Linux-Advocacy Digest #557, Volume #27 Mon, 10 Jul 00 02:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Corel Does Nothing To Help The Linux Cause (Christopher Browne)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Mike Stump)
Re: Who was that wo was scanning my ports--could it be Simon?
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Where did all my windows go? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Microsoft's new ".NET" ("TimL")
I am trying to do an unbiased comparison of operating systems (Jeff Silverman)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Mike Stump)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Mike Stump)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Mike Stump)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Mike Stump)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Where did all my windows go? (Donovan Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Corel Does Nothing To Help The Linux Cause
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 04:58:21 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when [EMAIL PROTECTED]
would say:
>Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Are DOS and Windows closer to each other than Linux and Windows?
>> Besides, the ISV's had to see that Windows would be dominant.
>
>Some of those apps were ported to Gem and other Windowing systems that ran
>on Dos before they were ever ported to windows as well as OS/2, the Amiga,
>the Commodores, etc. None of those envionments were dominant at the time.
>
>Dos was a poor copy of CP/M-86 during the days of Dos 1.x. Starting with
>version 2.x Dos started to aquire features from unix. To the point that
>programming in C under Dos one could treat Dos as a single user single
>tasking version of unix. So long as the system dependent parts of a program
>were isolated properly by the original development staff porting, as any
>programmers worth their salt would do, porting a Dos application to unix is
>a trivial process.
>
>The most difficult programs to port from Dos/WIndows or any other
>OS/environment to any unix, or even sometimes from one unix to another, are
>games. Seeing that games are being ported from Windows to Linux, is proof
>that just about ANY program from Windows can be ported to native Linux app.
>The only thing that is preventing just about every application for the
>Dos/Windows platform being ported to Linux is the will to do it.
There's a couple points of view here that have some legitimacy:
a) You're right that there are some _HARDWARE_ interoperability issues
that tend to make porting games a challenge.
If you can get one game ported, then it ought to be pretty possible
port just about anything.
On the other hand...
b) Games do not put a high premium on interoperability between
applications. You don't embed game components in one another the
way that people try to do when putting spreadsheets inside Word
documents, or embedding graphics in spreadsheets, or connecting in
a DBMS query using ADO or DAO (or the likes).
Now, while Linux offers ports of various things comparable to many of
the "Wintendo" components,
- There are lots of CORBA implementations, but none that are quite
ubiquitous;
- Lots of database implementations, but likewise none ubiquitous;
- A couple of ODBC implementations, but again none that are always
available...
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/>
Rules of the Evil Overlord #157. "Whenever plans are drawn up that
include a time-table, I'll post-date the completion 3 days after it's
actually scheduled to occur and not worry too much if they get
stolen." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 04:50:18 GMT
In article <8k2dgk$24v4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
>>> And which of those implies an attempt to take away the same freedom
>>> from everyone else?
>>
>>None of them, because no one's freedom is being taken away.
>>You may share in the bounty of the GPL, and you may not restrict
>>anyone else's ability to do so. Simple and free.
>
>It may be simple, but the restrictions make it anything but free.
This is not true. The restrictions are necessary to make it free.
Let me quote:
free 14 : not allowing slavery
Without the restrictions, this sense of free could not be achieved to
the extent that GPLed software achieves it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Who was that wo was scanning my ports--could it be Simon?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 05:05:40 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) writes:
>Yet part of good security practice is knowing exactly whats nessesary,
>and a PPP connection will hardly attract too terribly many 31337 h@x0rz,
>looking for places from which to flood, dump warez, and various and sundry
>other bandwidth-intensive activities.
Reality seems to disagree with you....
Bernie "sitting behind a 14.4k modem line" Meyer
--
Thomas --- Jefferson --- still surv--
John Adams
2nd President of the US
Last words, 4 July 1826
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 01:08:55 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting John Dyson from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Sat, 08 Jul 2000
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Quoting Leslie Mikesell from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 8 Jul 2000 00:55:12
>> [...]
>> >It is actually a reasonable case to make a theoretical argument,
>> >though. Suppose MS did actually copy the base code and would
>> >not have been able to if it had been GPL'd. The alternative
>> >would not have been MS giving away the source to win2k, it
>> >would have been writing something themselves that would
>> >almost certainly have been badly designed by comparison.
>> >Most of us would be affected at least to some extent by
>> >broken code on our networks. How can anyone possibly think
>> >it is a good idea to encourage that?
>>
>> That is the most back-assward argument I've ever heard (in the last two
>> days.) I don't think encouraging Microsoft to do anything except fade
>> away and be forgotten is a good idea, but that's a discussion for a
>> different group.
>>
>> The GPL encourages bad design? I don't think so. Corporations that
>> want to profiteer on IP encourage bad design. The GPL does not
>> contradict commercial development, distribution, or sale of software.
>> Merely commercial ownership of software.
[...]
>If Kerberos was GPLed instead of free, then the company doing the
>reimplementation might have had to do a cleanroom design.
If they wanted to re-implement with a cleanroom design, sure. Why?
Either you want to use Kerberos, and use it, or you don't, and don't.
Why are you looking to try to "steal" intellectual property, when its
being given away for free? (oops)
Like I said: corporations that want to profiteer on IP (I now realize
why you started talking about the "stack"; by IP I meant intellectual
property. A bad habit from recent discussions.) encourage bad design.
And you have illustrated why: they will go to any lengths to try to gain
control of any IP they can manage to in order to profiteer from it.
This is, by the way, a potentially valid argument you've presented for
why Kerberos shouldn't have been GPL (if that existed at the time, I'm
not sure); it could discourage stability, which that particular market
would be very vulnerable to. But the argument isn't whether GPL'ing
Kerberos would have been a good idea; its whether it would have stopped
Microsoft from trying to undermine the standard. And that it would have
done, by requiring source code redistribution.
>Since the
>design was based upon spec, the cleanroom design is only slightly worse than
>being to refer to code (like would be necessary if the code wasn't free,
>to avoid GPL encumberance of the potentially derived works.)
Any attempt to replicate the intellectual property of others is worse
than coming up with your own. MS didn't implement Kerberos because it
was a service to their customers; they implemented it in order to ensure
they controlled the authentication mechanisms by destroying Kerberos
interoperability. But now I'm just troll-baiting; I've read all your
arguments before, and I know what the standard responses are.
>Commercial ownership of software is not bad (since companies are legal
>entities, in similar ways to people, and people certainly should be able
>to own software). Why try to take a right of ownership away, unless
>there is unneeded hatred somewhere. Having a bug up ones b*tt can also be a
>cause for alot of other social ills. That does not bode well.
Nice lob, dude. Let's take this slow and easy, though; I don't want to
spank you too hard this early in the game.
Commercial ownership of software is a bad thing; companies are NOT legal
entities; only corporations are. People (including those who own
businesses), and corporations, should be able to own software; I did not
suggest otherwise. But by "commercial ownership" I didn't mean
"ownership by commercial entities", I meant "commerce predicated on
ownership". In other words, it isn't the *owning* which is bad, it is
the *profiting from ownership* in *contrast* to profiting from
development, sale, or implementation, which is bad.
Now, I can understand I wasn't clear when I said "commercial ownership
of software is bad", but your taking it to mean I'm advocating that we
"take a right of ownership away" is over the edge, and your use of that
as an implication that "there is unneeded hatred somewhere" just made
you a more stylish troll. But profiting from *ownership* is not
commerce; its capitalism. Commerce is profiting from *production*.
Profiting from ownership of software, which is intellectual property, is
profiteering, unless you publish or display that property without
"encumbrance" to the purchaser. And by that I mean "decompile"
encumbrances, not "you cannot place encumbrances upon those you
distribute this software to", which is hardly an encumbrance to anyone
but a profiteer.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[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]
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 05:04:39 GMT
In article <8juo1e$o4u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <8ju2vq$9e7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Get real! here is the problem: I have been bitching about how
unclear
> > you are. You claim that Linux desktop lags behind windows, you are
not
> > clear. As far as I know there was only the early versions of windows
> > that were called windows. Something like Microsoft Windows version
> 3.1.
> > If you are claiming that the Linux desktop lags behind windows 3.1.
> then
> > you are indeed a troll. If you are claiming that the W2K desktop is
> > superior I ask you, How many *TRUE* (not just theams) desk top
> > environments can you choose from with W2K? One? tobad I have a
choice
> of
> > MANY with Linux. I call having multiple desktops available so I can
> > choose one that meets *MY* Needs, far more advanced than a system
that
> > offers only ONE desktop environment!
>
> Get real yourself. You called me a troll again, you insulted me again.
> What did I say?
>
> Linux lags behind Windows still stands.
>
Hey, If the shoe fits.... Yes, you are a troll. Claiming that Linux lags
because one APPLICATION crashes without sending an error message is just
plain STUPID! The fact that you continue to try to stand behind that
STUPID claim means that you are either a toll or stupid. Take your pick.
You do not discuss that actual points made. The fact is in many ways
Linux is FAR superior to W2K. Do you have a choice of desktops???? Or
are you stuck with the desktop and GUI that comes with w2k if you like
it or *NOT*???? Can you run WITHOUT a GUI if it meets your needs???
No??? how out dated!
> --
> ---
> Pete
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "TimL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft's new ".NET"
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 05:11:17 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(RealCea) wrote:
> Might as well put Microsoft on your right hand or forehead.
>
> I cannot believe those guys. Did you know that Microsoft's ".NET"
> project is nearly identical to a Netscape project in 1995 that was never
> finished
> (probably due to Microsoft) called Costellation. Back then they were
> just
> developing Windows 98. They are just a bunch of "has beens". Shove
> everyone in the market around and steal other peoples ideas. Isn't that
> the worst type of monopoly this country has ever seen? Innovation my
> ASS!! Whats up with the crappy BIOs/IRQ architecture? You'd think they
> would develop something beyond
> 1970 technology there. All I see is a lucky man who got his OS (MS-DOS)
> on all
> of IBM's PC's. And that was not even developed by him!!!
>
> P.S. Internet Explorer was originally developed by Spry, Inc.
Uhm, what does Microsoft has to do with BIOS/IRQ architecture? For that
matter, who can change "BIOS/IRQ" architecture? I am not knowledgable
enough to answer that, however at some point the ball gets to MS' court,
assuming that the OS must be adapted to however the PC architecture is
changed. No one entity really controls PC architecture, perhaps it's great-
est strength and its greatest weakness.
/TimL
------------------------------
From: Jeff Silverman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.windows.advocacy
Subject: I am trying to do an unbiased comparison of operating systems
Date: 10 Jul 2000 05:11:26 GMT
And now that you are all finished laughing at me....
I am running about 120 computers in an electrical engineering department at a major
university.
Some of the professors want Windows/2000 and others want Linux and still others want
SunOS. I am
trying to compare the operating systems I currently use and see if I can develop
selection
criteria. With that in mind, I have created a page,
http://www.commercialventvac.com/~jeffs/OS_comparison.html which has the operating
systems of
interest and their characteristics. In some cases, the chart is probably wrong and in
many cases, I
don't know the answer.
I would like you to please take a look at the page and send me comments and corrections
([EMAIL PROTECTED]). These are high powered people, so any answer has got
to have a
reference to the original source of the information, so that its correctness and
authoritativeness
can be assessed.
I have to admit to a certain bias against Windows/2000, I have installed three of them
so far, and
none of them are working very well.
Many thanks,
Jeff
--
Jeff Silverman
See my website: http://www.commercialventvac.com/~jeffs
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 04:59:33 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>What you suggest isn't universally accepted.
Do you believe that language is universally accepted? Do you believe
that to use language, it must be universally accepted? Do you believe
that to use a word in a particular way, that the definition used for
that context must be universally accepted? If you answer yes to any
of these it would go a long way to explaining a few things that I am
confused about.
Name 10 credible people that don't accept the notion of free parking
without some limitations (be it the 2 hour, or in other places, a 72
hour limit.)
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 05:06:30 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Sam Holden wrote:
>Please refer to my proof that GPL isn't free...
That wasn't a proof.
>What you see is severe (but rather jocular) frustration.
Maybe you are holding onto your beliefs to strongly. Hint, give your
side a rest, let others try and support it. If your position is so
weak that no one else cares to support it, maybe it should not be
supported.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 05:10:13 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>And the inconsistancy of the GPL, is that some people call the
>GPL 'free', and then apply constraints, rules and regulations to
>the redistributions... This makes GPL inconsistant with free
>software.
Are you a free man? Do you have any constraints placed upon you? Are
there any rules and regulations that you must obey?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 05:13:49 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>A simple counter example is the new BSDL (not necessarily the old
>one.) There are also other, freer than GPL licenses.
Please explain how the BSDL is freer in the sense that it doesn't
allow slavery than the GPL. In this sense, the GPL is freer.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 01:21:25 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Leslie Mikesell from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 9 Jul 2000 20:06:18
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Quoting Leslie Mikesell from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 8 Jul 2000 00:55:12
>> [...]
>>>It is actually a reasonable case to make a theoretical argument,
>>>though. Suppose MS did actually copy the base code and would
>>>not have been able to if it had been GPL'd. The alternative
>>>would not have been MS giving away the source to win2k, it
>>>would have been writing something themselves that would
>>>almost certainly have been badly designed by comparison.
>>>Most of us would be affected at least to some extent by
>>>broken code on our networks. How can anyone possibly think
>>>it is a good idea to encourage that?
>
>>The GPL encourages bad design?
>
>This is a theoretical case, but assume that a good standard actually
>is implementated with GPL'd reference code. The GPL prevents
>it being used in a vast number of circumstances, so those instances
>are forced to invent something that that not only is not as
>good, but is unlikely to interoperate correctly with the copy
>that you use.
The GPL would only prevent it being used in one single circumstance:
profiteering. You certainly make the case for GPLing all reference code
for interoperability standards, but I doubt that wouldn't seem extreme
to the market at this point in time.
>>I don't think so. Corporations that
>>want to profiteer on IP encourage bad design.
>
>Perhaps, but the way to avoid that is to make the reference
>code usable by all, in any combination with anything else,
>not to prevent use of the well-tested base code.
No, the way to avoid that is to avoid profiteers. Since they don't
generally get into a position you can avoid them, that usually requires
legal action. Soon the Supreme Court may make a decision that this will
finally be possible in the software markets.
>>The GPL does not
>>contradict commercial development, distribution, or sale of software.
>
>Yes it does. Where is the GPL'd component that incorporates
>DES encryption or RSA, etc. No GPL'd code can be included in
>any software that requires non-GPL'd code.
So don't GPL your code, nobody's forcing you to. Just because no GPL
code can be included in any software that "requires non-GPL'd code" (I'm
not sure what that means) does not mean that GPL contradicts commercial
development, distribution, or sale of software. In fact it sounds like
it only contradicts commercial development, distribution, and sale of
non-GPL software, and while that may not be the same as promoting the
development/sale of GPL software, it does seem to have a similar effect.
>>Merely commercial ownership of software.
>
>And since they can't be combined, anything that requires components
>that are commercially owned cannot have any GPL'd parts.
A very common mistake, this is. Software can be combined in a variety
of ways that don't require combining source code. If you want to make
up an imaginary or potential case where this becomes difficult, feel
free, but I don't care how difficult the job is if your work is
predicated on keeping intellectual property secret, your job should be
difficult, because intellectual property shouldn't be secret.
>Just
>like things that are less restricted than the GPL. Neither one
>makes any sense from the perspective of potential users of this
>prohibited code.
It is the "commercial" code which is "prohibited". Open source software
is not prohibited at all, unless you're a profiteer.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[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] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
Date: 10 Jul 2000 05:21:45 GMT
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 01:15:42 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Your caps key is broken, which is probably why your post was completely
incoherent. It almost looked as if you were trying to claim that I'm out
to force KDE on everyone, but I'm sure you wouldn't say something that
dumb, so I guess your keyboard is just hosed.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
