Linux-Advocacy Digest #590, Volume #27 Tue, 11 Jul 00 08:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: What happens when all the bit twiddlers are gone? (mlw)
Re: linux:Unresolved symbol using 'insmod sg' (Daniel Wagner)
Re: Just exactly what IS Linux, anyway? (mlw)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Growing dependence on Java (gLiTcH)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (John S. Dyson)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What happens when all the bit twiddlers are gone?
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 20:40:23 -0400
DeAnn Iwan wrote:
>
> On Sun, 09 Jul 2000 07:34:43 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ....
> >So, when people like me retire and move on, everything will be written
> >in Java, perl, whatever, and no one will be willing to do the drivers
> >and core libraries, all the stuff that makes programs fast and really
> >usable.
> >
> >
>
> I suspect the rush to high level tools (Java instead of C,
> for example) are part of the rush to save time and get things out
> fast. The same sort of arguement was made for programming in high
> level tools like C and fortran instead of assembler. Yes, you can be
> more precise and optimized in assembler than in C and in C than in
> Java. But it takes longer. Sometimes longer is worth the better.
> Often it is not (especially if you want to get paid next month!).
Actually you are wrong about the reason why C was written. Assembler was
not portable, and languages like Fortran (And not java, perl, etc) are
not able to get low enough. C is essentially a "portable" assembler."
The basic constructs in "C" directly relate to low level computer
instructions.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
Nepotism proves the foolishness of at least two people.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: linux:Unresolved symbol using 'insmod sg'
From: Daniel Wagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 11 Jul 2000 12:49:23 +0200
Carlos Villegas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My goal is to have the 'sg module' load automatically.
>
> As root I typed: 'insmod sg'
> And I got this:
> Using /lib/modules/2.2.14/scsi/sg.o
> /lib/modules/2.2.14/scsi/sg.o: unresolved symbol
> is_reg_chrdev
>
> How can I get the sg module to load automatically given the above
> obsticle?
It's better when you use 'modprobe <module>' instead of insmod,
because modprobe loads all the modules on which the the module to load
depends.
If you want to load modules automatically you should edit your
/etc/modules.conf.
hth, Daniel
--
The mome rath isn't born that could outgrabe me.
-- Nicol Williamson
@icq: 41472160 (kwaxi) @counter.li: #65688
@www: http://www.pfeilheim.sth.ac.at/members/d.wagner/
@gpg: http://www.pfeilheim.sth.ac.at/members/d.wagner/kwaxi.asc
C63A 06F0 3E2A A039 E830 83A0 C1DA 3479 803F 078F
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Just exactly what IS Linux, anyway?
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 07:16:32 -0400
You are working on a misconception. Linux is not Windows. It isn't
designed like Windows and it doesn't work like Windows, and as such, it
doesn't suck like Windows.
The Linux kernel, the only portion that can be called Linux, is just the
collection of services and drivers which allow your system to run
programs. On top of which run a huge number of programs which makeup a
"GNU/Linux" distribution.
Which part, other than the kernel, should be considered as owned by
Linux? XFree? That's available for almost any platform, even Windows.
KDE/Gnome? They can compile on almost any version of UNIX, and are also
part of the FreeBSD distribution. How about StarOffice? Is that also
part of Linux? It comes with a few distributions.
Metaphors in the Windows world to not usually have a clear translation
to the UNIX world. While I think that it may slow the spread of UNIX in
the short term, I am sure it will help it in the long term.
Think of Windows and NT as a wooden pre-fab building or mobile home. The
kind that is delivered by truck. When they arrive and are setup, they
are pretty and seem functional with little work. Think of UNIX (Linux)
as a cement and cinderblock building. They take more work and sometimes
never get that "finished" look the manufactured buildings sometimes
have. Think, however, which one would you like to be in during a serious
storm?
Rich C wrote:
>
> I have been concerned lately about certain attitudes in this newsgroup.
>
> It seems that certain Linux "zealots," when confronted with the issue of a
> useability issue with KDE, Gnome, or whatever, argue that these components
> are NOT part of Linux. However, when confronted with the issue that Windows
> version [whatever] has a nice user interface, they instantly point to KDE or
> Gnome being "just as good." This type of two-headed posturing is not
> constructive.
>
> Well, which is it? Are the KDE/Gnome desktops part of "Linux," or aren't
> they?
>
> All current versions of Windows include a GUI user interface, and for what
> it's worth, it IS easy to use.
>
> Linux is claimed to be "just a kernel" which, in and of itself, is not much
> good. It requires many GNU utilities, at an absolute minimum, and SOME type
> of GUI, to be considered "useable" as a desktop system.
>
> Almost all distributions of "Linux" come with one or more GUI desktop
> environments, and 99% of the people who want to try Linux as an alternative
> to Windows will install one of these desktops. In order to make Linux an
> "equivalent" environment to Windows, you HAVE to say that these GUIs are
> part of the overall operating environment, or "system." If you don't, then
> you leave yourself open to the argument that Linux is just a kernel, and, as
> such, is pretty much useless.
>
> I think it's time we took ownership of the various GUI desktops that ship in
> GNU/Linux distributions, even if it means acknowledging certain flaws in
> each. After all, to be really "useable" as a desktop environment, a GUI must
> be installed.
>
> This of course does not mean that one can't argue that the separation of the
> GUI from the kernel adds to the stability of the core OS, and that this
> design is superior to the various flavors of Windows. But then we must
> accept that this separation invites certain problems, such as a lack of
> basic feature integration (cut and paste, drag and drop, etc.)
>
> If this means that we must still be "elitist" in recommending Linux to only
> those people who are willing to sacrifice a certain amount of "useability"
> in favor of increased stability at the core level, then so be it. I, for
> one, am willing to concede that the various GUI desktops are not yet at the
> level of Windows in terms of total integration, because I know that rapid
> progress is being made, and that they will soon reach that level, and even
> surpass it.
>
> I don't yet use Linux for "everything" in my business; as evidenced by the
> fact that I am still using OE to post this. I use Microsoft products to
> generate quotes, invoices, track my repairs, produce reports, and do my
> accounting. I DO use Linux for intranet web servers print servers, CAD
> workstations, and programming. I have more Linux machines in my office than
> Windows machines, and someday, I will probably do the bulk of my work on
> Linux machines. I will probably NEVER rid myself totally of MS products, due
> to the nature of my business. But it doesn't really matter, because I am not
> out to destroy Microsoft. They are doing a pretty good job of that on their
> own.
>
> --
> Rich C.
> "Because light travels faster than sound, many people appear to be
> intelligent, until you hear them speak."
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
Nepotism proves the foolishness of at least two people.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 07:07:39 -0400
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Mike Stump wrote:
>>> Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> Mr Stumped proves once again that he can't tell the difference
>>>> between a tool and a person. (Hint: animates can be enslaved, tools
>>>> -- inanimates -- cannot.)
>>> Prove it. The dictionary you cited didn't restrict the term slavery
>>> to only applying to humans or animates, it merely said:
>> Actually, you're the one making the extraordinary claim, Stump. Convince
>> the world that code can be enslaved, or that by the alleged enslavement of
>> code, developers are thereby enslaved.
> You are arbitrarily redefining the argument.
>
> The liberty that the GPL is presumed to garauntee is for users
> in general not merely "developers". The vendorlock imposed by
> Win32, WinSock embrace & extend, msvc++ extensions, msMosiac++
> plugins and msoffice formats are all excellent examples of
> entrapment through obscurity.
Don't confuse yourself. The 'liberty' of the GPL is meaningless to
those who don't read, understand, and often modify or extend code. And
you're right about one thing in that statement: it's a *presumption*,
not a reality.
>> (Hint: you can't. The language doesn't support meaningful sentences
>> that attempt to do so, which is different than supporting sentences
>> that pretend to do so. Look at Jabberwocky for a good example of what
>> might be grammatically correct but is still nonsensical -- like your
>> claim that software [an inanimate] can be enslaved.)
> ...you mean like "free country"?
Countries cannot be enslaved, fool. The citizens of said countries
could be enslaved, but countries cannot.
Would you care to try again?
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 07:11:45 -0400
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> As far as the GPL being "less free" than the BSDL or even PD,
> there is one thing that is being forgotten. Traditional US
> copyright law acknowledges a sort of ultimate GPL on the
> common pool of invention. IOW, all software should ultimately
> be GPL/PD software if copyright is adequately applied to
> software. The public interest in the disclosure of the means
> to recreate an invention, and the acknowledgement that all
> invention is ultimately unoriginal and derivative of common
> knowledge both lead to the requirement that the monopoly on
> intellectual property distribution should end in the full
> disclosure of it, eventually.
*snort* *giggle*
You're thinking patents, Jeeedi. The legal 'requirement' you speak of
ain't, at least for copyright. (Which is not to say that I think that
copyright isn't abused; one of the worst cases of abuse was with the
Co$ claim of both copyright and trade secret -- IMO, you should get one
protection or the other, not both.)
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 07:19:26 -0500
From: gLiTcH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Growing dependence on Java
I agree. Java is slow. I remember trying out the Java version of icq on
Linux. Not only would it execute the Java binary in the background, which
was 12 megs, but icq itself was slow to respond to clicks. There was
definitely a lag time between clicking on a name and having a menu appear.
Brandon
Aravind Sadagopan wrote:
> Hi,
> Offlate I have seen a number of application written in Java and that
> seems the companys trump card for
> boasting multiplatform support. I downloaded XML Pro for Linux and its
> so damn slow, JBuilder 3.5 is a snail
> and Forte for Java is the slowest application I have seen.. Starwriter
> takes time to load that I have switched to
> Corel WordPerfect. And many applications are using java runtime.I think
> applications should not compromise speed for platform indepence. There
> can be some
> tradeoff but Java is just too damn slow. What do you guys feel?
>
> aravind
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 07:19:38 -0400
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Quoting Austin Ziegler from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Mon, 10 Jul 2000
[snip]
>>>> Sorry, but it really would help if GPL advocates didn't make fools of
>>>> themselves this way.
>>> And, what do you know! If the Kerberos source code were GPL, then MS
>>> couldn't have kept the source for their implementation secret, and we
>>> would know the answer to your question of whether they used Kerberos
>>> open source code or not.
>> Again, this is *false*. MS would not be obligated to show its source
>> code unless it actually used the source code -- and it's not stupid,
>> unlike the foolish GPList advocates who actually think that the GPL
>> would have helped in this case.
> Try to flame-off, dude, your rhetoric isn't helping your case. I think
> what you're saying is that MS could have implemented the Kerberos
> protocol without using the Kerberos reference implementation source
> code, which I guess is true. And I guess the question this sub-thread
> is discussing is whether Kerberos would have been protected from
> Microsoft if it had been GPL, but the fact is it wouldn't make any sense
> to make a protocol reference implementation GPL, certainly not in the
> time period when Kerberos was developed.
Because the protocol itself was left for vendor specification, it would
not have mattered at all that the protocol's reference implementation
was -- except that the few Unix vendors who have expressed any support
for it at all wouldn't have bothered to express the minimal support
that they have. I don't think they would have bothered doing a clean
room implementation.
> Nevertheless, if you can try
> to ignore that absolutely correct and valid point you have, you might be
> able to see that aside from the lunacy of making a source implementation
> GPL, Microsoft would not have been able to do what they did with
> Kerberos if it had been GPL.
But the *would* have, because the protocol itself has this open spot.
It appears that MS has used *enough* of the reference code to merit mention
of MIT's copyright in their documentation (I went searching). Given that, the
section in question was still an area to extend in the protocol itself.
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John S. Dyson)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 11 Jul 2000 10:48:15 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard) writes:
>
> You describe the GPV zealot's utopia. To me, it's a nightmare world with
> poverty and misery for millions of people, and I want no part of it.
>
Remember, that you are arguing mostly with zealots who are already set
up to be 'successful' in the miseryworld of a GPL universe :-). They
have very strong motivation to see it succeed. (BTW, I don't necessarily
agree with you about that miseryworld, but there would be a significant
shakeup, and likely a significant decrease in programmers, yet an
increase in laywers, doctors and other professions -- be that good
or bad.) Techno-emmigration would also come to halt, with expiration
of visas.
Myself, I have only relatively neutral holdings. Whatever happens
in the GPL world (or in the free or commercial software worlds)
doesn't affect my financial future. Geesh, I moved out of
predominantly tech stocks about 3mos ago right before the crash.
Anyone, with common sense understands what is going on.
John
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 07:22:27 -0400
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Quoting Leslie Mikesell from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 10 Jul 2000
>> X wouldn't exist at all if it had to be GPL'd. Nor would most
>> of the things that use it.
> It seems reasonable to assume that no software would exist if it *had*
> to be GPL'd. Nevertheless, indications are strong that someday, almost
> all software will be voluntarily GPL'd.
I don't think you're right. If, instead, you say 'almost all software
will be open sourced,' I can agree. I can't agree that they will be
GPLed.
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 07:25:30 -0400
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Quoting Austin Ziegler from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Mon, 10 Jul 2000
> 14:43:36 -0400
>> On 10 Jul 2000, Leslie Mikesell wrote:
>>> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> It is the "commercial" code which is "prohibited". Open source software
>>>> is not prohibited at all, unless you're a profiteer.
>>> No, the GPL prohibits combining with any non-GPL licence. It has
>>> nothing to do with being commercial or making profit. It is just
>>> a restriction that prevents many useful developments.
>> That is better said "the GPL prohibits combining with any non-GPL or
>> GPL-compatible licence" (which means that it can be overridden by the
>> GPL's clauses).
> That doesn't sound like it would be very GPL-compatible. What license
> says 'this license can be over-ridden by any other license'? All
> licenses over-ride licenses of additional sources of a derived work, if
> they are compatible licenses. If they don't, they are non-compatible.
Actually, look at the MPL (www.mozilla.org). When you combine two sets
of code under different and compatible licences, they are distributed
under three licences: the compilation licence and each original
licence. The GPL doesn't preserve the integrity and restrictions of the
original licence when it takes over other software.
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 07:29:20 -0400
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Quoting Austin Ziegler from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Mon, 10 Jul 2000
>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Mike Stump wrote:
>>> 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?
>> Is software now a legal person?
>> It's amazing that you can't tell the difference between a tool and a
>> person.
> Its amazing you can't tell the difference between a definition and a
> metaphor.
For metaphors to be useful, they have to be meaningful. Mr Stump hasn't
created anything meaningful with this so-called metaphor. The
restrictions on 'software' are actually restrictions on users (however
'users' is defined).
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 07:33:35 -0400
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Quoting Austin Ziegler from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Mon, 10 Jul 2000
> 22:00:06 -0400
>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Mike Stump wrote:
>>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>> Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Mike Stump wrote:
>>>>> 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?
>>>> Is software now a legal person?
>>>> It's amazing that you can't tell the difference between a tool and a
>>>> person.
>>> Please explain what the above has to do with it.
>> Persons cannot be enslaved. Tools aren't persons, and therefore cannot be
>> enslaved. The same applies to software, since software is merely a tool.
>> Surely you can understand *that* difference, right?
> All right, without the trolling:
>
> Mike, for the argument 'does a free man not have restrictions' to be
> understood , one has to assume that software can metaphorically be
> placed in the role of a sentient, animate, person. Austin's very clumsy
> reply was meant to question whether this is valid. He is apparently
> unaware that one can substitute anything for anything else in a
> metaphor, as that is what a metaphor is.
Excuse you *very* much, but this is not true (and I say this as someone
who is, first and foremost, an expert on the language more than
computing). If the metaphor is meaningless -- as Mike's attempt at
metaphor was -- then it's not useful. If you're attempting to make a
metaphor including slavery, then you have to deal with the same class
of things as you're attempting to make a metaphor for, or you have to
adjust your metaphor such that it properly deals with the alternate
class.
Only animates can be enslaved (and, specifically, only sentients can be
enslaved). Software is neither animate nor sentient, which means that
he's attempting to apply an animate metaphor to an inanimate. (In other
words, it doesn't work.)
> Austin; obviously software can't be enslaved, except metaphorically.
> And that, of course, is precisely the connotation that is being used.
> Can an animal be enslaved? Can an animal be free?
Which means that it's a useless metaphor and accomplishes nothing but
raising the general stupidity of the debate as people have to refute
idiotic metaphors.
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
