re: piperead arithmentic
piperead example in faq gives shell syntax error AddToFunc CenterWindow + I ThisWindow Piperead echo Move \ $(( $[vp.width]/2-$[w.width]/2 ))p \ $(( $[vp.height]/2-$[w.height]/2 ))p sh complains about missing ( Actually i'm trying to calculate which horizontal pager window i'm in when i click on it. Ok, i figgered out how to do it (4 pages per desk, 2 desks). AddToFunc GotoDesk_func + I PipeRead `[ $[desk.n] -eq 1 ] echo Colorset 8 bg \\#70c050 + I PipeRead `[ $[desk.n] -eq 0 ] echo Colorset 8 bg \\#70b040 + I PipeRead `echo GotoDeskAndPage \`echo $[desk.n] | tr 01 10\` \`eval expr $[pointer.wx] \\'*\\' 4 / $[w.width] \` 0 Mouse 2 W N PointerWindow (FvwmPager) GotoDesk_func *FvwmPagerWindowColorsets 8 9 -- Visit the official FVWM web page at URL:http://www.fvwm.org/. To unsubscribe from the list, send unsubscribe fvwm-workers in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To report problems, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The fvwm Ethical License
Good morning Fvwm Workers, How about making a statement on the fvwm web site instead of a new license? We could place some comments on the war and the usage of fvwm either on the start page or on the download page. We could say that we are against violation of human rights (and terrorism) and wish that fvwm will not be used by people supporting violation of human rights, terrorism or war in any kind. (This has to be reworded - but in this meaning) We could also place a statement site, and link to it from the start and download page. From this site we could link to other sites like unicef, ... Can anyone go with this or anyone not? I think it is not that strong as a license but it makes clear our objectives. Regards, Uwe -- +-- | Uwe Pross |mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] |http://www.tu-chemnitz.de/~uwp +-- -- Visit the official FVWM web page at URL:http://www.fvwm.org/. To unsubscribe from the list, send unsubscribe fvwm-workers in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To report problems, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The fvwm Ethical License
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - COPYING --- Before using this software, every user is expected to read the statements in the file ETHICAL_LICENSE that comes with the fvwm distribution. - I don't agree with this, I don't expect users of fvwm to even know it's GPL code. I don't expect the crazy people who compile the fvwm source to even read the COPYING file. When I'm compiling stuff from source I usually scan the first screen full of all files starting with capitial letters, I don't care if it's GPL or BSD as long as I can use it for free. I would be OK with you adding this to COPYING: === Before using this software, please read the ETHICAL_LICENSE file that comes with the fvwm distribution. === I also think you should put a short introduction to the ETHICAL_LICENSE file that lists those who support it. Not me I'm afraid, I'm British and I agree with the war against the Iraqi dictatorship. Cheers, Tim. -- Visit the official FVWM web page at URL:http://www.fvwm.org/. To unsubscribe from the list, send unsubscribe fvwm-workers in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To report problems, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The fvwm Ethical License
On 29 Mar 2003 11:24:01 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 08:35:02AM +, Tim Phipps wrote: I would be OK with you adding this to COPYING: === Before using this software, please read the ETHICAL_LICENSE file that comes with the fvwm distribution. === In other words, I should soften the wording until it can be safely ignored without the risk of having a slightly bad conscience? Sorry, I can not comply to this. The whole idea of an opt-in ethical use statement is a bad joke. If you put it in README and not COPYING, it will not sound as a bad joke. Not me I'm afraid, I'm British and I agree with the war against the Iraqi dictatorship. I do not understand this. In how far does being British, German, American, Chinese or Martian affect ethics? If this does not affect ethics, how can you explain that most of the people choose (agree to) the position of their countries? After all these people elected their politicians or are forced by their dictator. On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 03:38:34AM +, Mikhael Goikhman wrote: I don't like to disappoint you, Dominik, but I don't agree too. I can't see myself agreeing with a license that discriminates people based on their occupation, ethics or similar. GNU GPL means free for everyone forever. No exceptions. Personally I am not a god to decide who is meritorious to use my software and who is not. * supporting, planning, preparing or executing wars and other military actions. I see you left out terrorist acts. One more thing is left out: using chemical, biological and nuclear weapons ... [cut political opinions] How would you qualify this if not as a military action or an act of terrorism? Now, if I would start discriminating between types of actions or weapons the statement would really become political. Killing millions with nuclear weapons is equally unethical as putting a knife in the back of a mass murderer. I can't agree. This may be true by your ethics, not by my ethics. (Read: by your ego, not by my ego.) You may only afford to be a humanitarian when you are not directly involved in a conflict. When you are involved, you should choose sides. To continue, think also about wars against the drug business and other mafias. What is more ethical, to kill several drug traffickers in a skirmish or to let them to break thousands of people? It's clear to me. Yes, for me too. Both is utterly unethical. A human life is a human life is a human life. What is a human life? The god's creature, shrine? I am not religious, so this is not my ethics. Does the animal life is as important as the human life? If it is as important, you should fight against killing locusts, midges, cockroach and dosens of others. If it is less important, it is a human despotism. Since I believe that the basis of all ethical beliefs is egoism, I have no problem to state that a human life is more important. Although I would egoistically fight for my own life and the life of my family, I don't see my life as something holy by itself. I believe in evolution. If I die, it is ok as long as the humanity in the whole prospers. Similary about the lives of others. Thinking otherwise is caprisious by my ethics. Face it. Ethics, politics, religion always mean ego, nothing more than this, everyone chooses what is better for his own safety or for the safety of his family, his country, his god, whatever. Nothing special to be prood of. There is no absolute human ethics. Unfortunately. But that does not mean that ethics are a private decision. Quite the opposite, if you accept that people choose ethics too their liking, you must accept too if terrorists who kill people do it because they see it as their ethical duty to do so. I fully realize a terrorist has his own ethics. Since our ethics are quite opposite (he wants to kill me in name of his gods), I prefer to fight him and kill him to live myself. If you do not acknowledge that, ethics becomes pure caprisiousness. What you say sounds like killing is wrong, except when I think it it right. It does not only sounds like this, it is exactly this. Everyone thinks killing is wrong (because she does not like to be killed), except when she thinks it is right (because she would be killed otherwise). I have no any ethical problem to realize this. The entire life is choosing sides. I think we all are on the same side, we write Free Software, there is no need to expose sides where we differ. Like social status, profession, country, cultural/religious ethics etc. Regards, Mikhael. -- Visit the official FVWM web page at URL:http://www.fvwm.org/. To unsubscribe from the list, send unsubscribe fvwm-workers in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To report problems, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The fvwm Ethical License
On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 12:50:00PM +, Mikhael Goikhman wrote: On 29 Mar 2003 11:24:01 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 08:35:02AM +, Tim Phipps wrote: I would be OK with you adding this to COPYING: === Before using this software, please read the ETHICAL_LICENSE file that comes with the fvwm distribution. === In other words, I should soften the wording until it can be safely ignored without the risk of having a slightly bad conscience? Sorry, I can not comply to this. The whole idea of an opt-in ethical use statement is a bad joke. If you put it in README and not COPYING, it will not sound as a bad joke. The whole idea of opt-in ethics is ridiculous. I don't see why it would make any difference. Not me I'm afraid, I'm British and I agree with the war against the Iraqi dictatorship. I do not understand this. In how far does being British, German, American, Chinese or Martian affect ethics? If this does not affect ethics, how can you explain that most of the people choose (agree to) the position of their countries? After all these people elected their politicians or are forced by their dictator. In many so-called democratic countries, the media mostly generate the public opinion. This is especially bad in countries where they are mostly controlled by the government. People with different opinions are often discriminated - you can see this both, in America and in Germany. On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 03:38:34AM +, Mikhael Goikhman wrote: I don't like to disappoint you, Dominik, but I don't agree too. I can't see myself agreeing with a license that discriminates people based on their occupation, ethics or similar. GNU GPL means free for everyone forever. No exceptions. Personally I am not a god to decide who is meritorious to use my software and who is not. * supporting, planning, preparing or executing wars and other military actions. I see you left out terrorist acts. One more thing is left out: using chemical, biological and nuclear weapons ... [cut political opinions] How would you qualify this if not as a military action or an act of terrorism? Now, if I would start discriminating between types of actions or weapons the statement would really become political. Killing millions with nuclear weapons is equally unethical as putting a knife in the back of a mass murderer. I can't agree. This may be true by your ethics, not by my ethics. (Read: by your ego, not by my ego.) You may only afford to be a humanitarian when you are not directly involved in a conflict. When you are involved, you should choose sides. That's the one big lie I always hear from people who do not even want to consider if what they are supporting might be wrong. At least I can afford to be a humanitarian, regardless of what happens - as you see: I am attacked from all sides right now. To continue, think also about wars against the drug business and other mafias. What is more ethical, to kill several drug traffickers in a skirmish or to let them to break thousands of people? It's clear to me. Yes, for me too. Both is utterly unethical. A human life is a human life is a human life. What is a human life? The god's creature, shrine? I am not religious, so this is not my ethics. Does the animal life is as important as the human life? If it is as important, you should fight against killing locusts, midges, cockroach and dosens of others. If it is less important, it is a human despotism. Since I believe that the basis of all ethical beliefs is egoism, I have no problem to state that a human life is more important. I am not religious either. The only 'definition' of morality I have ever seen that I can agree with (although nobody can justify it) is Kant's categorical imperative: Act only according to maxims of which you can want that they become a common law. All other attempts of definition i can think of eventually run down to treating some people differently than others. Regarding the human despotism: I acknowledge there are two fundamental aspects of human existence. The first is the human being as a product of evolution, as an animal among others. As far as I know, animals are not capable of considering ethical questions. In so far it makes little sense to talk about ethics in this sphere. The second is the human as a thinking being who has an at least partially free will (if not, we can as well stop talking now). In this sphere, it does not make much sense to think about ethics in other than human matters. But then, both spheres overlap in many areas, which makes talking about ethics immensely difficult. Although I would egoistically fight for my own life and the life of my family, I don't see my life as something holy by itself. I believe in evolution. If I die, it is ok as long as the humanity in the whole prospers.
Re: The fvwm Ethical License
On 12:50 29 Mar 2003, Mikhael Goikhman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Not me I'm afraid, I'm British and I agree with the war against | the Iraqi dictatorship. | | I do not understand this. In how far does being British, German, | American, Chinese or Martian affect ethics? | | If this does not affect ethics, how can you explain that most of the | people choose (agree to) the position of their countries? After all | these people elected their politicians or are forced by their dictator. Bosh. In a democracy you don't get to pick policies. The best you get to do is vote for whatever power group least offends you. And in most systems, if that's not one of the few major groups your vote gets discarded. There are preferential scheme, but that basicly means your voite gets moved to another power group. And once they're in they can basicly do as they please. The current agression in Iraq supplies a classic example: in Oz, if pretty clear that the majority of the population oppse the war and our role in it. Our glorious leader basicly has the view that it's his prerogative to go forth anyway. The US leader has the same attitude: he's asserted the power to make war without going through his Congress. Anyway, I support Dominik's approach: it doesn't require people to take his views or even to support pacifistic organisations as he wishes. Merely to get people to think seriously about it and consider some/all of the wishes of the code authors. Personally I think FVWM is a neutral tool. Very unlike, say, a gun, whole purpose is to kill or injure others - it is fundamentally a weapon, whatever the mindset of the person brandishing it. But I'll support Dominik's approach here. Cheers, -- Cameron Simpson, DoD#743[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.zip.com.au/~cs/ Your modesty is typically human, so I will overlook it. - a Klingon -- Visit the official FVWM web page at URL:http://www.fvwm.org/. To unsubscribe from the list, send unsubscribe fvwm-workers in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To report problems, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
