Linux-Advocacy Digest #624, Volume #26 Sun, 21 May 00 04:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Gnome, KDE, others.... (Arthur)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: --- USENET newsreader filter report #00001 --- (abraxas)
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. (abraxas)
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. (abraxas)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux ("Andrew N. McGuire ")
Re: a few questions please ("Ferdinand V. Mendoza")
Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX ("Ferdinand V. Mendoza")
Re: Time to prove it's not just words (Damien)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Best Intranet Server + platform ("Ferdinand V. Mendoza")
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (JEDIDIAH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Arthur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Gnome, KDE, others....
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 22:58:42 -0700
Charlie Ebert wrote:
> In KDE you can write them via C++ only.
PyQT/PyKDE works great for producing KDE
aware apps using Python. I believe there
are other language bindings as well.
If you don't need to be KDE aware (and
you usually don't need to be) you can
use any language you can get to run
under Linux (and any widget set you
like for the GUI stuff)
Arthur
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.lang.basic
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 02:21:03 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Keith T. Williams from alt.destroy.microsoft; Wed, 17 May 2000
>IOW, I don't remember which magazines were around then. Certainly not PC
>ones. The discussion at the time was centered around if software was
>patentable, then any algorithms which included in the software were also
>patented, which meant that no one else could use them without at least
>paying a royalty fee. And since an algorithm is a technique, which may be
>independantly discovered that would have been an inappropriate venue.
Well, I'm not saying that you posited this argument yourself, but I have
to disagree with it entirely; not that it means anything to try to
respond to a discussion from over twenty years ago.
Software patents make a hell of a lot more sense than software
copyright, though I certainly would argue that it has been as
inappropriately applied. The intellectual property protected by patent
would be a unique *process*; not the software which embodies that
process. An "algorithm" is considered to be a mathematical operation,
and those still are and always have been specifically exempt from patent
protection. The supposition "if software is patentable, then any
algorithms included in the software were also patentable" is entirely
false, apart from that, as well. That would be akin to saying that,
since a sewing machine is made of metal, than metal can be patented.
(Indeed, a process for producing a metal is patentable, but that is not
related in any way to either sewing machines or software for this
analogy.)
Finally, the fact that something covered by patent can be independently
discovered (but cannot be used by anyone discovering it except the one
who first patented it) is an important truth in many ways. It doesn't
make patent an inappropriate venue for such a process. Quite the
opposite, in fact. It seems clear from the wording of the clause in the
U.S. Constitution establishing at least our patent system that this is
entirely the *purpose* of patent protection! The point is to "force",
if you will, inventors to innovate *more* processes for accomplishing
the intended objective.
This last bit underscores the inherent fallacy of the widely-trolled
disagreement with government action against Microsoft based on the whole
"telling them what they can do with their property". Patented software,
and I believe copyrighted software as well, is only "property" of any
person or business because the government says so, and the fact that you
can re-invent a patented process without even knowing any of the prior
art and still be unable to use that process without the permission of a
designated previous inventor clearly indicates that intellectual
property isn't "real" property.
>You can claim copyright on anything, by declaring a copyright in the body of
>work. Until that right is tested in a court of law, or specifically granted
>by an appropriate legislative body, it may or may not exist.
You need not declare anything, either, according to current applications
of copyright. I agree with that entirely, outside of the scope of
software. A copyright only exists, as far as the courts or laws are
concerned, when you defend it. You can announce conditions for use of
your work up front, or you can merely tell someone to stop using your
work if they have already begun doing so. You are even allowed to pick
and choose who you wish to ask to desist, without impacting the validity
of your claim.
This seems to me to be the only perfectly natural method of providing
copyright protection to intellectual property (not "on anything",
precisely, but on creative works such as literature, music, and other
artistic presentations.) Of course, this both requires and assumes that
such work can be objectively and more-or-less easily identified. This
is where software copyright fails utterly in the way it is currently
implemented. If any argument is to be made that "this software is
protected by copyright" is a legally defensible statement, then it
merely indicates that the source code itself is considered an
essentially literary exercise of intellectual creativity. A
transcription of code would not, of course, be legal. But any
"re-interpretation" or "re-implementation" of a software program or
package would be as unrestricted as writing a book covering the same
topics as another author. (Alternatively, you might say that simply
putting a book "into your own words" would not be sufficient to defend
against a claim of plagiarism.) There was also some discussion, I
recall, of the impossibility of determining whether "translation" _into
a different language_ or even the same language on a different operating
system (uh-oh) was a transcription or a new work. The result was an
assumption (incorrect, IMHO) that this means that any code which
essentially accomplished the same result when compiled would be
considered an infringement. Further, the copyright protection covered
the compiled executable, in some metaphysical way, which allowed it to
be restricted in distribution and use by a license determined by the
"author".
But if it *cannot* be determined, by any means whatsoever, that the
actual "program" is plagiarized (not merely a discussion of the same
topic), then it doesn't seem to me that software copyright, and
therefore software licenses, are really defensible at all. With any
other creative work, either experts or arbitrary observers or both can
easily ascertain whether the intellectual property is copied or
re-interpreted. Unless we're talking some well documented and highly
structured source code, there's no reason to think of software as
intellectual property, at least as far as copyright is concerned.
I'm beginning to see Richard Stallman's point about piracy. Software
licenses aren't worth the virtual paper they're imagined on.
>Even so, patents are still issued for software, witness U.S. Patent No.
>4974159 (1985), issued to Hargrove, et al, and assigned to Microsoft, for a
>"Method of transferring control in a multi-tasking computer system"
There's the problem with software patents, too. Essentially anything
smaller than a program and larger than an algorithm is "a process" for
doing something. Again, its an abstract idea that *could* work, but not
the way its done now, and even then it still wouldn't really make sense.
Software simply *isn't* what most people think it is.
>> >> I know that TV has always been covered -- that's what I said. But
>> >> then language was added to specifically name the program itself as a
>> >> protected expression, leading to that warning about not infringing the
>> >> copyright that begins every movie sold on videotape.
[Roger trolls:]
>> Just like software was later specifically mentioned.,while always
>> having been covered.
Well, I couldn't follow your back-reference "was later", but software
hadn't been covered at all until it was specifically mentioned. Not
"just like", but, entirely UNlike, television programming. Why did you
think it was? Your idea seems very ludicrous and ignorant, Roger.
Might you be lying again?
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== 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] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: --- USENET newsreader filter report #00001 ---
Date: 21 May 2000 06:50:18 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> abraxas wrote in message <8g7743$10r1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>>Alright, I have to admit---as much as I think Stephen S. Edwards is a
>>tard, I really do love these. :)
> Exactly why am I a "tard"?
Because I said you are.
> Because I don't share your love
> of Linux? That definition is merely an island of your own.
No, its because I said you are. And I dont 'love' linux. I
'love' freebsd and beos.
> Exactly what is it that makes you so intelligent?
Its an intrinsic quality.
> Your insightful
> posts? As for what you "think"... I rarely see you "thinking" in
> these forums at all.
I dont 'think' for free. I get paid to 'think', and im very
expensive.
>>Therefore, I shall quote it in full in case anyones incoming spool
>>missed it the first time:
> [SNIP]
> What?! You mean you actually are admitting that it is possible
> for a UNIX operating system to _fail_?! I'm going to give hell
> a call, and see if they've been getting any snow.
I never said it was impossible for any UNIX operating system to
fail actually. You have me confused with someone else.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: 21 May 2000 06:52:29 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The only point I can see here is atop your head.
Thats very, very funny right there.
> And you call
> me a "tard"?
Indeed. It really seems to have gotten your goat too.
> You don't even know enough to check article headers
> before you lash out and call someone else a "winfag".
I apologized for my transgression and admitted my error.
> abraxas, you really are, to put it simply, a jerk.
To some people, yep.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: 21 May 2000 06:53:43 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'll say. Windows2000 DataCenter Server can access up to 64GB of
> RAM, and 16 processors.
So they tell us. Whens that gonna be done again?
> Throw clustering in there, and you have
> a very powerful and cost-effective high-end solution. Not bad at
> all for a boxed OS.
If it ever gets released.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
From: "Andrew N. McGuire " <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 01:55:56 -0500
On Sat, 20 May 2000, Full Name wrote:
+On 18 May 2000 12:19:01 GMT, "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
+wrote:
+
+>
+>: There's just no excuse for not having an adequate installer. We have
+>
+>The installers I have are very adequate (make and tar). And from what
+>I've seen the distros have excellenet installers too. I can understand
+
+You can't be serious. Make and tar are "installers"???
In the sense that you can use both of them to install software, yes.
anm
--
/*-------------------------------------------------------.
| Andrew N. McGuire |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
`-------------------------------------------------------*/
------------------------------
From: "Ferdinand V. Mendoza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: a few questions please
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 11:01:34 +0400
I had just introduced Linux to one of our NT support
guys and we tried Storm. It's quite okay for the
veterans, imho. I believe this is a debian derivative distro and
you have to be a little bit careful.
I would suggest you should go for the latest Mandrake 7.x
(good for starters actually) and for exploratory experience,
install it with the "recommmended" selection.
Later, when you gain more ideas, you can try a
paranoid installation for a more secure environment.
BTW, the installation went smoothly and we connected
to the network via DHCP in less than an hour.
Ferdinand
AJ wrote:
> Hi.. I am an experience Novell tech (CNE) but new to linux and want to get
> windows out of my life as soon as possible... I Would like someone to answer
> a few questions for me.. First i want to install linux on the following
> system,,, P II 400 , 64 ram , 4.8 G hd , SB pci sound , 4meg ATI Rage
> video, and US Robotics pci 56k, and 3com pci net card( 3c509). I know this
> more than meets the requirements. My questions are the following
> 1) I use a high speed isp ( called : vibe) not a cable modem but adsl. it
> used a newbridge networks MainStreet in my home and i use a 3com net card.
> Is there any known problem settting lunix up on this?
> 2) I just got Storm linux does anyone have instructions how to install it in
> a partition without it destroying the other one's? Please Help
> 3) this storm linux? is it ok? any things i should know or be warned? what
> to use instead? you opinion is appreciated..
> Please Email me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] thank
------------------------------
From: "Ferdinand V. Mendoza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 11:10:50 +0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> Try Linux, please try it. Decide for yourself. And then please come
> back here and post your experiences with Linux.
Man, I love it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Time to prove it's not just words
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 21 May 2000 07:10:07 GMT
On Sun, 21 May 2000 05:50:19 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
Full Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On Sat, 20 May 2000 20:22:58 GMT, "Yannick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| wrote:
[snip problem]
| I'm not sure if this solves all of your problems, but try the
| following:
|
| 1. Create group (eg wwweditors) and place all the required users in
| this group.
|
| 2. Assuming the location of the files is say /wwwfiles use the
| following:
|
| chgrp wwweditors /wwwfiles
| chmod g+s /wwwfiles
|
| The s bit causes all files created in the directory to be in the
| wwweditors group.
|
| 3. Set the creation umask of all the users so that all files they
| create have rw group permissions.
|
| Problems like these highlight how antiquated Unix permissions are.
I don't follow. You just laid out a 3 step solution for the problem
by using Unix file permissions. How does this highlight "how
antiquated Unix permissions are"?
| When you combine this with Samba even more problems arise.
How so?
[snip troll]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 07:21:24 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) writes:
> >Here are some requirements for a killer app:
> >1. Lots of people have to use it.
> 60% marketshare of the server part of THE current
> killer microcomputer app.
I believe you're snipping or ignoring the part where I write that
the aforementioned "lots of people" can't come from a specific market,
unless that market is itself significant.
So, 60% of 5% of computer users is not a lot of people. And the
grammar of your statement eludes me somewhat, so it may actually be
60% of 5% of 20%. (Unless you think that more than 5% of computers -
bear in mind we're counting *all* computers capable of running Linux,
here - run a WWW server? Or that computers - again, all computers
which can run Linux - spend more than 20% of their (real) time on the
WWW?)
> With a 60%, I would imagine it does.
On an unrelated note, is Apache really 60% of the WWW server market?
Do you know how many of them are on Linux boxes? (I ask because I
didn't think *Unix* had a 60% share of the WWW server (OS) market.)
> >of computer users have not installed Apache, and never *will* install
> >Apache, no matter that it's the best thing since sliced bread.
> True, however the VAST MAJORITY of computer users USE
> Apache on a daily basis.
Am I mistaken, or did I write that use via a Web browser is a
completely different issue?
Figures on how many hits Apache servers get per day are useful for
determining their reliability and performance, not their popularity.
Because users are generally unaware of what Web server [daemon] their
browser is accessing, there is zero correlation between a user's
opinion of Apache and whether he (client-side) uses one.
> [deletia]
> Your position is just as aburd as claiming that OSS 'hasn't
> delivered' while ignoring sendmail, bind and BSD sockets.
Well, okay, then. Apache is a killer app. Where are the scores of
people flocking to Linux so they can run it?
Maybe the problem here is that your apparent definition of "killer
app" is "an app that attracts a lot of people from a niche market that
Unix already dominated."
(Obligatory bad pun: OSS doesn't deliver, but sendmail does.)
--
Eric P. McCoy ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
non-combatant, n. A dead Quaker.
- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_
------------------------------
From: "Ferdinand V. Mendoza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix,comp.unix.admin,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.sys.hp.hpux
Subject: Re: Best Intranet Server + platform
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 11:30:23 +0400
Benjamin wrote:
> Hi !
>
> We are setting an Intranet coast to coast (Canada), I would like to know
> what could be the best UNIX platform
You came here so, Linux!
> to work with and which webserver
> will the best ???
You came here so, Apache!
>
>
> We want 1 main server, with 5 mirrors sites in major cities. They will
> be connected with Frame Relay at 128 Kbps.
>
> Their will be about 1600 users for that intranet, and we want a server
> that will hold Perl, Java (Servlet) and 20 users downloading the mp3
> files (about 500 KB) at the same times.
>
> Thanks ...
>
> BenJ
If you've got a fat budget an alpha can do that nicely.
Ferdinand
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 07:49:12 GMT
On Sun, 21 May 2000 07:21:24 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) writes:
>
>> >Here are some requirements for a killer app:
>
>> >1. Lots of people have to use it.
>
>> 60% marketshare of the server part of THE current
>> killer microcomputer app.
>
>I believe you're snipping or ignoring the part where I write that
No, you're just conveniently redefining killer app so that
it suits your own argument.
[deletia]
If you decide to arbitrarily ignore the server part of a
client/server "killer app" the remaining bit that suits
your self-serving definition becomes fairly useless.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
** 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 (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
******************************
