wouldn't take
ya. Man! You guys don't even have your own continent. Just stuck off
in the ocean on those dinky islands inbreeding with the sheep
and playing rugby night and day. And what kind of a name is Auckland
anyway. Can't you guys spell?
------------------------------
From: Don't Ask <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hailstorm: Heed the Warnings
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 03:58:12 GMT
Chad Everett wrote:
> Don't believe me?...then read this:
>
> http://www.it-director.com/article.asp?id=1680
But the article doesn't mention if you get a free toaster with it!
------------------------------
From: 667 Neighbor of the Beast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT multitasking: some humiliating defeats! :)
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 21:00:37 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Stephen S. Edwards II in alt.destroy.microsoft on 3 Apr 2001
> >T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >: Said Stephen S. Edwards II in alt.destroy.microsoft on 2 Apr 2001
> >: >Barry Manilow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >[Stephen sighs, as he must address yet another well-known idiot]
>
> >: >: He's my friend you moron. That is more than "I heard". The guy told
> >: >: me. Did I see it? No. I don't have to.
> >: >
> >: >* Stephen takes out his UltimateClueStickOfDeath(tm)...
> >: >
> >: >*THWACK!*
> >: >
> >: >He "told" you. Hence, you "heard" it.
> >
> >: How revoltingly rude. You called it bullshit. THWACK, hence you
> >: ultimately are clueless, as he has more information than you do over
> >: whether it is true.
> >
> >His proof was "he heard it from someone else". He
> >even admitted that he hadn't seen it done, and
> >that he was merely "told" that it was done.
You know, this is all just a little bit silly here. The claim was
that OS/2 could run over 255 programs at once. The fact that it can
run 255 programs at once is apparently not open to dispute, as this is
what IBM testing found. However, what is being attacked here is the
heretical notion that OS/2 can run *more* than 255 programs at once,
which is based on anecdotal evidence. *Note that there is no argument
that OS/2 can indeed run 255 programs at once!* Isn't Stephen being
silly here?
>
> >: >: > > : run 110 programs at once on 50 MHZ and 16 MB, without even slowing
> >: >: > > : much. Can Win-anything do that? No.
> >: >: > >
> >: >: > > Again, prove it. Show me a resepctable
> >: >: > > source that has actually done this, and
> >: >: > > I mean something other than your own
> >: >: > > anecdotal supposition.
> >: >
> >: >: One of my Amiga-using friends told me he did this.
> >: >
> >: >You did the exact opposite of what I requested.
> >: >Can't you read? I asked for a "source" other
> >: >than some "friend" of yours.
> >
> >: Go do it yourself. Is he on your payroll? Give us a single reason why
> >: it wouldn't be so, how about that, maybe?
> >
> >The burden of proof is on the person making the
> >claim.
Once again, this is just a bit silly. Get 100 or 1000 Amiga users
together, tell them that my friend ran 110 programs on a 50 MHZ 16 MB
machine, and ask them if he is a liar. I am sure that most of them
would say something like, "Well, of course the Amiga can do that".
"Anybody knows that." Note that this is the anecdotal evidence that
is being attacked here. Notice Stephen's silly behavior.
>
>
> >: >I didn't ask for more anecdotal
> >: >citations.
> >
> >: No, you asked for evidence. These anecdotal citations are the evidence.
> >
> >No, hair-brain, they aren't.
>
> Sorry, putz, they are. They may or may not be proof, but they are
> evidence.
>
> >Evidence is something
> >that I can verify.
>
Notice here that Stephen continues to insist that all evidence showing
any OS is better than NT at anything, much less multitasking, is
"anecdotal". Note that Stephen refuses to comment on the c't Magazine
benchmark test of last August or the test this individual did on this
page.
http://www.macarlo.com/warpfp12win2k1002.htm
Why the silence, Stephen? Cat got ur tongue?
--
Bob
Being flamed? Don't know why? Take the Flame Questionnaire(TM)
today!
Why do you think you are being flamed?
[ ] You crossposted
[ ] You continued a long, stupid thread
[ ] You started an off-topic thread
[ ] You posted something totally uninteresting
[ ] People don't like your tone of voice
[ ] Your stupidity is astounding
[ ] You suck
------------------------------
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Java, the "Dot-Com" Language?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Allen)
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 04:01:04 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>cjt & trefoil wrote:
>>
>> Itel's strength is simultaneously its weakness. All that legacy code.
>> They have to keep it working. But its existence drives their market.
>>
>> IMHO.
>
They are attempting to move away from the x86 instruction set because it
is getting harder for them to get more performance out of it.
They are attempting to promote IA-64 with Itanium and next year McKinley
will appear.
Both can only run x86 32-bit code through an on chip emulator or
interpreter which I keep hearing is as slow as molasses.
I think that their "more complex than CISC" processors are doomed when
they get hit by AMD's Hammer series.
http://www6.tomshardware.com/column/00q1/000209/index-01.html
A Titanic Mistake
Perhaps Intel's biggest mistake was its myopic concentration on a new
64-bit processor, all the while letting development of a viable next
generation 32-bit processor languish.
[...]
Ignoring the compiler issue, despite all of VLIW's promises, Itanium's
grim reality is that it is very complex -- complexity that has resulted
in its being woefully behind schedule. The Itanium is also extremely
power hungry and hot. Staggeringly, some current Itanium samples consume
well over 100 Watts. With such a copious appetite for electricity,
an Itanium could double as the heating element in an E-Z Bake Oven. In
part because of this heat, Intel has had trouble running the Itanium at
high clock speeds.
>Very true. The only way Intel will break away from their current
>designs is if MS writes Windows for other processors. But I haven't
>heard of that yet.
>
Only the Itanium is left:
Bill Gates to preview Windows for Intel's Itanium chip
http://www.siliconvalley.com/docs/hottopics/intel/015343.htm
It won't help if Intel cannot produce chips which run at a fast
clock rate.
--
GPL says
"What's mine is ours,
If you make *OUR* stuff better the result is still ours."
------------------------------
From: d'geezer@d'geezer.net
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Democratic Republics (Was: Communism, etc.)
Reply-To: d'geezer@d'geezer.net
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 04:02:11 GMT
On 3 Apr 2001 10:52:48 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett) wrote:
>On 3 Apr 2001 05:35:51 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Mon, 02 Apr 2001 21:19:11 -0400, Scott Erb wrote:
>>
>>>You are free to think so. These are readings being used by thousands of
>>>teachers across America every day, these are the readings that are
>>>informing the minds of American citizens and tomorrow's leaders (and
>>>today's leaders, most of these readings have been around awhile).
>>>You're simply out of the loop.
>>
>>I don't suppose you've heard, but according to Kulkis, these "teachers" are
>>part of a nationwide conspiracy on part of the NEA who are working with
>>the KGB. (sarcasm alert) And the above observation PROVES it !!!
>
>Not the mention the fact they they're trying to rob us of all our precious
>bodily fluids.
And poison us with flouride, and kidnap us and transport us to a secret Galactic
laboratory in Genymede for obscene medical experiments. I'll tell you by
golly.............
d'geezer
>
>
"Anyone who wants to get rid of all guns, thinks that the earth should
be ruled by large,strong men with swords and clubs. I think we
already tried that. It was called the Dark Ages."
Christopher Morton, Tue, 27 Mar 2001
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Det2)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 04:07:18 GMT
On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 14:21:51 -0400, "Aaron R.
Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 14:04:38 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 13:05:05 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> >> >>
TROLL FIGHT !
SSG Paul D. Carrier
Readiness NCO (63H & 45K)
Det 2 Co. B 145 SPT BN
Camp Withycombe, Clackamas OR
------------------------------
From: Alan Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 04:10:39 GMT
Oh... ...my... ...god.
How arrogant.
Read it:
"LICENSE TO MICROSOFT
By posting messages, uploading files, inputting data, submitting any
feedback or suggestions, or engaging in any other form of communication
with or through the Passport Web Site, you warrant and represent that
you own or otherwise control the rights necessary to do so and you are
granting Microsoft and its affiliated companies permission to:
1. Use, modify, copy, distribute, transmit, publicly display, publicly
perform, reproduce, publish, sublicense, create derivative works from,
transfer, or sell any such communication.
2. Sublicense to third parties the unrestricted right to exercise any of
the foregoing rights granted with respect to the communication.
3. Publish your name in connection with any such communication.
The foregoing grants shall include the right to exploit any proprietary
rights in such communication, including but not limited to rights under
copyright, trademark, service mark or patent laws under any relevant
jurisdiction. No compensation will be paid with respect to Microsoft's
use of the materials contained within such communication. Microsoft is
under no obligation to post or use any materials you may provide and may
remove such materials at any time in Microsoft's sole discretion."
Basically Microsoft is trying to steal anything of value that you might
pass through their servers.
I wholeheartedly agree with Chad's suggestion. If you run a mail server,
refuse to forward mail from any of Microsoft's domains.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett) wrote:
>******************************************************
>By Chuck Mead on Monday April 02 2001 @ 11:55PM EDT
>http://www.moongroup.com/stories.php?story=01/04/02/0156291
>
>Microsoft should be feared and despised!
>----------------------------------------
>
>After taking the time to read the Microsoft Passport Web Site Terms of Use
>and Notices I have had a belly full of them. The potential damage they can
>do with this license is staggering. I encourage everyone to take the time to
>read it,
>particularly the section entitled "LICENSE TO MICROSOFT". If you've ever
>had any doubts about the nature of that company reading that section should
>put them to rest for good and all!
>
>I don't know how many times I've heard Microsoft described as "evil" by
>Linux zealots and open source supporters (which I am both) and thought,
>"They're losing it... Microsoft is just a company!" but now I'm forced
>to agree with them. This license is heinous, and more, it's frightening
>because I know that some people won't read it and will lose the rights
>to their own data/content without knowing. Add that to the fact that
>the license is clearly attempting to gain the rights to *ALL CONTENT
>WHICH PASSES OVER ANY SERVICE THEY PROVIDE*. For example... this
>article could be copied by someone and sent to someone else who uses
>the hotmail email service. According to the license Microsoft would then
>own the rights to this article! Unbelieveable you say? Go read it and see
>for yourself.
>
>Most of the time when confronted with things like this I may rage for
>a while but I usually conclude that there is little that I can do to
>cause the policy to change so why bother doing anything at all but not
>this time!
>
>Effective with this posting the following blocks are in place against
>email inbound to MoonGroup.com or any of it's domains. If you truly
>understand what their license means you will do the same on your mail
>server.
>
>msn.com 550 Microsoft licenses are unacceptable. No mail from their services
>will be accepted.
>msn.net 550 Microsoft licenses are unacceptable. No mail from their services
>will be accepted.
>microsoft.com 550 Microsoft licenses are unacceptable. No mail from their
>services will be accepted.
>microsoft.net 550 Microsoft licenses are unacceptable. No mail from their
>services will be accepted.
>hotmail.com 550 Microsoft licenses are unacceptable. No mail from their
>services will be accepted.
>hotmail.net 550 Microsoft licenses are unacceptable. No mail from their
>services will be accepted.
>
>As this is clearly a pre-cursor of what Microsoft's .Net initative is
>all about I will be watching very closely to see where it goes. I had
>thought that SOAP might be something very useful which would help to
>open them up a bit but after reading this license it's clear to me that
>all that .Net and Hailstorm are going to be is just another sad example
>of "embrace and extend".
>
>I fear them for what they are doing! I despise them for doing it!
>
>Good luck to all of us... we're going to need it!
>
>
>Here are some related links:
>
>The Register.COM article:
>http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/18002.html
>
>Troubleshooters.COM new copyright and other articles:
>http://www.troubleshooters.com/cpyright.htm
>http://www.troubleshooters.com/tpromag/200104/200104.htm#_new_copyright
>http://www.troubleshooters.com/tpromag/200104/200104.htm#_three_articles
>
>LEAP Thread (first article in thread):
>http://lists.leap-cf.org/pipermail/leaplist/2001-April/011248.html
>
>By Chuck Mead on Monday April 02 2001 @ 11:55PM EDT
>
>******************************************************
>
>
>
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that
wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the
bottom of that cupboard."
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 04:13:35 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 03 Apr 2001 03:46:13
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >> I think you've misconstrued the example quite a bit. If I understand
it
> >> correctly, the library is the GPL component. The program is not GPL.
> >> Les' thought experiment requires one to postulate that it is possible
to
> >> write a program to use a library which does not yet exist. The fatal
> >> flaw, I think, is obvious, but using this trick he has convinced
himself
> >> that time travel has a bearing on copyright law.
> >
> >I am not aware of any distinction between whether the main program
> >code or the libraries are the GPL'd component except for the
> >specific exemption for standard system libraries. Consider the
> >case where both GPL and anti-GPL libraries are linked by the
> >same main program, or dynamically linked by run-time instructions
> >(actually a common case under perl, where a proprietary database
> >client library might be linked with one or more GPL libraries in
> >the same program at runtime). How does the status of these
> >libraries change as a result of being used this way? Does one
> >suddenly become a derivative of the other in the copyright sense
> >even though is was not before being used in this combination?
>
> No. You're trying to use your time machine again. Software becomes
> derivative when it is *written*. If it was *written* to use a GPL
> library, it is derivative of that library. It is as 'sudden' as any
> other act of artistic creation is assumed to be. It is not real, Les,
> it is an abstraction. A metaphor, not a metaphysical substance.
You still don't understand the concept of using two or more
*pre-existing* libraries in a new work. In my dos
network/scsi/gnutar program, other than the considerable work
it took to fix gnutar for the 16 bit environment, there was
only a tiny bit of new code that used some fake unix-like
device names to determine whether normal file routines
would be used for i/o or the network or aspi library routines.
None of the pre-existing parts where written to be used
with each other, yet when combined the GPL makes the
claim that the others become derivative works and the GPL
alone controls distribution. In this case the linkage was
done at compile time and since dos did not handle dynamic
libraries, an actual copy of the GPL'd component had to be
included, giving at least a shred of credence to the copyright
restriction claim. More modern environments allow dynamic
linking so in many cases there is in fact no copyrighted material
distributed - and in some instances dynamic loading where the
libraries are not even known prior to execution time. How can
you reconcile that with your statement that the code is or isn't
derived when it is written?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alan)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Hey, JS PL was Re: Microsoft abandoning USB?
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 04:19:29 GMT
On Mon, 2 Apr 2001 23:28:32 -0400, "JS PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Well, your dimness, It happened when I installed Windows SE. not IE5, as I
>have said numerous times in the past. I don't even think IE5 beta was out
>when the Viper V550 hit the market.
>The problem was most apparent in IE. And I have never mentioned "IE5"
>dumbass. So "what changed" was the Windows OS.
>Ohh...and....
>If you'd like to use the flawed logic that it's Windows SE (a newly released
>OS at the time) that is broken when it won't run the Viper V550 video card
>without sporadic screen freezes, then you can go ahead and use that
>reasoning on Linux. Because at the same time in history I was also trying to
>get Caldera Open Linux installed and it wouldn't run the video card at all!
>BTW, Linux wouldn't run my modem either, or my sound card come to think of
>it.
>
Number 1, Win 98 SE that you are referring to was not a new OS. It was
a bug fix/feature pack to Win 98. The Viper 550 worked great in
Win98, but didn't in SE? What changed?
Number 2, why are you trying to change the subject to Linux when MS is
the one who changed their software causing all this stuff to break.
All your post says is that Linux didn't support it.
Number 3, why didn't you just download the patch from the Diamond
Mulitmedia site?
Number 5, I had a similar problem when I downloaded IE5 as part of
some other software I bought. Since I couldn't uninstall the offending
software, I looked for updates to the video card. Sure enough, I found
them and fixed the problem (and I havent fixed a major computer
problem since the late 1980s).
Anyone can swap cards, a true professional identifies the problem and
fixes it.
** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed, without profit, for research and educational purposes only. ***
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 04:20:38 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Isaac in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 03 Apr 2001 03:35:30 GMT;
> >On Sun, 01 Apr 2001 23:07:14 GMT, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >>Then by what claim can the FSF say that separately distributing a
> >> 'user-does-the-link' kit where the usr obtains his own copy
> >>of the GPL'd material is in any way a violation?
> >
> >My belief is that the FSF has no choice but to hold that untenable
> >position.[...]
>
> So far, its proven completely tenable. And you are right, they have no
> choice. Use the LGPL if it bothers you.
No, it hasn't been proven anything at all, except suitable to scare
people and small companies who would like to offer free or
inexpensive software to people who need it into giving up.
So far there has been no one willing to pay the cost of a court
battle to be allowed to use and distribute any piece of GPL'd
software without observing the restrictions. If that proves
anything, it may just be that lawyers are more expensive than
the programmers needed to duplicate the functionality.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Ejercito)
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: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 04:23:13 GMT
On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 05:18:55 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(silverback) wrote:
>On Mon, 2 Apr 2001 10:31:27 -0800, "Dana" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>silverback <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> On Mon, 02 Apr 2001 08:44:35 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >First of all, Fascism is a form of socialism. By now, it should be
>>>
>>> wrong clyde. Fascism is the polar opposite of socialism. Fascism has
>>> always been a top down revolution to protect the interest of the rich
>>> corporate owners. The fact that the fascist supporters are from the
>>> top tier of society is enough to dispense with yer silly nonsense.
>>
>>They are just about one and the same. Socialism usually leads into fascism,
>>look at Germany around 1930's to 1945.
>
>too bad moron.The Nazi were right wingers and advocated the same
>fucking nonsense as what you do. Cut the taxes of the rich, privatize
>large portions of government, outlaw unions, eliminate welfare and
>unemployment.
And freedom of speech?
Michael
------------------------------
From: Glen Bradley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 04:41:15 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
^ Zed Mister wrote:
^ >
^ > It's irrelevant. If we block access, we'll get so many calls that we'd have
^ > to quadruple the technical support staff (understatement) to deal with it.
^ > Furthermore, once we explain to the users what we have done and why, they
^ > will cancel their accounts with extreme prejudice and we'll likely lose a
^ > large majority of our customer base. So, yeah, I don't think the company
^ > wants to go bankrupt for something like this. The problems of Microsoft's
^ > licensing agreements pale in comparison to having no company at all.
^ >
^ > "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
^ > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
^ > > Are you saying (assuming Chad is correct in his interpretation) that
^ > > your company doesnt mind any commuications it sends through Hotmail
^ > > becoming the property of Micro$oft?
^
^ Don't block access. You have to service your customers. Just put in a
^ caveat notifying customers that correspondence with them via hotmail
^ becomes the property of MS. Quote the appropriate passages in the MS
^ documents. Also look into installing a secure communications channel,
^ i.e. encrypted, with your customers. You have to support your
^ customers. Most who use hotmail do not know about the MS rules of
^ engagement. Be sure to let them know why you can't put any company
^ proprietary information over hotmail.
This is a good idea - better yet, tag any packets coming over your net
which travel through a M$ domain, then trace the originator of the
packets, and shoot them an opt-out warning e-mail detailing the
Microsoft appropriation of Internet intellectual properties. And,
provide access to strong encryption technologies within said e-mail.
Your customers will love you for it.
Shalom!
Glen
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
