Linux-Advocacy Digest #241, Volume #34 Sun, 6 May 01 02:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing? (Jasper)
Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 01:10:26 -0400
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:1yHI6.22397$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 4-19-2001
> > http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2001-052.html
> >
> > "A vulnerability in iptables "RELATED" connection tracking has been
> > discovered. When using iptables to allow FTP "RELATED" connections
> > through the firewall, carefully constructed PORT commands can open
> > arbitrary holes in the firewall."
> >
> > 4-25-2001
> > http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2001-059.html
> >
> > "kdesu created a world-readable temporary file to exchange authentication
> > information and delete it shortly after. This can be abused by a local
> > user to gain access to the X server and can result in a compromise of the
> > account kdesu accesses."
> >
> > 4-25-2001
> > http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2001-058.html
> >
> > "If any swap files were created during installation of Red Hat Linux 7.1
> > (they were created during updates if the user requested it), they were
> > world-readable, meaning every user could read data in the swap file(s),
> > possibly including passwords."
>
> After reading Adam Warner's diatribe in "What about customer security?"
> and how he said that Microsoft's code was crap, then reading this little
> tid-bit, the Linux code must look like a 3rd grader wrote it!
>
> Geez... even "M$" is smart enough not to allow anyone to read the page file.
>
"every use could read data in the swap file(s)" is a load of crap,
because the ONLY user who can read swap files is ROOT, you moron.
> -c
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jasper)
Subject: Re: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 05:25:29 GMT
The problem is simply that Microsoft is continuing to develop products
at a rather frightening rate. Every month we see a new version of
software being released or an assault on an area of computing
previously thought to be out of the grasp of Microsoft. This
generates media interest and also targets for the bashers to focus on.
The year 2001 for Linux?
The new kernel release hardly made a ripple - except for a host of bug
reports. The IBM deal looks great - but how long can you advocate
something when no one really knows what IBM plan to do with Linux.
Will it just replace AIX or will they attempt to market it in the way
they did OS2? Sun will now use Gnome as their standard desktop. Does
this mean the Linux community should abandon KDE?
These are rather boring issues the general public doesn't care about.
In the meanwhile Microsoft are continually developing along a
multitude of IT areas in parallel. If only because of their name the
minute they enter a new market they make instant inroads and generate
media attention. They also attempt to do things on a scale that only
an organization of their size would attempt.
Also Linux advocates continue to ignore fundamental problems with
their system. Things such as lack of ACL's, no journalled file system
and no micro kernel architecture. Although SSH is available, it is
far from comprehensive across all network interfaces and there is no
enforcement of encryption - as Microsoft did with SP3 and onwards.
Does NFS work properly with the new kernel? It certainly hasn't with
previous releases. NFS itself should have been abandoned years ago if
only on the basis of security issues alone.
And for goodness sake can any Linux advocate say with a straight face
they can easily connect their Linux box to an ISP? They should be
working on this issue night and day because nobody is going to use
Linux is they cannot connect to the Internet. But instead they prefer
to call users names rather than address the issue.
What about the lack of databasing with configuration files under
Linux? /etc/passwd is a joke. The CPU cycles require to parse all of
these free formatted text files must be enormous. Is there a plan to
address this issue?
You can only talk about uptimes for so long. And frankly people don't
care that your system is up for a year. Any server not having a
single hardware or software upgrade in a year would be poorly
maintained. And uptimes in the desktop field are a non-issue.
On Fri, 4 May 2001 14:50:03 +0200, "Mikkel Elmholdt"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>A quick (and non-scientific) overview of this newsgroup reveals that the
>majority of posts are related to anti-Microsoft topics and not to the
>official topic of the newsgroup, namely advocating the virtues of Linux.
>
>It's a well-known fact, that if you cannot really come up some good
>arguments for your case, then you can always fall back on hammering on your
>opponents weaknesses. Is that the case here? If it is, then I find it rather
>lame.
>
>Any damn fool can bash Microsoft ..... but try to put up a compelling case
>for the use of Linux, would be a more challenging task, at least for the
>majority of posters here.
>
>Mikkel
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 01:31:04 -0400
Craig Kelley wrote:
>
> 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.
No. The BSD license allows your code to be hijacked by Gates and
other dispicable free-loaders.
only an IDIOT releases stuff under the BSD license.
>
> --
> 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
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 05:58:48 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 5 May 2001 20:12:23
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Rick in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 04 May 2001 17:08:34 -0400;
>> >Daniel Johnson wrote:
>> >> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
>> >> > > > Considering that DR-DOS was never meant to be a GUI, but, in
>fact,
>> >> > > > a platform which could, among other things RUN windows on it...
>> >> > >
>> >> > > DR-DOS, like MS-DOS, was a lousy platform for
>> >> > > something like Windows, never mind desktop
>> >> > > applications.
>> >> >
>> >> > Then you might want to eplain why Windows ran on top of DOS.
>>
>> Correction: does. Or on top of a VMS-like thing, with NT-XP.
>
>It's called kernel, and no, NT doesn't run on "VMS-like thing".
In your vocabulary, I believe you would say "NT *is* the 'VMS-like
thing'", but that's because you're satisfied with vague, meaningless
rhetoric.
--
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:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 05:58:50 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 04 May 2001
>> >It's not for nothing that MS has spend the last
>> >fifteen years trying to kill DOS.
>>
>> Certainly not. Its for monopoly profits. The public won't accept MS
>> doubling the price of the OS; they insist that the price remain
>> comparable to what DOS (or WinDOS) has always been. By killing DOS,
>> Microsoft has the chance to force every single customer to pay ten times
>> more for their OS! And given the scams they've worked up, it looks like
>> they're hoping they'll be forced to pay it over and over again, too.
>
>What on earth makes you think that killing DOS
>will change anything related to this?
I don't. Microsoft does. Ask them.
>MS isn't stupid.
No, they're criminal and you're stupid.
>They aren't going to shoot themselves
>in the foot. *Far* better to sell Windows cheap and Office
>at a premium that to make Windows so expensive that
>low-end OEMs start to look elsewhere.
You still think there's some 'risk' (besides getting caught breaking the
law) to monopolizing, so your "market analysis" is particularly
worthless, actually.
--
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:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 05:58:52 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 04 May 2001
>> >"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> [...]
>> >Microsoft at this point decided they had had
>> >enough of IBM and informed them that they
>> >no longer wished to collaborate. They wanted
>> >to pursue Windows instead.
>>
>> This is where your telling goes awry, I think. MS kept the industry
>> supporting OS/2, sometimes quite forcefully (or at least forcefully
>> excluding them from developing on Windows, insisting that OS/2, not
>> Windows, was "the replacement for DOS".)
>
>MS did not exclude anyone from developing on
>Windows. They *encouraged* it.
They encouraged it in IBM by refusing to license Windows development
tools to them unless they agreed that they would not use anything
developed with them in any OS/2 product. Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha! <*SPANK*>
>They did not keep the industry from suppoting OS/2;
>for a while they were in fact advocating that very thing,
>but the industry was not listening.
That was before they got Windows to the point they could screw everybody
over.
>After the divorce, they changed their tune.
There's no "divorce", these aren't people who have "disagreements" and
are "crafty" or "underhanded". These types of metaphors may work with
businesses, but Microsoft is a criminal organization, and so they are
inappropriate in this discussion.
Microsoft lies. Often, all the time, since the beginning, whenever
given the chance. It is possible that you do, too.
--
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:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 05:58:53 GMT
Said "JS PL" <hi everybody!> in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 5 May
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said JS PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 4 May 2001 12:34:15 -0400;
>> [...]
>> >I don't care what the problem is. I prefer an OS that works well without
>all
>> >the hours of configuration.
>>
>> I prefer an OS that works consistently without all the hours of
>> reconfiguration.
>
>So do I, that's probably why I mainly use WINNT. And I assume it's why you
>ONLY use Win95. Because only a complete ass would use an OS that they
>*don't* prefer.
No, NT is just as bad. Worse, in some ways.
[...]
--
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:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 05:59:08 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
[...]
>But I have some reservations about the process.[...]
You don't appear competent to have an opinion on the matter, actually.
--
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:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 05:59:10 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
>"Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>[snip]
>> Sun's Sunview desktop environment was an excellent user environment.
>> It would run on a Sun 3/50 with 4MB ram and was very fast. Then they
>> developed OpenWindows which was again an excellent desktop including
>> drag and drop. Being based on X remote displaying of X clients was
>> available. It was slow and needed a fast workstation Sun 3/80 (fast at
>> the time) and at least 8MB ram to be usable. Sun started to develop
>> NeWS (display postscript) at this time but made the mistake of keeping
>> it proprietary and it just never got off the launch pad. A great shame
>> as it was reputedly far superior to X.
>
>These efforts at providing a user interface toolkit
>and graphics engine were not adequate.
Oh, no, they were far more than adequate, for the time. But Microsoft
was illegally monopolizing, so....
>And I do not
>think they reveal an intention on Suns part to go into
>the desktop area; the limited tools Sun did provide
>were appropriate for the applications then being
>run on Suns.
It really doesn't look as if you are competent enough to have a valid
opinion on the matter, Daniel.
--
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:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 05:59:11 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
>"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Daniel Johnson wrote:
>> > > And why was DR-DOS so lousy to build applications on, compared
>> > > to the other OS's in it's market?
>> >
>> > Horrible memory model. Very weak services for
>> > applications. It's just like MS-DOS basically.
>>
>> Answer the freakinig questions put to you...
>> And why was DR-DOS so lousy to build applications on, compared
>> to the other OS's in it's market?
>
>The horrible memory model was the biggest
>thing. Only DOS and clones thereof had it;
>Windows could not succeed until it busted out
>of it.
Now THAT could only possibly be the work of someone who is BOTH a troll
AND a sock puppet!
Give up, Rick; save your sanity. Daniel doesn't have enough self-esteem
to mind being pathetically dishonest; he no doubt takes a great deal of
immature pride in his ability to resist all reason and frustrate more
intelligent people.
--
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: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 05:59:12 GMT
Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 5 May 2001
>On Sat, 5 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>>>> The program may not be *functional*,
>>>>> but you can definitely write such a program. [...]
>>>> Find a non-programmer who calls a random bunch of characters that do not
>>>> perform function "a program". Why would you even bother writing a
>>>> program that is not functional? Just trying to 'cheat' copyright law,
>>>> without actually getting into any trouble?
>>> You elided the reasons both here and in another post. Try reading for
>>> comprehension, for once.
>> Try not being a trollboy. What have I 'elided'? The many examples of
>> people missing my point and failing to understand anything outside their
>> limited perspective without getting entirely confounded?
>
>Gee ... do you know that when you edit things and put "[...]" over what
>you've eliminated, you've elided? Obviously not. Go back and read the
>post that contains what you elided and then try applying your
>much-vaunted reasoning skills (*snicker*) to that.
Yes, Austin, I do know what elided means, and what text I snipped. In
case your rather pathetic reasoning skills are even less than I
supposed, I'll be more clear: if you cannot provide more explicit
examples and explanations of how my editing ignored any reasoning I had
not already refuted, then you have lost your point. I have not avoided
or failed to refute any of these 'reasons' you feel so sure about.
Perhaps you didn't realize that I'm not going to take your word on that.
Please, illustrate my horrendous eliding and build an argument against
my claims. Of course, if you could do that, I doubt you'd just be
trolling, the way you are.
--
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: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 05:59:13 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 5 May 2001 20:30:56
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 4 May 2001 23:02:22
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 3 May 2001
>> >> >On Thu, 3 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> >> >> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 2 May 2001 21:08:02
>> >> >>> It has been done, IN PRACTICE. That you, who has never exercised
>the
>> >> >>> craft claim that what has already been done is impossible, is quite
>> >> >>> irritating.
>> >> >> I'm sure. No, it has not been done in practice; it is impossible in
>> >> >> practice to write a program which requires a library that doesn't
>yet
>> >> >> exist in any way.
>> >> >
>> >> >For the nth time, this is false.
>> >>
>> >> For the nth+1 time, your contention is flawed.
>> >
>> >No, it isn't.
>> >Prove it. By example.
>>
>> You cannot prove something is impossible by example, Ayende. I'd think
>> if you're smart enough to program you should be smart enough to know
>> that already.
>
>Okay, point taken, prove that it's very hard, then.
It isn't typically done. That's cogent enough for me, but then again, I
already understand my point.
>That is how we proved speed of light limit.
??? No, we proved that empirically, not through Usenet discussion.
>*I* can prove that it *is* possible, you know.
No, I do not know. In fact, I know the opposite, quite definitely, for
a fact.
>I've given number of examples that show it is possible, already.
This statement proves my previous ones. You can go prove whatever it is
you want, it's not going to make any difference. You still don't even
know what the actual discussion is about.
--
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: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 05:59:14 GMT
Said Jay Maynard in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 5 May 2001 15:28:46 GMT;
>On Sat, 05 May 2001 15:13:46 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>Make money off it? That's the only part that counts in copyright, you
>>know: you gets paid.
>
>Sorry, but you're simply wrong in the real world where the rest of us live
>(or, at least, in the US).
"Sorry", in turn. You are mistaken.
>18 USC 106(1) says you're wrong.
How, precisely? By failing to say "the purpose of copyright law is to
ensure authors get paid, and nothing else?" That's in the Constitution,
not the statute.
>The FSF even disagrees with your position. Otherwise, why would they think
>they could sue over non-profit GPV violations?
Apparently, you are confused about what my position is. My position is
what the FSF's position is, in the matter under discussion (do you even
know what *that* is?)
>Copyright is the right to prohibit others from making copies (plus some
>other rights). The existence of profit changes the penalties, but not the
>fact that it's a violation of law.
There are no penalties, if you'd bother to notice. Copyright violations
are entirely a civil matter: there is no criminal enforcement of
copyright. It's not like anti-trust law, either, where they just don't
often use criminal prosecutions, but the gov't becomes a civil
complainant. There IS no such thing as a criminal copyright violation.
>You're welcome to disagree with the basis of the law...but until you can
>convince a court you're right, and convince the appeals courts the original
>court was right in agreeing with you, in the real world, you're wrong.
>That's the way the real world works.
Again, you seem to be unaware of the positions within the argument. The
current law (including court precedent) are in complete agreement, so
far, with the FSF's position. It is the fact that it has not really
been tested in court that gives rise to this contention that the FSF's
position on the GPL is unsupportable.
What "original court" did you think was under discussion?
--
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: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 05:59:15 GMT
Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 5 May 2001
>On Sat, 5 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 4 May 2001 22:56:31
>>> Now, I can gurantee you that anyone who code in C++ can:
>>> A> implement the API
>>> B> predict what the output of the program would be according to the API,
>>> *without* implementing the API.
>> Make money off it? That's the only part that counts in copyright, you
>> know: you gets paid.
>
>Wrong. It can also be that others can't make money off work that you do
>without your permission.
Yes, that's precisely what I said. The word "you" in the last phrase
was a typo, and should have been "who". Which includes, of course, "who
not".
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
