Linux-Advocacy Digest #502, Volume #34 Mon, 14 May 01 02:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Chad Everett)
Re: Win 9x is horrid (Donn Miller)
Re: Win 9x is horrid (Donn Miller)
Re: the Boom, Boom department (Chad Everett)
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" (Chad Everett)
Re: Linux in Retail & Hospitality - What Every Retailer Should Know ("Tom Wilson")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: What does Linux need for the desktop? (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: What does Linux need for the desktop? (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: MS POLL! ("Frank Booth")
Re: Linux in Retail & Hospitality - What Every Retailer Should Know (Matthew
Gardiner)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Tom Wilson")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Snaggler)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: LOMAC shocks Microsoft! ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Find your sole mate here!! Post your FREE personal ADs here! ("Tom Wilson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 13 May 2001 23:25:31 -0500
On Sun, 13 May 2001 23:51:45 +0100, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Where in my statements did I say I was afraid of homosexuals. I am not
>> afraid of them anymore than I am afraid of people with bipolar disorder
>> or any other genetic malfunction.
>
>If you have really firm evidence that homosexualtiy is genetic, I suggest
>you publish.
>
Most homosexuals will try and tell you that they were "born that way".
What does that tell you? Are you suggesting this isn't really true?
>
>> We've had homosexuals right here in this newsgroup state that if they
>> could change the fact that they're homosexual, they would do it in a
>> heartbeat. If one fine day we could have a humane cure for
>> homosexuality, why would you want to deny them that? What are you YOU
>> afraid of?
>
>The statyed reason was being one of the worlds most hated and persecuted
>minorities. We already have a humane cure that costs nothing to
>administer. it is called tolerance. With a healthy dose of this, they
>would have far less reasons to want to change.
>
>-Ed
>
Although tolerance is a good thing, it doesn't qualify as a humane cure
for homosexuality and does nothing to help the homosexual who wishes
to not be homosexual. Why do you seem to be so afraid and resistant
to the dream of one day having a humane cure for homosexuality?
Homosexuality is either a genetic malfunction, a choice, or somehow
caused by one's environment/upbringing. What other possibilities are
there? If it's genetic, then the hope of one day finding a cure is
real. If it's a choice or environmentally caused then the same applies.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 01:06:42 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win 9x is horrid
Craig Kelley wrote:
> Contrast with Microsoft, who openly admits that you'll need to send
> them intimate knowledge of your machine if you wish to "activate" your
> products in the future.
I don't think that Microsoft is all that "BAD" as people make them out
to be. It's just a big monopolistic software giant, but they're
probably not "BAD" 100% of the time. However, because of their size and
influence over the software industry, even a tiny grain of "BAD" from MS
does a lot of damage.
Unix is just one operating system that did things right the first time.
It is simply the best OS on the planet. Windows isn't "bad" all the
time, but it just doesn't have the outstanding minimalist layer-by-layer
design that unix OSes have. Even if MS weren't one iota bad, their OS
still isn't as good as unix, because unix doesn't sufer from the DLL
HELL that Windows does.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 01:10:50 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win 9x is horrid
pip wrote:
> Hmmmmmmmmmmm. Sounds bad! That is certainly NOT on! I've never used the
> download thing as I knew that it would be something that would just
> waste space - so I didn't even bother to enable. I just use it to
> stream audio at which it does quite a good job as does it's video.
> However, if there were better alternative then I would not hesitate to
> use them.
Real Player is crap, plain and simple. Even Windows Media Player is
better, but it's only available on one platform. Why is Real format so
great? It's just their own proprietary variant of MPEG, and MPEG is a
standard format. Since Real format is proprietary, it is only available
for RealPlayer. You can get the same performance out of MPEG, and MPEG
is an open format, playable by scores of players. Thanks to Real, a lot
of sites are now using this proprietary format, unreadable by other MPEG
players.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: the Boom, Boom department
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 13 May 2001 23:32:38 -0500
On Sat, 12 May 2001 23:17:06 +0100, Darren Wyn Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett) wrote :
>
>>The definition you provided did not specify a large quantity of
>>available games.
>
>Consumers prefer a choice of games. It's fairly obvious.
>
>Splitting hairs over the theoretical excellence of Linux as a gaming
>OS is half-amusing; but it is hardly the mark of an intelligent Linux
>advocate.
>
>If you want to advocate an OS, then be frank about the strengths and
>weaknesses of that particular OS. Linux is not a great gaming OS, if
>only for one reason : there are hardly any games worth mentioning
>available, and there is certainly not a plentiful supply of them.
>
Fair enough. Under your criteria, Windows XP, Solarix, AIX, HP-UX,
Irix, Linux, Mac OS X, FreeBSD, etc. are not gaming OSs. I am
interested in computing anyway. If Windows ends up being strictly
a gaming OS, that's a fairly fitting end to a pretty substandard OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 13 May 2001 23:34:36 -0500
On Sat, 12 May 2001 20:10:58 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Bob Hauck in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May 2001 14:37:28
>>On Fri, 11 May 2001 14:00:17 GMT, T. Max Devlin
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> To wit, an algorithm is a recursive computational procedure with a
>>> finite number of steps. Translation tables need not apply;
>>
>>You can implement a translation table as a series of if-else tests,
>>thus turning it into a "computational procedure". Does that make a
>>translation table into an algorithm?
>
>No, quite specifically. If-else tests are conditional processing, not
>algorithms. An algorithm is a purely mathematical construct. Two plus
>two doesn't equal seven IF...
>
>Making it a "computer program" does not make it a "computational
>procedure", in the analytical meaning of that term. Implementing a
>translation table leaves you with a translation table in software. An
>algorithm in software does not and cannot use translation tables; every
>value must be calculated, not looked up, or it is not algorithmic.
>
>>A translation table is a form of lookup table. The DES uses lookup
>>tables. Does this make it not an alogorithm? The Knuth-Morris-Pratt
>>string search uses a lookup table too. In spite of that, Knuth thinks
>>it is an algorithm. Is he wrong?
>
Are the lookup tables known by everyone?
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.retail.category.management,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux in Retail & Hospitality - What Every Retailer Should Know
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 05:17:28 GMT
>
http://www.microsoft.com/europe/industry/retail/strategicwhitepapers/2523.ht
m
Tell that to Days Inn and Knight's Inn. Their reservation and
site-management software is Linux and has been for quite a while (Older
Caldera distro at most sites). Works very well.
I still do auditing for a hotel chain and plan to start investing in a
couple. (If you ever accumulate a chunk of money to invest, its a very wise
choice. Even the smallish budget chains pull profit over loan interest out
of the gate. Large expendature up front, but pays off for years.)
I've got a project on the back burner for such applications (NT-based) that
I'm seriously considering changing to Linux after seeing the reliability
edge the Days Inn has over the EconoLodge's NT-Based ChoiceLink system.
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 17:23:18 +1200
>
> Have what issues? I have no issues. yes, I paid for the CALs - yep, sure
> did. But everything works perfectly. I get what I pay for and it works
> BETTER than anything else with the Windows desktops it supports. You have
> given me no reason why I'd want to switch to using unix to support windows
> desktops other than the upfront, one time purchase cost (and forgetting it
> costs more to support a unix server cause it's harder to configure and
> operate)
Hard to admin a Solaris server! yeah right! you really need to get up
with the play on what is happening in the world of UNIX.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 17:25:09 +1200
Jan Johanson wrote:
>
> "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Um, my calculator says that a 99.999% uptime leaves 5.26 MINUTES
> > > downtime per year - not 8 hours. Did you perhaps calculate for 99.9%
> > > uptime?
> > > --
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > 365days * 24hours = 8760 hours
> > 0.001(difference between 100 and 99.999) * 8760 hours = 8.76 hours.
>
> You Do realize that 5 9s of reliablity is the best that practically all
> vendors claim, even unix ones?
Unlike Microsoft, most UNIX vendors don't over estimate uptime, hence,
for the UNIX world, it is rather conservative. However, Microsoft wants
market share, they will even lie to try to get people to convert.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What does Linux need for the desktop?
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 17:34:59 +1200
mmnnoo wrote:
> snip>
>
> Konqueror is nice and light, but again the problem is that it works on
> 'only' about 90% of websites. I start thinking how great it is, then it
> renders a page with areas of text on top of each other, or I can't join a
> chatroom, or access a secure site. Unfortunately, I think getting those
> last 10-20% of sites working would be 80-90% of the work in creating a
> browser.
All the KDE team need to do is get Javascript working properly, and Java
applets to load (using an external JVM), then I will be an awsome
browser. Hopefully later on, RealMedia will start supporting it
natively.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What does Linux need for the desktop?
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 17:38:43 +1200
"Claus S=F8rensen - Formand for KLID" wrote:
> =
> On Sun, 13 May 2001 10:40:57 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> =
> >OK, I hear people say that Linux is not ready for the desktop. I alway=
s wonder
> >why. OK, I'll concede games, but that is a different story all togethe=
r. For
> >now, lets focus on the office/home office desktop, i.e. what would kee=
p a
> >company from going all Linux?
> >
> >Having these answers in a neat little HOWTO (How To run your company o=
n Linux)
> >would be sort of cool.
> =
> Linux is missing a accounting system for small to medium businesses.
Assuming you are talking about MYOB. Maybe it is possible to run it with
wine? I am not too sure, some one may have to correct me on that one.
> Linux is missing a free (both senses) groupware system (Lotus is not
> free and not even cheap when you're looking at client licenses).
There are solutions out there, I forgot which ones. I know there are
iPlanet collaboration tools that available for Linux, however, I am not
too sure about the quality, or reliability.
=
> Linux is missing a project management tool like Microsoft Project (one
> which can calculate correctly)
How many people honestly use Microsoft Project?
> =
> Linux is missing a not too heavy office package (StarOffice is too
> heavy for systems with 64MB or less).
> =
> The most enjoyable greetings
I've had no problems runing Linux on 64MB Ram w/ staroffice, cd playing
in the back ground and a download happening the background as well.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: "Frank Booth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS POLL!
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 05:42:57 GMT
> Dear Mr President,
>
> Buddy, you are really one fucked and clueless dude aren't you?
>
> How did you ever get to be president anyway? Did you repeat what the
> managers said to the stock holders? Are they in the same boat your in?
Charlie, you're giving Linux advocacy a bad name by repeatedly
personalizing the argument, making prejudicial statements of whole classes
of people, and mixing some facts with a lot of offensive hyperbole. No
"CEO" is going to change his mind by reading what you've written here -
and guess what: they're the ones that sign those fat checks made out to
MS.
You could be an asset to the Linux movement by crafting persuasive
arguments and countering FUD in a rational and reasoned mananer. Instead,
you basically jerk yourself off on the newsgroups, accomplishing nothing
other than widening the gulf that separates management and the geeks.
If the people you work for are such fucking idiots, and you can't convert
them, then move on. Surely you have the skills to shop around for an
environment that you find less constricting.
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.retail.category.management,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux in Retail & Hospitality - What Every Retailer Should Know
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 17:43:32 +1200
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> In article <3afebc17$0$82825$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jan Johanson wrote:
> >
> >------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C0DBAB.BDE843E0--
> >
> <SNIP>
>
> Linux is the fastest growing OS on the planet with MS being a distant
> second.
>
> Linux now has a majority rule amongst small business.
>
> And I've never seen comments from CEO magazine change this.
>
> --
> Charlie
> -------
I worked for Pizza Hutt for 2 years (whilst at Uni.), they used a
UNIXWare server, with dumb terminals off it, running a custom written
application to take orders. Never crashed once the whole time I was
there. Please Microsoft and Jan, where is this so-called "mass
conversion" and "correction" that supposidly is meant to be happening in
the POS front.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 05:45:29 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<snip>
> > > Why would any sane person lock themselves into a .NOT pollution?
> >
> > Financial reasons mostly (from a developer's standpoint). You have to
put
> > dislike aside and earn a living. With any luck at all, it'll be a flop
and
> > we won't have to fool with it. There are already enough Windows
platforms to
> > have to support. I don't want to have to fool with yet another.
>
> Dear Darth,
> Learn to develop for Unix and come, return to the light side.
I'm steering in that direction and the company I hack for is too. We need to
sell the Windows stuff to finance the effort, though. A lot of midnight oil
has been burned on the present project and we aren't just going to abandon
it. Also, investors get cold feet and try to force things out the proverbial
door when the economy stagnates. Don't want to fool with that this time
around. Linux needs a bit of work and coaxing to get to where we want to go
with it. A *lot* of potential, there! We want to do it right and that takes
time...and money.
------------------------------
From: Snaggler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 05:45:05 GMT
On 13 May 2001 23:59:05 -0500, "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Abit BX-133 Mb w/current bios
>> > Pentium III 500
>> > 256 Mb PC-133 ECC
>> > Four 40 gig Seagate 7200 rpm ATA100 drives stripped and mirrored in
>hardware
>> > (onboard HPT370 dual channel RAID controller)
>> > 2 x Intel Server NICs
>> > generic CD-ROM and floppy
>> > aopen case, no extra cooling
>> > generic SIS AGP video card cause we use terminal services for remote
>admin
>> > so we almost never login locally.
>> > APC 1400 UPS connected via serial cable
>> >
>> > EVERYTHING without exception loaded using the standard Windows 2000
>Server
>> > CD, I upgraded the NIC adapter driver cause there were some neat
>features in
>> > the intel driver instead of the one from MS, but that was unnecessary.
>> >
>> > Works perfectly solid, we started at 128 megs but upgraded to 256 when
>we
>> > decided to run active directory on this machine after that department
>was
>> > moved to a different floor. It's backed up over the network so no local
>> > backup device.
>> >
>> > Thats it. Nothing special.
>> >
>> > CPU utilization is practically nothing - we only used the 500 cause it
>was
>> > the best price break at the time of purchase.
>> How much ($) for 144 licenses? had you used Linux, or if you used a
>> commercial UNIX, Solaris 8 x86 or UNIXWare 7.1.1 you wouldn't have those
>> issues.
>
>Have what issues? I have no issues.
Yet. You will have issues. Good luck with them. Sounds like earlier
you deleted nslookup and some other utils because you didn't see any
need for them. Sounds like you're well equipped to tackle your future
issues. If the server is on currently, they're festering as we speak.
> yes, I paid for the CALs - yep, sure did.
Well, I bet you personally didn't pay for them, the company did. If it
was on your recommendation, I commend you for making a very informed
decision and presenting the information in an extremely accurate light
to your boss.
>But everything works perfectly.
Your probably not doing all that much with it. Windows whatever is
nice and flashy on the surface, but when one actually tries to use
advanced services or scale the domain/active directory architecture,
that's when the ball of yarn that was holding it together gets
repossesed by the cat. Babysitting one 2K server doesn't qualify you
as an admin either.
> I get what I pay for and it works
Lucky you. My company has a site license for almost every MS product
in existence and we certainly didn't get what we payed for. I can't
help but wonder if the execs up top who make all the decisions about
platforms for the enterprise realize how much money they could have
saved in upfront costs, downtime, support, etc., if they would have
went with Linux on the desktop and servers. The execs did make some
good decisions, though, because all the really critical apps still run
on a UNIX or mainframe or OS/400, etc.
>BETTER than anything else with the Windows desktops it supports.
One remark is not to run Terminal Server 2K with NT 4.0 clients. It's
a serious pain. Everything better be 2K in your network because it
doesn't play nicely with NT 4.0.
>You have
>given me no reason why I'd want to switch to using unix to support windows
>desktops other than the upfront, one time purchase cost (and forgetting it
>costs more to support a unix server
I don't think anyone is trying to convince you to switch over.
Frankly, I'd feel disappointed if you did. In fact, I wish there was
another OS you could use that isn't Linux or Windows, because really
talented Systems Engineers who suffer with MS have to explain
themselves on interviews because employers are scared of getting one
of you. Also, here's a creative way of looking at supposedly higher
UNIX support costs: take the initial investment prices in Windows and
UNIX and amortize them over five years. Oh wait, Microsoft will have
shuffled through at least two more OS releases in that time and that
will mean two server hardware replacements, so let's add that into the
equation too. Since Windows boxes in whatever version are known for
their reliability (.NOT), that shouldn't add too much to the support
bill. We musn't forget about the consulting costs of fixing server
problems when they occur either (remember, we delete executables like
nslookup, etc).
> cause it's harder to configure and
>operate)
>
You're right, there is a steeper learning curve. UNIX administration
is not for everyone. That's why most UNIX admins are paid more and are
considered to be some of the most talented individuals in the field.
UNIX administration is certainly not for end-users, nor is it for
end-users masquerading as administrators.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 05:49:44 GMT
"Isaac" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> While that's true, I have seen a few authors of GPL'd code say that they
> agree with RMS and I have yet to see one weigh in on the opposite side.
How many of the actual contributors to to GPL'd code would have chosen
that license for their portion if they had a choice? I don't think anyone
can answer that one.
> It's important to note the the FSF's position is born of necessity.
> It is the only remotely plausible way to claim that the current
> license doesn't allow compiling their code into dlls and plug-ins to
> be called by proprietary software.
It is more remote than plausible. The situation involved with RIPEM
might have involved dynamic linking, but a more typical scenario
would be that a user would obtain the fgmp library, probably as
source, and link it statically into the executable built from the RIPEM
source. This was not a new or unusual possibility.
> Most people who after careful consideration decide to GPL their code
> rather than to use another free license, probably don't want their
> code used without permission in non free software.
If that is what they want, they should use a license that states their
wishes
instead of one that claims to allow (and even to be necessary for) free use.
And perhaps it is a relevant point here that RIPEM was not proprietary, it
just necessarily contained code with existing restrictions that were
incompatible with the GPL.
> > Isaac wrote
> >> I might feel differently if I didn't find out about his
> >> position before I had invested time and money, but I cannot argue
> >> that I've been tricked when I know his position ahead of time.
> >
> >Can you read the GPL and arrive at that position yourself? If not,
> >how can you avoid saying it is deceptive?
> >
>
> No I can't find the RMS's position in the GPL by reading it. I
> don't consider the GPL to be deceptive because I believe it was
> written without considering the implications of dynamic linking,
> and thus I don't find an intent to deceive. Ironically because
> it's obvious that the FSF's current interpretation has been tacked
> onto the text after the fact, it's clear to me that it was never
> intended to deceive.
Dynamic linking is a recent variation, but from the start anyone could
obtain their own copy of the library and link statically to anything
else.
> For me personally, it cannot be deceptive because I know of the
> FSF's interpretation now. It can no longer deceive you either.
One or other of the interpretation , or the section:
"Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights
or contest your rights to work written entirely by you;
rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the
distribution of derivative or collective works based on
the Program. "
is deceptive, since in fact the interpretation does claim rights
to work written by others.
> I will agree that the GPL is misleading and can trap the unwary,
> but simply changing the wording of the GPL won't solve the problem
> because the change in license wouldn't cover previously released
> code. I think the next best thing would be for the FSF to include
> an explanation of their position with their libraries.
Perhaps, if the author of each particular work actually meant to
restrict his code in that way.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 05:53:44 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 12 May 2001 22:03:27
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >> Sit down. Write a program that uses a GPL library which you've never
> >> seen and don't have. (This is the issue, I know; you think the
> >> developer should have end-user rights of fair use, particularly with
> >> open code.) Using only the API specification, and no prior testing
save
> >> a stub library, create the program. Distribute it under a non-GPL
> >> license. Wait for the FSF thugs to threaten to take you to court. (So
> >> far just like the RIPEM guys, right? Except they begged the question
by
> >> using the library itself, not only the API and a stub.)
> >
> >This is irrelevant since they have the right to use the library, they
just
> >don't have the right to redistribute it as part of a non-GPL product,
> >which they didn't.
>
> To use a component in production is to use it commercially. IIRC, the
> GPL only gives you the right to use the software for your private use.
> Private use != commercial use, even if it is simply the connotation, not
> the action, of "use" that changes.
There is no concept of 'commercial' in the GPL. It restricts nothing but
copying, modification, and distribution, and restricts those in the same
ways for everyone.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LOMAC shocks Microsoft!
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 06:00:39 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> And I'll wager that 95 percent of the people in the world don't even
> know or care what LOMAC is....
>
> BTW what is it?
>From their web page...
LOMAC is an attempt to make an easily-adoptable form of MAC integrity
protection available to the Free UNIX community. LOMAC implements a simple
form of MAC integrity protection based on Biba's Low Water-Mark model in a
Linux Loadable Kernel Module (LKM). LOMAC provides useful integrity
protection against viruses, Trojan horses, malicious remote users, and
compromised network servers without any modifications to the kernel,
applications, or their existing configurations. Due to its simplicity, LOMAC
itself requires no configuration, regardless of the users, servers, or other
software present on the system. LOMAC is easy to use. It may be used to
harden currently-deployed Linux systems simply by loading the LKM into the
kernel shortly after boot time.
Anyone security concious should be interested in it.
Has nothing to do with Audio, sorry. <g>
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Find your sole mate here!! Post your FREE personal ADs here!
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 06:04:06 GMT
"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Stop wasting time waiting for love to fall on your lap
>
> I've never heard it described in quite those terms before.
Not without slipping a twenty in its' g-string before it wanders off to play
with the fire pole some more. <g>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
