Linux-Advocacy Digest #203, Volume #34 Sat, 5 May 01 01:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux has one chance left......... ("Gary Hallock")
Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie (Rik van Riel)
Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie (Craig Kelley)
Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie (Craig Kelley)
Re: IE (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4 are
liars. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Just how commercially viable is OSS?... (Was Re: Interesting MS ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: Why is Microsoft opening more Windows source code? (Craig Kelley)
Re: Apple is doing a good thing (.)
Re: Linus responds... (tx.rd@)
Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie (David Steinberg)
Re: Apple is doing a good thing ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 23:33:15 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> So did I get your shared library question somewhat correct?
>
Only somewhat. See my reply. And you never mentioned what bad things
would happen (or more accurately, what good things will not happen) if
you try what you suggested with C++ code.
> And as for my real name, you are correct. IMHO only an idiot would use
> her real name in a advocacy group.
>
Only a moron would brag about his accomplishments and then refuse to
provide any evidence.
Gary
------------------------------
From: Rik van Riel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 00:17:38 -0300
Ketil Z Malde wrote:
> I must admit I don't see why there's so much commotion over
> this. Mundie says Microsoft won't survive by publishing its
> source under GPL (and equally BSD or any other "free"
> license). So, what else is new?
>
> Okay, so he's trying to slant it so that the whole sharing
> thing
> becomes anti-commercial, anti-capitalist and un-american.
> *Shrug*. Lots of big corporations think otherwise.
<Mundy> Freedom just isn't the American Way(tm)
--
Rik
--
Virtual memory is like a game you can't win;
However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose...
http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
Send all your spam to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (spam digging piggy)
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie
Date: 04 May 2001 21:58:11 -0600
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > http://www2.usermagnet.com/cox/index.html
> > > >
> > > > 'nuff said.
> > >
> > > Not really. I think Alan made a critical error in mentioning the
> > > internet. The Internet was funded by the government, and all of
> > > it's development and code was made available as either public domain
> > > or business friendly licensing (such as the BSDL).
> >
> > But imagine what it would look like if Microsoft developed it (or any
> > other commercial softare company).
> >
> > You don't need to imagine; just remember the old MSN that Microsoft
> > used before they went to TCP/IP. It was horrible.
>
> You, and most other people are confusing GPL and Open Source. Mundies
> comments are particularly against the GPL, not Open Source.
>
> While MS made comments about Open Source having a difficult business model
> to sustain, its primary beef was with the GPL. Notice that they are only
> questioning the business model of Open Source, but are attacking the GPL's
> effect on business directly.
>
> Don't make the mistake of trying to claim MS is against Open Source. They
> could care less if someone gives their code away. What they care about is
> that the GPL prevents businesses from taking advantage of code paid for by
> taxpayer dollars.
No, I'm not confusing anything. You're trying to back-peddle on your
claim that proprietary intellectual property was the *real* motivating
force behind the internet.
I agree 100% with your statements above, but that is not what I was
addressing.
> > > In fact, most of the Internet pioneers only did so because they
> > > could make money off selling their proprietary implemenations (DEC,
> > > Sun, IBM, etc..). If the original Internet code had been released
> > > GPL, we'd probably all be running DECNET or something similar today.
> >
> > What's your reasoning behind this? The only internet I remember is
> > the one where everyone was trying to be BSD-compatible in their TCP
> > stack.
>
> The original internet wasn't even developed on Unix. My point is that, if
> the government had released the original DARPANET code under a license like
> the GPL, companies like DEC, IBM, and Sun would have never adopted it.
Code != Protocol
Many (all?) TCP/IP stacks were developed to be BSD-compliant. The
internet wasn't developed on UNIX, but UNIX made it what it is today
(you're splitting hairs). Any way you look at it, Microsoft would
have done everything *worse* than it is now (see SMB, ntrpc, ActiveX
-- all communication technologies specifically designed to make people
dependent on Windows).
> > > I think Alan is also making a critical mistake mentioning major FUD
> > > items like the NSAKEY debacle. He's also making a critical mistake
> > > referring to the Halloween memo as "their" Halloween memo, as if it
> > > were an intentially published document expressing corporate opinion,
> > > versus the work of a single author as a memo to his bosses.
> >
> > The only problem with your point of view on those issues is that
> > Microsoft will NEVER offically publish things like the Halloween
> > document, so we must rely on the leaked versions of them. If we wait
> > for it to be published by Microsoft, it never will be -- heck, they
> > even retract many articles after the fact.
>
> Since they'll never publish such documents, you must steal internal memos
> and attribute them to corporate policy?
Why not?
> > > And he's CERTAINLY making a critical error when over exagerates the
> > > forking of Windows (claiming that 98 and ME are seperate forks,
> > > rather than simply next versions) and claiming that NT, 2000 and the
> > > different editions are seperate forks as well. If that were the
> > > case, then there are literally thousands of Linux forks, maybe
> > > millions. There are three forks in Windows. 3.x/9x based systems,
> > > NT based systems, and CE based systems. 3.x/9x based OS's are going
> > > away this year, REDUCING the amount of forking in Windows (this is
> > > something MS has been working to do for quite some time).
> >
> > Here's the comment in question:
> >
> > "...with Microsoft you must pick a prepackaged fork and live with it
> > - 98, ME, NT, 2000 (all three versions), CE ... They do at least
> > have a fair range of forks to choose from."
> >
> > I don't see the exaggeration that you do. He's saying: You CAN'T
> > fork Windows, so you're stuck with what Microsoft decides is a good
> > fork. Why is NT 4 build 1391 (or whatever)? What's to say that build
> > 1345 or 1452 wasn't better; we'll never know.
>
> He's saying that 98, ME, NT, Three versions of 2000 and CE are all seperate
> forks. If they are, then Red Hat 7 is a fork, so is 7.1, so is 6.2. That's
> not the traditional definition of a fork.
Okay, I'll bite: What is the "traditional definition" of a fork then?
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie
Date: 04 May 2001 21:59:26 -0600
John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> : I must admit I don't see why there's so much commotion over this.
> : Mundie says Microsoft won't survive by publishing its source under GPL
> : (and equally BSD or any other "free" license). So, what else is new?
>
> I agree. I'm not sure if the earlier drafts took bigger swings at Linux,
> but this was very boring.
>
> BTW, even if there were no GPL, and it was only BSD vs. Microsoft, I think
> open source would still win. I think this is true even if Microsoft had
> access to all the same source.
Yep, and my contention is that a BSD-style license will eventually
knock out all the GPL code out there as well; the most free license
will win in the end.
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 04:05:14 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 5 May 2001 01:17:02
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >I asked why using WINE is so slow, since, while the registry is faster, it
>> >should be *that* slow.
>>
>> I think you answered your own question. Obviously, emulating the
>> registry with a file system is going to be slower than directly
>> accessing the binary hierarchical database on Windows.
>
>Not *that* long.
>(See code below)
>Time to write registry: 361
>Time to read registry: 150
>Time registry total: 511
>Time to write file: 10
>Time to read file: 10
>Time file total: 20
>
>I run it a couple of time, the average seemed to be around 470 - 525 for
>registry, around 20 - 25 for files, dpeneding on system load. Debug build
>was about 100 slower for registry, no affect of files.
>The greate difference is, I assume, is because of windows' file chacing, so
>writing to the file is actualling writing to memory.
>It seems that fflush() doesn't seem to have the required affect. Or that
>disk access has advance greatly. OTOH, it's a very small file, and no
>interperting of the data was done, as is done in the reg functions, so I
>would say that WINE implementation, based on a text file, is going to be
>slower, although not by *that* much.
I think you've mistaken me for a geek. Or for someone who finds such an
analysis compelling.
[...]
> return 0;
>}
>
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles,soc.men,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4 are
liars.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 04:05:15 GMT
Said billh in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 04 May 2001 16:12:57 GMT;
>"T. Max Devlin"
>
>> Learn to take flame-wars to email. You're boring the shit out of me,
>> here.
>
>Learn the discipline not to open the posts or to use your killfile. If you
>choose to read the posts, don't complain that they are boring.
*ZZZZZZZZZZZ*
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just how commercially viable is OSS?... (Was Re: Interesting MS
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 00:04:33 -0400
Stephen Edwards wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Stephen Edwards wrote:
>
> 8<SNIP>8
>
> > > A lot of companies/corporations, such as Caldera, S.u.S.E., IBM, SGI,
> > > RedHat,
> > > and a host of others are seemingly clinging onto GNU/Linux like a life-
> > > preserver. SGI's IRIX has lost ground... so has IBM's AIX. Why they
> > > decided
> > > to abandon the very commercial nature of their businesses is beyond me.
> Why
> > > didn't they simply focus on making products for what WAS and still IS
> > > selling?... Windows.
> >
> > Because LoseDOS is a sinking ship.
>
> And exactly which bodily oriface did you
> pull this nonsense from?
My mouth.
> On what do you base this claim?
Reliability and performance. And losing numbers in the server market.
>
> > And the BSA shakedown is making it quite clear how much you LOSE when you
> > foolishly convert your business to Mafia$oft products.
>
> Jesus Christ, Aaron. Is there ever a time
> when you actually understand what you're
> talking about?
More than you can comprehend.
>
> First of all, Microsoft is a member of the
> BSA.
The BSA is a Mafia$oft sockpuppet.
> Secondly, the "shakedown" as you put
> it is targeted towards software pirates and
> people who have been using unlicensed software.
Gates admitted a number of years ago that he didn't mind
piracy as long as it got peopled "hooked", like drug addicts,
stronly enough that he could come in later and execute this
exact sort of operation.
>
> Of course, I wouldn't have any doubts if someone
> were to liken you to a typical warez kiddie, so
> perhaps you're just whining from behind the other
> side of the moral fence.
> --
> http://www.users.qwest.net/~rakmount/
>
> .------. "The surface of the Earth is the shore of the cosmic ocean.
> |[_] :| From it we have learned most of what we know. Recently, we
> | = -| have waded a little out to sea, enough to dampen our toes,
> | | or at most, wet our ankles. The water seems inviting. The
> | | ocean calls. Some part of our being knows this is from
> |_...._| where we came. We long to return." -- Dr. Carl Sagan
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why is Microsoft opening more Windows source code?
Date: 04 May 2001 22:06:10 -0600
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Not only that, but the cost for entry into Windows development is
>> too high now as well. It used to be that companies could charge
>> $1000 (or more) from their developers, but those days are gone now;
>> I just recieved my copy of MacOS X and it includes all the
>> developer tools on a separate CD *with* the OS.
>
> I guess that explains why Borlands new flagship Linux development
> tool is $999.
And my logo interpretter cost money for my Apple //c -- I still had
standard development tools included with the system (assembler,
debugger and BASIC).
> BTW, MS also ships development environments with totally new
> platforms, until the commercial product can catch up.
>
> For instance, they shipped a Win32 compiler for the Alpha for quite
> some time.
>
> > Microsoft will bundle *some* software with Windows when it is
> > convenient (Word, Explorer, Media Player, etc.), but not their
> > development software -- even though they claim that their new goal is
> > "openness". One cannot look into the scheduler for Windows 2000
> > without some serious red tape being cut; OTOH, one *can* grab up
> > Darwin, BSD or Linux and tweak the hell out of the scheduler to their
> > heart's content.
>
> Something that so few people will ever do as to make it all but
> insignificant.
That is why you will fail. You don't get it.
> > Which one is really open?
> >
> > Back when I started in computing (early 80s) -- every system came with
> > development tools, and it was exciting to play around with them even
> > if no big projects resulted. It's sad that today's kids have to
> > resort to piracy in order to program (notice: I didn't say "develop"
> > -- these aren't professional developers); it's great that Apple
> > finally "got it" again after all these years. It's great that open
> > systems are becomming more and more popular with the next generation
> > of computors (ie, the folks that will be running the show 10-20 years
> > from now).
>
> There are plenty of free products, such as GCC available for Win32.
> Nobody needs to resort to piracy.
I didn't realize that you got the debug libraries, header files,
profiling support, manual pages and everything else required for
development with gcc/win32.
> You should really stop exagerating your points.
Ditto.
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Apple is doing a good thing
Date: 5 May 2001 04:15:20 GMT
Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With their new OS X operating system. If you want an open source operating
> system from Apple free of charge, you can download and install Darwin, free
> of charge, and you can run X if you so choose. If you want the desktop
> version, and don't mind paying for it, you can purchase the closed-source
> version as Mac OS-X. Plus, I believe you can still compile and install X if
> you so chose even on OS-X, the proprietary version, because you have access
> to a better command line that Windows 98 or ME has.
> Plus, get this: you can actually run services on OS-X if you want to, and
> it's actually secure!
Never, but NEVER assume that your operating system is secure, no matter what it
is.
Open source services ported to OSX have all the same flaws that they do when
theyre ported to anything else. This includes security holes for bind, finger,
xterm, telnet, ssh, apache, etc, etc, etc.
The difference is that if you dont want to build your own (ever try to compile
BIND for OSX?), you have to wait for apple's security fixes.
Better to just run linux.
=====.
------------------------------
From: tx.rd@ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linus responds...
Date: 4 May 2001 20:32:49 -0700
And I think you missing his point.
The point is for the end user, they do not care how something was build
not how it works nor if it open source or closed source.
The end users just care for one thing: Does it work for me? does it
do the job I want? is it easy to use?
of course MS wants to keep close source and to keep control, becuase this
way they will have no competition. But users do not care if MS keeps
control or not. End users just want their easy to use applications and
operation systems.
If open source can deliever this, then open source will have been a success.
In article <S2KI6.18327$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "mmnnoo" says...
>
>I think you're missing the point. It's not just about the feature set or
>even reliability of whatever the current apps are.
>
>If enough people get (and stay) on the
>free software bandwagon, the Internet of the future will be a killer
>platform for everything, including all sorts of businesses. If MS manages
>to reign it in, well, it will still be good - for them.
>
>It's impossible to know what software would be like, and for that matter
>what would be available today, if everybody had access to the playing
>field - the OS. Since they don't, only MS has a decent shot at producing
>the best office suite, the best browser, and so on. We're trapped in a
>'local maximum,' if you will.
>
>
>
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Unknown"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I think both Linus and the MS dude, are both missing the real point.
>>
>> This is not about IPR or freedom of thought or free source code or the
>> discovery of the electron, or any of that.
>>
>> The final test is this: Which OS/platform is the one that the masses
>> find better and easier and help the people do their work?
>>
>> If you consider the computer a tool, which tool people find better for
>> them?
>>
>> The answers to the above questions which should be debated, not if the
>> code should be free or not. If free code means I'll get a better OS,
>> then free code is better. If closed code will mean I'll get a better OS,
>> then closed code is better.
>>
>> As a user, I only care about which system is better for me, and which
>> will help me do my job better.
>>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie
Date: 5 May 2001 04:27:47 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: You, and most other people are confusing GPL and Open Source. Mundies
: comments are particularly against the GPL, not Open Source.
Mundie's comments were a deliberate and obvious attempt to smear the whole
Open Source movement with some legitimate concerns about the GPL. If he
had simply said that government work shouldn't be released under the GPL,
I think that many Open Source advocates would have agreed (though probably
not RMS-style Free Software advocates). Instead, he uses deliberately
ambiguous and misleading language to build fear about the entire Open
Source movement.
: Don't make the mistake of trying to claim MS is against Open Source. They
: could care less if someone gives their code away. What they care about is
: that the GPL prevents businesses from taking advantage of code paid for by
: taxpayer dollars.
They care deeply if someone gives their code away. If a potential
customer decides to use that code instead of the expensive Microsoft
alternative, it matters to Microsoft. Of course, that's not the kind of
argument they can use to convince their customers, so they try to scare
them in to believing that if they ever touch any Open Source software,
they will instantly lose control all of their intellectual property.
: > The only problem with your point of view on those issues is that
: > Microsoft will NEVER offically publish things like the Halloween
: > document, so we must rely on the leaked versions of them. If we wait
: > for it to be published by Microsoft, it never will be -- heck, they
: > even retract many articles after the fact.
:
: Since they'll never publish such documents, you must steal internal memos
: and attribute them to corporate policy?
And the language used within the memo said NOTHING about the corporate
culture at Microsoft, right? In talking about what strategies won't work
against Open Source, it confirms that those dirty tricks are standard
operating procedure.
--
David Steinberg -o)
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Apple is doing a good thing
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 23:19:28 -0500
"Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3af36c5e_3@newsfeeds...
> With their new OS X operating system. If you want an open source
operating
> system from Apple free of charge, you can download and install Darwin,
free
> of charge, and you can run X if you so choose. If you want the desktop
> version, and don't mind paying for it, you can purchase the closed-source
> version as Mac OS-X. Plus, I believe you can still compile and install X
if
> you so chose even on OS-X, the proprietary version, because you have
access
> to a better command line that Windows 98 or ME has.
In case you weren't aware, XFree86 is available for Windows as well.
> Plus, get this: you can actually run services on OS-X if you want to, and
> it's actually secure!
How secure OSX is has yet to be seen. It's not been out there very long,
and i'm sure we'll start seeing security reports soon. But yes, it is
certainly more secure than 98. That's why 98/ME will be dead this year,
replaced by Windows XP.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
