Linux-Advocacy Digest #567, Volume #27 Mon, 10 Jul 00 14:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Hyman Rosen)
Re: Why use Linux? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Hyman Rosen)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Hyman Rosen)
Re: Linux code going down hill ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Ken Arromdee)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Ken Arromdee)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Hyman Rosen)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Ken Arromdee)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Ken Arromdee)
Re: Linux code going down hill ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Hyman Rosen)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Linux code going down hill (abraxas)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it (abraxas)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it (abraxas)
Re: A MacOpinion of Open Source that REALLY HITS THE MARK (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (void)
Re: Are there still markets? (C# Overview from Microsoft) (fungus)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 10 Jul 2000 16:34:24 GMT
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 15:51:13 GMT, Roberto Alsina wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels) wrote:
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Hyman Rosen escribi�:
>> >>
>Honestly? I don't think it would have made any difference at all.
I'd have to concur. The main complaint about KDE was that the GNU/zealots
didn't like the QT license, the license of KDE itself was not really the
issue. Inspite of this griping, it has been widely adopted.
It also seems that the restrictions of the GPL have not prevented companies
from attempting to customise, enhance and add to it.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 10 Jul 2000 12:36:56 -0400
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hyman Rosen escribi�:
> > Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > Nobody's ever given that definition of `free software'. Free software
> > > > is software which its users are allowed use, copy, modify and
> > > > redistribute. For more detailed definitions, see
> > > Sorry, but that's precisely what the GPL does.
> > No, it does not. Do you care to attempt to quote the GPL in order
> > to demonstrate why you think it does?
> Well, once I took GPL'd software, modified and redistributed it, and got
> tons of angry mail saying the GPL didn't allow me to do that.
> Want specific details?
Sure.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: 10 Jul 2000 16:38:12 GMT
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 15:40:17 GMT, Paul E. Larson wrote:
>To bad you and many others filto realize that uptime counts are virtually
>meaningless! The main machine at my place of employment has a MAXIMUM up time
>of 7 days. Every 7 days we IPL the machine regardless of anything. What does
>that fact tell you?
One of the following:
(a) The admins enjoy rebooting for the hell of it
(b) The machine requires regular reboots
Take your pick.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 10 Jul 2000 12:39:42 -0400
Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Only the GPL claims to be 'free software', Mr Rosen.
> Most others use the better, but still inadequate, term 'open source.'
> It would help if you actually *read* what I write, because it's not what
> you think it is.
Or if you read what I write. Are you claiming that no one talks about
free software except for GPL advocates?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 10 Jul 2000 16:43:58 GMT
On 10 Jul 2000 15:21:49 GMT, Mark Wooding wrote:
>But the non-copyleft nature of XFree86 is being taken advantage of
>frequently. We're being given servers derived from XFree86 with
>proprietary hardware drivers in them. This is convenient for users of
>some bits of graphics hardware. But this is an insidious process: the
>convenience of having a driver *now* overcomes most users' desire for
>free software, and it's slowly becoming `acceptable' for X hardware
>drivers to be hoarded,
Not at all. The hardware companies usually come under considerable pressure
to release the appropriate specs. And the hardware that is most popular and
most recommended is that made by companies with a good support track record.
There have been examples, notably with Redhat's programs, where vendors
have been persuaded to open up their specs.
> and if this continues, it will be all but
>impossible to run a free-software operating system on modern client
>hardware.
I honestly don't believe there's a trend towards proprietary drivers, in
fact I'd argue that the trend is in the opposite direction.
>If XFree86 were copylefted, for example with the GPL, this couldn't
>happen.
If Xfreee86 were hoarded, we wouldn't have as many openSource drivers
as we do today, because neomagic, and others simply would have refused
to play to begin with.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 10 Jul 2000 12:49:42 -0400
Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hmmmm... I think, honestly, that GPL-compatible is what the FSF *wants*
> to have by 'free'; I know they've written an analysis of licences, but
> they hurt their own statements that the MPL is 'free' by recommending
> against the use of the licence.
They recommend against the use of the license because it is not
compatible with the GPL, and they would rather people use the GPL,
or a license which is compatible with it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux code going down hill
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 16:42:53 GMT
In article <8jnfn7$28pv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
> Paul Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> > <snip>
> >> IMO, Solaris is more or less unusable until you add the GNU
> >> utilities to it. ( Does it even ship with a C++ compiler ??? )
> >
> > No. Hell, it doesn't even ship with something as basic as 'top'.
> >
>
> Solaris is an exceedingly specialized UNIX, linux is not UNIX at
> all. Linux is 'gnu-nux'.
Well, if you REALLY want to nit-pick, Solaris isn't Unix either,
and I don't understand "highly specialized". What exactly is it
highly specialized for? Runs nicely as a desktop, database
server, web server, application server, X terminal server,
computational node, file server, names serveretc. Specialized
OSes are more like real-time systems for data aquisitions,
manufacturing, telephony, etc.
> If you do not know exactly why you need solaris, then you do not
> need solaris.
What does that mean? If you don't know what you need any software
for, you probably don't need it.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ken Arromdee)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 10 Jul 2000 16:49:56 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> By restricting the behavior of a normal, legal, day-to-day activity
>> for a developer, YOU ARE CREATING MORE THAN MINIMAL ENCUMBERANCES.
>Attaching legally binding restrictions to copyright licenses is the
>day-to-day behavior of a lawyer, not a developer.
No more so than the behavior of the FSF under these same circumstances. The
GPL also attaches legally binding restrictions to copyright licenses.
--
Ken Arromdee / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
"Eventually all companies are replaced." --Bill Gates, October 1999
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 10 Jul 2000 11:50:57 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 7 Jul 2000 12:57:33 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In article <8k40g1$nr8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>: 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.
>
> It can never do this unless you choose to acquire
> some sort of "free lunch"...
It always does this, every time someone combines additional
work with it. The FSF is apparently proud of the case(s)
where this was not the original intent of the contributing
author. And in all other cases, the GPL was not necessary.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ken Arromdee)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 10 Jul 2000 16:54:46 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Requiring advertising (not attribution) is a restriction that isn't
>repugnant to the spirit of the GPL, but happens to be incompatible
>with its wording. The GPL can't possibly anticipate all license
>constraints that someone else may choose to come up with. Understanding
>this, clause 10 of the GPL itself offers a way out. If you think your
>license is free enough to appeal to the copyright holder, contact him
>and ask for special permission.
This doesn't work if many people worked on the GPL code. Under those
circumstances, the logistics of finding and contacting all the copyright
holders makes it in practice impossible to ask for such permission. It
doesn't matter how likely the copyright holders are to give special permission
if you can't reach them.
--
Ken Arromdee / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
"Eventually all companies are replaced." --Bill Gates, October 1999
------------------------------
From: Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 10 Jul 2000 13:06:10 -0400
John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Calling the GPL 'free' is just an emotional statement, with very little
> fact backing it. If it feels good to call code 'free', then make the
> code 'free.' Don't make it GPL, and expect to be able to sell the
> bill of goods about it being free -- it just doesn't wash.
Why do you bother replying to my message if you don't address what it
says?
I agree with you that there are other licenses which are more free
than the GPL. That doesn't mean that the GPL isn't free. Here's
another one of your hated analogies - England doesn't have a Bill
of Rights, and they have an official national church. One could
argue that this makes the US more free than England, but no one
(or hardly anyone :-) would say that this makes England non-free.
The GPL grants users certain permissions not allowed by normal
copyright, and restricts redistribution in certain ways. It is
a value judgement as to whether the permissions outweigh the
restrictions enough to call the result "free". You judge that
they do not, other people judge that they do. Those people are
not fools or liars, they simply balance the values differently.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ken Arromdee)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 10 Jul 2000 17:05:04 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Sam Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Software developers can read licenses, the GPL does them no harm (they can
>just pretend that the GPL'd software doesn't exist if they don't want to
>produce GPL compatible software)
But then you run into free equivalents of market saturation and embrace-and-
extend.
The software developer is harmed by the presence of GPL software even if he
doesn't choose to use it because, by existing, the GPL software has made it
harder for non-GPL software of similar functionality to spread, leaving the
developer with fewer choices. Pretending the GPL software doesn't exist
won't lead to the same situation that he would be in if it really never
existed, since in that situation there would be more alternatives.
>To the end user though, the GPL is free software license.
Developers are recognized as especially important when it comes to the
benefits of free software--the end user might not be a developer, but he
still benefits from the ability of developers to see the source code.
So why shouldn't effects on developers also be considered especially
important when considering what harm it does?
--
Ken Arromdee / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
"Eventually all companies are replaced." --Bill Gates, October 1999
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ken Arromdee)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 10 Jul 2000 17:08:12 GMT
The big problem with the two hour free parking analogy is that "two hour
free parking" is generally understood to refer to freedom of cost, not to
being libre. I think even the most vocal GPL detractors would agree that GPL
software can usually be obtained free of cost.
--
Ken Arromdee / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
"Eventually all companies are replaced." --Bill Gates, October 1999
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux code going down hill
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 17:04:09 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Jul 2000 17:06:19 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >The utilities that come with an operating system really have
> >nothing to do with its quality and only a bad administrator would
> >pick one on that basis.
>
> Only an admin with too much time on his hands would choose something
> that took a lot of sweat to pound into an acceptable state.
Oh, pleeeze. How long does it take to compile a set of utilities?
You only have to do it once when a new release comes out and just
rdist the whole batch for new systems. I don't use most the stuff
that comes with Linux anyway, since there are usually newer versions
out. Are you really going to tell the boss that the reason the
web server is dumping connections and customers are leaving is
because you didn't want to compile top?
>
> >It Doesn't really matter since Solaris8 includes all the popular
> >used GNU utilities (including gcc), some non-gnu utilities (like
> >perl), and StarOffice. Check here for the list:
>
> Not that impressive. Even OpenBSD's packages collection is miles ahead
> of this.
All you need is gcc, and you've got everything.
> >One top of that, you get a 64-bit operating system, a dynamic
>
> On 32 bit hardware ...
>
> >kernel (no more kernel compiling and reboots),
>
> Reality check: The Linux kernel is modular and the default
> installation comes with modular support for just about everything.
> You usually only need to compile modules.
>
> The only time I've done a kernel recompile was when the distributor
> was too silly to include modular support for sound, and that was a
> few years ago.
So, you're saying I add a new SCSI device that has no kernel support
and add it in without recompiling and rebooting? How about re-loading
patched drivers without bringing the system down?
>
> > CDE (Extra $50 for
> >Linux),
>
> I can't believe people actually pay for that ! Seriously, I find the
free
> alternatives better.
Because it's the standard and a lot of software uses it. It provides
a common GUI desktop which is what the Unix's need to knock NT
out of the desktop dominance.
> I don't mean to knock Solaris. It works nicely if you need a scalable
> server OS. But as a desktop or low end server OS, Linux whips its
> butt.
Earlier versions I would agree but with version 8, Solaris x86 is
quite solid now and much better tested that any of the many Linux
releases. Even on a smaller server, it does quite a bit better on
small simultaneous I/Os such as a web or database box. I've run both
on the same hardware with the same web and database software, and
solaris easily provides better response. With a single user, there
isn't a whole lot of differance. There's also a lot of inconsistent
problems that everyone here claims are "installation problems.
Apparently, EVERY linux box I've ever used is installed wrong. Are
the install scripts THAT bad?
I also hit problems with buying the "linux" version of server
software. With no centeralized version control, exactly what has it
been tested under, and if patches are required, whose patches?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 10 Jul 2000 13:15:30 -0400
John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You can grunt and grunt, but if it isn't going to come out, then
> all you have done is hurt yourself. You are grunting, trying to
> prove by showing examples on how it is free -- but the ways that
> it isn't free steals the glory.
Only in your opinion. For others, the ways in which it is free
outweigh the ways in which it isn't. Whenever you claim that the GPL
isn't free, you will be met by people claiming that it is. Unless you
acknowledge the legitimacy of the people who don't believe as you do,
no one will let you have the last word. This has already turned into
a "Is. Isn't." thread, but hey, usenet bandwidth is cheap.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 10 Jul 2000 12:26:11 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mark Wooding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It does show a lack of understanding. The argument is also weak...
>> Please refer to the triumph of the (really free) XFree86 over the
>> unfortunate attempt by the X consortium.
>
>But the non-copyleft nature of XFree86 is being taken advantage of
>frequently.
You do realize that X exists almost entirely because of
funding from the vendors that released it in commercial
forms, don't you?
>We're being given servers derived from XFree86 with
>proprietary hardware drivers in them. This is convenient for users of
>some bits of graphics hardware. But this is an insidious process: the
>convenience of having a driver *now* overcomes most users' desire for
>free software, and it's slowly becoming `acceptable' for X hardware
>drivers to be hoarded, and if this continues, it will be all but
>impossible to run a free-software operating system on modern client
>hardware.
Is it better to be impossible or just almost impossible?
>If XFree86 were copylefted, for example with the GPL, this couldn't
>happen.
X wouldn't exist at all if it had to be GPL'd. Nor would most
of the things that use it.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 10 Jul 2000 12:35:24 -0500
In article <8kcrka$q7s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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".
>
Yes, GPL-restricted would be a more accurate term for things
that are covered.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Linux code going down hill
Date: 10 Jul 2000 17:42:42 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In article <8jnfn7$28pv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
>> Paul Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>> > <snip>
>> >> IMO, Solaris is more or less unusable until you add the GNU
>> >> utilities to it. ( Does it even ship with a C++ compiler ??? )
>> >
>> > No. Hell, it doesn't even ship with something as basic as 'top'.
>> >
>>
>> Solaris is an exceedingly specialized UNIX, linux is not UNIX at
>> all. Linux is 'gnu-nux'.
>
> Well, if you REALLY want to nit-pick, Solaris isn't Unix either,
> and I don't understand "highly specialized". What exactly is it
> highly specialized for? Runs nicely as a desktop, database
> server, web server, application server, X terminal server,
> computational node, file server, names serveretc.
So does VMS. Most OSes do.
> Specialized
> OSes are more like real-time systems for data aquisitions,
> manufacturing, telephony, etc.
>
Sorry, replace "specialized" with "shrink-wrapped, highly focused
target market OS".
>> If you do not know exactly why you need solaris, then you do not
>> need solaris.
>
> What does that mean? If you don't know what you need any software
> for, you probably don't need it.
>
Explain 70 million windows users.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: 10 Jul 2000 17:45:14 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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!
>
Google is just finishing up their 6,000 node linux cluster. Google is the
only existing search engine which has had zero downtime since its inception.
You do not know what youre talking about.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: 10 Jul 2000 17:46:32 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 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!
>>
>
> Google is just finishing up their 6,000 node linux cluster. Google is the
> only existing search engine which has had zero downtime since its inception.
>
> You do not know what youre talking about.
>
Oh and furthermore, we all remember what a decietful, lying, trolling,
idiotic, ignorant bastard you are.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A MacOpinion of Open Source that REALLY HITS THE MARK
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 17:45:19 GMT
In article <8kapvc$1qa$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> > He's kind of wrong when he claims that Open Source projects are not
> > "customer oriented". Some, like KDE for example, certainly are.
>
> Hmmm kind off. Really depends on how you define the customer. Neither
GNOME
> nor KDE are really "customer" oriented since the "customer" is the
> developer or the people the use the desktop enviroment and make
themselves
> heard. And both groups are technical oriented people.
>
> What KDE and GNOME needs is a group of nontechies that has some
> demands that must be met and some kind of veto before a new version
> is released. This is the only way to ensure end-user friendlyness and
to
> have other people like interfaceexperts and graphical artists to
> participate in the developemnt. I dont think this is going to happen
some
> day soon
I don't think that will ever happen at all.
What IS happening is that companies are forming QA teams to hammer on
free software, and report wishes.
Just look at the KDE bug database and look for "QA".
But veto? The day someone can veto software I write for free, is the day
I open a nudie bar and declare computers anathema.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (void)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 10 Jul 2000 17:59:42 GMT
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 12:30:48 GMT, Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I've already admitted that Windows is better in buzzword compliance. But
>as soon as you have a _real_ argument (with evidence to support it),
>feel free to post it.
Preemptive multitasking is more than just a buzz-phrase -- it's an
important part of the architecture of anything claiming to be a real OS.
There's a good reason why it's one of the major marketing points for
MOSX.
--
Ben
220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
------------------------------
From: fungus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.gui,alt.news.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Are there still markets? (C# Overview from Microsoft)
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 18:01:23 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Are there still markets to this kind of (C++ & Java & COM hybrid???)
> language?
> Why MS brings this language so late? And will MS be only firm that
> support these C# development tools ...
>
We think it's more an attempt to "take away" rather than "bring".
C# is a language which seems to be an attempt to tie people to
a platform called .net.
Sure, the language may be "open" and "standard", but if
it's the case that "all C# objects are automaticlly COM
objects" then you've got to really think abotu what you're
doing.
I don't blame Microsoft for trying this, but their sinister
mind-tricks, covered by a veneer of PR-propaganda is becoming
a bit tiresome these days.
If a language is to be "open" then let it be open, not tied
to a .platform which only runs on Windows.
eg:
Where are the container classes? The docs say specifically
that C# defines no standard library. Instead it will "leverage
the existing APIs", ie. COM.
So.. exactly how "open" is a language whose standard container
classes require COM functionality?
Ask yourself this question seriously, then read the bit about
"standardization" and "openness" again...
> It would be nice to know that how many programmer will choose
> this C# to new projects.
>
The way it's currently defined, people who don't mind being tied
to Windows.
Hopefully ECMA will have enough sense to remove all the Windows
specific stuff from it and fix up the glaringly obvious holes.
In that case then it might be a good alternative to C++
for everyday programming.
--
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/ FTB.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
