Linux-Advocacy Digest #566, Volume #27 Mon, 10 Jul 00 13:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Roberto Alsina)
Re: A MacOpinion of Open Source that REALLY HITS THE MARK (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: [OT] intuitive (was Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready! I'm
ready! I'm not ready.)) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Uptime 6 months and counting. (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Do not like Windows but ... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Uptime 6 months and counting. (Aaron Kulkis)
What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it ("Drestin Black")
Re: A MacOpinion of Open Source that REALLY HITS THE MARK ("Drestin Black")
Re: Where did all my windows go? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: DOJ File Suit Against Tiger Woods (Bob Hauck)
Pete Goodwin's "Linux Won't Work" machine is a set-up (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Hyman Rosen)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Pete Goodwin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 15:38:16 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 17:55:14 -0300, Roberto Alsina
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Hyman Rosen escribi�:
> >>
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
> >> > The LGPL does not have this problem. Nor the one
> >> > I mentioned. But it doesn't serve the political
> >> > agenda of the FSF - the point of the GPL really *is*
> >> > to control and usurp the works of others.
> >>
> >> Of course this is a lie. The point of the GPL is to encourage
> >> the development of free software.
> >
> >That only makes sense if you accept a priori that what the GPL
> >calls free software actually is free software.
> >
> >According to some opinion's (say, Mr. Dyson's and lately, my own)
> >the GPL is not free in several meaningful ways.
>
> It is not "free" in that it dissallows others to restrict
> the freedoms that they themselves have exploited. That is
> liberty versus anarchy that devolves into despotism.
It disallows that, and it also disallows much else.
For example, some say it disallows combining code under the GPL with
original code under other licenses.
That is another form of despotism.
> [deletia]
>
> You support developers that trade security for a minor bit of
> convenience so your motivation to attack the GPL is quite clear.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
And I am hardly attacking the GPL. You don't see me saying "the GPL
should be forbidden", do you?
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: A MacOpinion of Open Source that REALLY HITS THE MARK
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 11:48:36 -0400
Darren Winsper wrote:
>
> On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 09:24:46 +0400, Ferdinand V. Mendoza
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Folks, watch out. Dress 10 is Baaaacccckkkkkkhhhhhh!
>
> That's not such a bad thing. Drestin us capable of bringing up valid
> points, even if he is a tad biased (And let's face it, who here
> isn't?).
You make it sound as if an uninformed opinion holds equal
validity with an informed opinion.
no, no...it just won't do.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "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"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Re: [OT] intuitive (was Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready!
I'm ready! I'm not ready.))
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 11:57:50 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting jmc from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 11:25:55 +0930
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Quoting Jonadab the Unsightly One from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Tue, 04
>> [...]
>> >Intuitive? What does that even mean? It means it
>> >does what you'd expect, right? But then we should
>> >call Perl intuitive, and that makes no sense whatever.
>> >(I like Perl, BTW; that isn't my point.)
>>
>> <G> Intuitive means, I have it on good authority (my own), "familiar".
>
>I would respectfully disagree with that. For example, if one has never used
>a computer or a new OS before, nothing is familiar. But if a piece of
>software has an interface that is intuitive, that means, to me, you can
>figure out how to use it even if it *is* unfamiliar. To me intuitive means
>"I can use this without having to read the manual".
Well, if you aren't already familiar with GUIs, that isn't anywhere near
as easy as you assume it is. The point of your description was the
unfamiliarity of the particular piece of software, not the general
interface. Without that general familiarity, you aren't going to be
able to easily figure out how to use a new piece of software.
The reason you can use the piece of software without having to read the
manual is because the general operation of software is familiar to you
(the GUI), and the concepts of the new piece of application are familiar
to you, so you can work out how to use the app because it is familiar
enough to be considered intuitive. Consider a spreadsheet. Once you
know what a spreadsheet is, and how it works, figuring out a new
spreadsheet program isn't too hard. But figuring out what a spreadsheet
is and how it works is not going to be easy without a little study, even
if you are very familiar with the general operations of the interface.
>Familiar means that if you know how to use MSWord, you'll be able to figure
>out how to use MSExel, for example. Intuitive means that if you've never
>used a Microsoft product (I don't particularly like MS products, but they
>*are* intuitive, at least to me) you can still figure out how to use
>MSExcel.
Intuitive, in your context, would mean you can still figure out how to
use Excel having never heard of or seen a spreadsheet before, and you
are certainly not going to be able to do that simply because you are
familiar with Word.
>CorelDraw is an example of a non-intuitive interface, IMHO.
CorelDraw is a less familiar interface to you, apparently. If it worked
the way you expected it to work, it would be more intuitive, right?
Well, how about if you expected it to work the way it does work; would
it then be intuitive, also?
>Linux users, I'm still a newbie in that arena. I didn't use Linux software
>as examples because I'm not familiar enough yet.
So that example wouldn't have been very intuitive, right?
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps. I intuitively think it might.
Why? Because I've been doing this for many years, and it is familiar to
me by now. :-)
--
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: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 15:51:13 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels) wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Hyman Rosen escribi�:
> >>
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
> >> > The LGPL does not have this problem. Nor the one
> >> > I mentioned. But it doesn't serve the political
> >> > agenda of the FSF - the point of the GPL really *is*
> >> > to control and usurp the works of others.
> >>
> >> Of course this is a lie. The point of the GPL is to encourage
> >> the development of free software.
> >
> > That only makes sense if you accept a priori that what the GPL
> > calls free software actually is free software.
>
> Obviously. And as was argued here over, and over again, there
> is no reason not to accept that GPLed software is not free,
> albeit in a restricted fashion.
>
"free in a restricted fashion" can be said about almost anything.
IE5 is free in a restricted fashion.
> > According to some opinion's (say, Mr. Dyson's and lately, my own)
> > the GPL is not free in several meaningful ways.
> The only signficant restriction is that sometimes one cannot use GPLed
> software in combination with software that carries an incompatible
> license, even if this is a "free" license.
And that unless you make every contributor sign legal docs giving
the copyright to you, everyone practically loses the right to change
the software's license. Other licenses like the QPL (and the MPL?) try
to avoid this.
> > Thus, the purpose of the GPL is simply to promote the development
> > of GPLd software. That is obvious in that, for example, the GPL
> > discourages
> > development of BSD-licensed software just as strongly as commercial
> > software.
> That's not true. The GPL doesn't allow you to license a derivative
> work under the BSDL.
And that discourages development of BSDL software.
You are also not allowed to create, say, a BSDL program that uses a
GPL library, can you?
> It discourages derivative works that are not
> licensed under a compatible license.
The only license compatible with the GPL are the ones that are
a) Practically public domain (no-publicity BSD)
b) The GPL
That doesn't leave much room.
> It's the existence of GPLed code
> that might discourage people to write compatible software under
> another free license.
Indeed, that is an aditional discouragement of free software development
I had not thinked of.
> > As long as you believe that's a worthy goal, there is no problem,
> > of course, just say it clearly and not obfuscate the goal by using
> > words that have multiple meanings.
> That's a value judgement, and one should consider several points:
> - precious few words have only one meaning, and the usage of
> the word "free" by the FSF and in the GPL is not significantly
> outside the range of meanings available for the word "free".
It is. Free in this day and age, applied to a thing, means with no
charge. Things can not be free in the freedom sense, because things
have no rights.
You could say that you are free by using GPL'd software, or that
someone is free to use it, but the software itself is not "libre".
> - there is no reason to assume there was/is a desire to obfuscate
> any goals, as the GPL is quite clear about its intentions.
The GPL is anything but clear, but that's just MHO.
> - The FSF and the GPL predate many other "free" licenses, and
> thus the onus is not on them to change or drop their use of
> the word "free" WRT to software (as rms was probably _the_
> first, or one of the very first, to define the word "free" as
> applicable to software).
There's a funny scene in a movie with Ringo Starr, called 1000000BC,
in which cavemen discover fire.
The leader gives it a name: "Urgh".
Then another character comes and says "fire!".
"No, urgh". "fire" "urgh". "Ok. urgh".
I could have called cars planes, that doesn't make them fly.
> Do you think KDE would have been more widely adopted if it'd
> been licensed under BSDL, or put in the public domain?
Honestly? I don't think it would have made any difference at all.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 15:54:58 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump) wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Frankly, I tend to like something like GPL-free (to qualify the
> >term 'free' -- coining the term),
>
> I think GPL-free is a fine term. I think it is likely to convey what
> one wants to convey, and it is mostly unambiguous. It can be used in
> more contexts than the simpler term free can be used.
GPL-free has a problem. It can mean "free as the GPL says", or
"free from the GPL", like "caffeine-free".
Maybe that confusion doesn't exist in english, but it's not my
first language :-)
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Uptime 6 months and counting.
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 12:00:27 -0400
Brian wrote:
>
> Hey Aaron:
>
> Aaron Kulkis wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >Brian wrote:
> >> Aaron Kulkis wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >> >I've yet to see even a 400 VA battery backup that
> >> >wasn't equipped with a 30A wall cord.
>
> >> Sorry dude, apples and oranges.
>
> >> First of all, most UPS's are equipped with a 115V
> >> 15A wall cord.
>
> >Those cords will handle far more than 15 A, believe me.
>
> True but irrelevant.
>
> >> Second, a 400VA battery backup is capable of
> >> amazing short term power generation - limited
> >> only by the internal resistance of the batteries,
> >> the collective on-resistance of the power
> >> MOSFETs and the cumulative resistance of wire
> >> and solder.
>
> >Which is why a circuit breaker is built into every
> >battery backup system....to keep the batteries from
> >sourcing more current than what the other components
> >can handle.
>
> Circuit breakers have typical reaction times in the order of
> multi-milliseconds (>1/1000 of a second) whereas power MOSFETs have reaction
> times in the order of sub-microseconds (<1/1000000 of a second). Guess who
> wins the race to interrupt the too-high current flow?
Doesn't matter. It takes a relatively long time to get
most POWER components to overheat.
a 3x current overload on power-supply components for 1 millisecond
should be WELL within thermal capacity.
>
> >> Violation of any of the myriad rules of order at
> >> the alter of the mighty electron will release the
> >> magic smoke from the weakest links, often the most
> >> expensive components.
>
> >Only in poorly designed systems. In properly designed
> >systems, the circuit breaker will trip before any
> >magic smoke is released.
>
> Most inexpensive UPSs are severely limited in the resources spent on
> overload protection. There are also many failure modes associated with
> switching power supplies but this is not the forum.
See above.
>
> I am fortunate enough to live in an area with few power failures - 3
> interuptions in last 6 years. My Linux servers went down, came back up,
> checked themselves out, corrected a couple errors and went straight back to
> work.
>
> If I was looking for high-availability, I would select a sw/hw RAID disk
> systems, journalling filesystems, fail-over clustering and UPS.
Of course :-)
They *PAY* me to play with such systems at work.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Brian
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "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"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Do not like Windows but ...
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 16:57:55 +0100
On 7 Jul 2000 19:56:15 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 19:29:37 GMT, Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Pedro Iglesias wrote:
>>>
>>> nowadays :
>>>
>>> winamp is better than xmms or whatever on Linux
>>
>>WinAmp is 99.9% the same as Xmms. What has an MP3-player got to do
>>with the quality of an OS, anyway?
>>
>
>Windows can do it, LIE-nux cant.
Tell me, Tim: you are clearly a strong advocate of Windows, and
presumably are of the opinion that Windows really is technically
superio, but what I cannot quite understand is why you display all of
this vitriol against Linux. In particular, you constantly use the term
"LIE-nux" to describe it, which seems to imply that you consider that
Linux has lied to you. Is this correct? If so, I'd be interested to
know how an open source operating system lies to *anyone* - Microsoft,
as a single monolithic corporation (but not for long, muahahah!) *is*
capable of lying, if only because it speaks with one voice. The linux
community, OTOH, has as many opinions as it has members (and probably
more). There are many opposing viewpoints within Linux, many of them
as strongly held as those expressed right here. While I'd accept that
not every Linux advocate always tells the truth, I can't see how you
are able to construe an Official Position from such views. So what I'm
interested to know is - which "bit" of Linux is lying to you?
Or are you just engaging in a bit of puerile namecalling?
--
Warning: end of message imminent. Stop reading now.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 16:04:19 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels) wrote:
> If anything is religious, it's people arguing that their
> interpretation of "free" is the only one.
And what else has the FSF been doing the last 25 years or so?
Oh, they concede the existence of something called "free as in free
beer", but they claim sole ownership of the definition of "free
as in free speech" to signify only what they say when applied to
software.
Just go to a RMS speech and try to tell him that IYHO SCSL software
is "free as in free speech" software. See what happens.
> After all,
> proselitising religion is about choosing a set of values,
> and then behaving like everyone else is ignorant, malicious
> or deluded when they don't see it your way.
>
> The GPL grants a number of rights (or "freedoms"), over
> and above the rights granted by the current copyright
> law. Hence it is not unreasonable, nor dishonest, to call
> it free, as everyone understands that "free" never means
> "utterly without restrictions". That these "freedoms" might
> not be enough to some is wholly their privilege, and they
> are _free_ to use the GPL, or use GPLed software, or not use
> either.
By this definition, any software for which you can buy a license
is free software, since it grants you freedoms beyond current
copyright law, as soon as you agree to some restrictions (as
everyone understands) like "you must pay me $399 first, and not
give it to anyone else".
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Uptime 6 months and counting.
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 12:08:20 -0400
B'ichela wrote:
>
> On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 03:59:49 GMT, Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Circuit breakers have typical reaction times in the order of
> >multi-milliseconds (>1/1000 of a second) whereas power MOSFETs have reaction
> >times in the order of sub-microseconds (<1/1000000 of a second). Guess who
> >wins the race to interrupt the too-high current flow?
> Umm one of my original UPS's had fuses! Standard Fast acting
> fuses. How fast is the reaction time for a fast acting fuse? I don't
> trust Circut Breakers. thats why all of my Electical equipment had the
But for the proposed test, if a 1500W hair dryer really does stress
out a 650VA battery backup, you'll smell it before it does damage.
2.5 x rated current capacity is only 6x heat put at rated capacity.
That's not even an order of magnitude...as soon as you start to
smell a "burning electronics smell", turn off the hairdryer.
The smell of sublimating resin components will come far before
you do damage. Also, most hair dryers also have reduced power
settings(*), so, you can gradually "ramp up" the power draw until
you pass the power consumption of the several systems in the room.
(usually 500W, 1000W, and 500+1000=1500W)
> breakers replaced with fuses! Future home will be wired with Non
> Tamperable Type-S fuses also. Seen Too many breakers fail! both
> Household and electronic equipment.
Uh... why not run a fuse in serial with the "slow" fuses?
That way, if the breaker operates properly, you don't have to buy
a new fuse. (and breakers are MUCH easier to reset in the dark)
>
> --
>
> B'ichela
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "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"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: 10 Jul 2000 11:12:30 -0500
I've always maintained what is obvious: Netcraft JUST counts domains and
doesn't discriminate between a linux/apache domain of "joesmomma.com" vs
W2K/IIS for dell.com - to Netcraft, they mean the same. So, all this Apache
dominates the web is for those that think PURE number counts mean
EVERYTHING. Bullshit I say. Someone finally proved it out for me.
The companies that matter, those top companies, you know, money making ones?
Companies that are concerned about their image, product, availability,
uptime, performance and all that matters cause their name/image on-line
matters - they are NOT using apache and MOST DEFINATLEY not using Linux!
+===+===+===
http://www.entmag.com/displayarticle.asp?searchresult=1&ID=6150095626AM
"The dominant position of Microsoft's proprietary IIS in the Fortune 500
makes Windows NT a lock for the most used operating system undergirding the
Web servers -- 43 percent. "
== and ==
http://www.wininformant.com/display.asp?ID=2817
"According to ENT's survey of Fortune 500 companies and their Web sites, IIS
is the most commonly used Web server, with 41% of the market. In second
place is Netscape/iPlanet with 35%. And the supposedly dominant Apache
brings up the rear with only 15% of Fortune 500 deployments. Thanks to the
success of IIS, Windows NT/2000 is also the most commonly used operating
system on Fortune 500 Web sites: NT is used on 43% of such sites. Sun
Microsystems Solaris comes in second with 36%. But the real surprise for
those people that religiously follow the Netcraft surveys is that Linux
"falls into the noise level," according to ENT, with only 10 companies in
the Fortune 500 using the upstart open source OS to deploy their production
sites. Even IBM AIX and HP/UX have 15 deployments each, and BSD/OS tops
Linux with 14. "
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: A MacOpinion of Open Source that REALLY HITS THE MARK
Date: 10 Jul 2000 11:14:33 -0500
<bow>
"Darren Winsper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 09:24:46 +0400, Ferdinand V. Mendoza
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Folks, watch out. Dress 10 is Baaaacccckkkkkkhhhhhh!
>
> That's not such a bad thing. Drestin us capable of bringing up valid
> points, even if he is a tad biased (And let's face it, who here
> isn't?).
>
> --
> Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
> Stellar Legacy project member - http://stellarlegacy.sourceforge.net
> DVD boycotts. Are you doing your bit?
> This message was typed before a live studio audience.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
Date: 10 Jul 2000 16:20:55 GMT
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 13:15:53 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>This coming from a guy that piped in supporting peter, shees,
The fact that I don't agree with you doesn't imply that I agree with
him.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
microsoft.public.win2000.general,microsoft.public.win2000.new_user,comp.os.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: DOJ File Suit Against Tiger Woods
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 16:16:42 GMT
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 06:47:30 GMT, Yet Yu Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>New economy is so important we can't live without these companies?
>Suck my dick! Your Microsoft has been nipping their competitors...
If you took my post as defending MS, then I don't think you
comprehended what I wrote. Please try again.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Pete Goodwin's "Linux Won't Work" machine is a set-up
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 12:16:54 -0400
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Kulkis) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >No. He's talking about GAME-MACHINE hardware.
>
> I'm talking about much more than game machine hardware.
yeah... you just managed, through totally random purchase, to
assemble a machine where EVERY SINGLE COMPONENT lies within the
few percent of things with no Linux drivers.
Probability of one unsupported component: 1 to 5%
Probability of two unsupported components:
(1% to 5%) ^2 = 0.01% to 0.25%
Probability of six unsupported components:
(1% to 5%) ^6 = 0.000000000001% to 0.000000015625%
Forgive me if I'm less than sympathetic with your claims.
> Pete
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "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"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 10 Jul 2000 12:29:12 -0400
Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If one and only one library can possibly make your code actually
> *work*, then your work is a derivative work of the library.
Are you stating that this is the opinion of the FSF, or your own?
It isn't true. First of all, since we are dealing with copyright,
the concept of a program "working" is irrelevant. If you write
your program to the interface of a library but do not actually
ship a work which contains that library as a part of it, then
you almost certainly have *not* created a derivative work. I base
my opinion on the similarity of this situation to that of creating
video games for a console system without a license from the console
manufacturer. Courts have ruled that this is permitted.
> Again, strictly speaking ... RMS has said that GPLed libraries (and
> not LGPLed libraries) are unusuable by proprietary or otherwise
> incompatible software. In particular, one cannot use a GPLed GIMP
> plugin in PhotoShop or a non-GPLed PhotoShop plugin in GIMP.
Again, RMS's opinions are relevant only insofar as you believe he
understands copyright law. I don't believe any court would uphold
his claim. Given the number of vocal GPL critics in this group,
I think someone should actually create such a piece of software
and distribute it very publicly, daring the FSF to challenge it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 10 Jul 2000 16:29:54 GMT
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 15:54:58 GMT, Roberto Alsina wrote:
>GPL-free has a problem. It can mean "free as the GPL says", or
>"free from the GPL", like "caffeine-free".
>
>Maybe that confusion doesn't exist in english, but it's not my
>first language :-)
In this instance, there is absolutely nothing wrong with your English !
Hey, I almost like the term, GPL-free as in virus-free
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 16:25:15 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> spin, spin troll
This from the guy who believes an application programmer needs to
understand how the OS scheduler works in order to write an application?
If all you can do is spew forth insults, you might just as well give and
go home. You're not making any real difference here.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
