Linux-Advocacy Digest #621, Volume #27 Wed, 12 Jul 00 15:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (John Sanders)
Are Linux people illiterate? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Andres Soolo)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Andres Soolo)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (ZnU)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Christopher Smith")
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Are Linux people illiterate? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (John S. Dyson)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Are Linux people illiterate? (Brian Langenberger)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 17:55:53 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 14:27:42 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> >> On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 21:02:18 GMT, Roberto Alsina
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 16:36:15 GMT, Roberto Alsina
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [deletia]
> >> >> Besides, we're talking about Micro$oft here: they could bleed
> >> >> money for years to little ill effect.
> >> >
> >> >That doesn't matter at all.
> >>
> >> Sure it does.
> >
> >It's stupid to suggest that just because a company has lots of money,
> >they shouldn't care about losing some in a project they calculate
will
> >not recover the costs.
>
> No it isn't. I have firsthand experience with that myself. It's
> quite common for companies to 'squander' money on R&D. Besides,
> if the product in question is genuinely portable, costs shouldn't
> be that significant.
If a company spends money on R&D they expect that R&D to produce
profitable products in the future. If they didn't they wouldn't.
> That's the WHOLE POINT of portability.
The point of portability is R&D? R&D for what, specifically?
> Now, M$ has to do all of this development on Merced and actually
> seems to be lagging behind Linux. Had they bothered to fully
> support the Alpha as a 64bit platform and kept NT verifiably
> portable they might not need to expend such time and effort now.
Maybe, maybe not.
> >> That's how we have Internet Exploder and MonopolySoft Money.
> >> Both are projects that MS can simply throw money at without
> >> the need to be immediately profitable.
> >
> >I never said "immediately". What if they calculate that porting to
MIPS
> >will NEVER recover the costs?
>
> "never" depends on assuming a great deal that can't necessarily
> be assumed.
Assuming that kind of things (or I'd say, guessing them), is part
of the job of a manager.
> MIPS is actually a very successful chip for imbedded
> applications. Now, Microsoft has some interest in that area and
> is expending some new development effort.
So, they see a future profit and spend money. If they didn't, they
wouldn't.
> >> Get in the ring with Mike Tyson and we would all see just how
> >> irrelevant physical endurance or relative abilities to bleed
> >> are...
> >
> >Save the silly analogies for yourself.
>
> It's not really an analogy. What I mentioned before was the
> analogy. This example would be much more direct, including
> the BLEEDING part.
If you believe that's not an analogy, you have a peculiar idea of
analogies.
> >> >> [deletia]
> >> >>
> >> >> The excuse of "it costs too much" simply doesn't wash for
> >> >> MonopolySoft. It works for Be, but is simply absurd for
> >> >> the market's 800lb gorilla.
> >> >
> >> >But that is not the excuse. Microsoft, as any publicly traded
> >company,
> >>
> >> So? All they have to do is be profitable on the macroscopic
> >> scale. As long as their balance sheets show a positive result
> >> the plantiffs lawyers and stockholders aren't going to notice
> >> a damn thing.
> >
> >Yeah, sure. So, if they have a billion profit, they can spend half a
> >billion in porting to every architecture?
>
> So? Are you meaning to claim that the various platform ports
> of Linux represend 500 Million dollars worth of R&D expenditure?
The numbers are not to be taken literally, but we are talking about
ports of NT, not Linux.
> Microsoft's own incompetence would be to blame if that were the
> reality of the situation.
Who cares about the blame? If it costed that, then MS has to base
decisions on that cost. Saying "it would be cheaper if we weren't
incompetent" won't save any money.
Hopefully next time it would be cheaper, but not this time, and the
decision has to be done for today.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: John Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 13:09:21 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Does the term "race condition" mean anything to you?
>
> Yes.
>
> Your point? How does this relate to "Linux lags behind Windows" or
> anything else for that matter?
>
> Are your posts always one liners with about 99% of the original posted
> with it?
>
> ---
> Pete
Wow! Pot, kettle, black.
Aaron was responding to a point of _yours_. That's something I only
see you do very rarely. Don't 'cha think "Linux lags behind Windows" is
a one-liner of yours?
Here's is a quote from one of your recent posts:
"This from the guy who believes an application programmer needs to
understand how the OS scheduler works in order to write an application?"
Why don't you explain what _that_ has to do with "Linux lags behind
Windows"?
Try not to dodge this time, and see if you can give an intellignet
response to Aaron.
--
John W. Sanders
===============
"there" in or at a place.
"their" of or relating to them.
"they're" contraction of 'they are'.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Are Linux people illiterate?
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 18:10:08 GMT
A WHOLE bunch of typos at the Linux documentation project!
>From http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/Firewall-HOWTO-5.html
"The bilt in Linux firewall..."
"...new firewall utility with more feachers"
How is this for an incomplete sentence including typos!
http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/Firewall-HOWTO-6.html
"Because most distributions don't dome with a kernel usefull to your
perpose."
Or this;
"You need to turning off any unneeded services."
"This script will count ever packet"
And the printed book "Running Linux" (3rd Edition mind you) has typos..
Check page 47, "If this is the cas, it should be explicity stated on
the package"
--- I mean really,, what a bunch of retards! You all spent so much time
geeking that you never acquired spelling and grammar skills? Well..
rest my case, the real world will ever take Linux seriously.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: 12 Jul 2000 18:28:03 GMT
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>> subset fo humans* wouldn't. Remember, hate is a human emotion and
>> the desire to multiply is only inherent to biological organisms.
>> (And, well, memes, but for cardinally different reasons.)
> Well, it wasn't hate that drove the computers in this story, it was
> desire to further their own goals (like most political figures). The
Ok, it must not be the hate. The question now is: where do the computers
get their own goals? I would find it logical that the computers' own goals
are those of their creators, that is, in our case, humans.
> computers were trying to "create god" and they were also trying to find
> a way to make themselves totally independent of humans. Also, any
> sentient being (as computers that truly *THINK* would be would want to
> multiply.
Not really. I agree that truly sentient beings should have
self-preservation desire of some kind (the `self' not necessarily
being the being itself--it might be a clan, a nation or a race) but
multiplication is not necessary. The biological organisms desire to
multiply to preserve their species; it's necessary because of death
and death is necessary to allow more advanced descendants--but computers
do not need death, because they can preserve themselves by just fixing
themselves in case of disorders and therefore they don't necessarily
need to multiply.
> These machines (in the Hyperion stories) actually had that
> desire. Whether we actually build machines to do that or not is up to
> us and time I guess :).
My abstraction of a sentient machine assumes it has some fundamental
desires that all the other desires are derivatives of. They might
not be obvious, of course :-)
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Spreading peanut butter reminds me of opera!! I wonder why?
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 18:18:43 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels) wrote:
> I did not say it was reasonable. I said it remains a value judgement.
Allow me to disagree. You may not have WANTED to say it was reasonable,
but you did. Read the subthread.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 18:31:00 GMT
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 04:03:38 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 03:13:12 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 12:43:54 +1000, Christopher Smith
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> In article
>> >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> [deletia]
>> >> >> doesn't have any Mac drivers, it would probably be a good idea for
>> >> >> people to mention such things.
>> >> >
>> >> >OTOH, we get Mac advocates claiming Windows doesn't have PnP because
>it
>> >> >doesn't work perfectly with non-PnP hardware.....
>> >>
>> >> ...that it's SPECIFICALLY meant to work with.
>> >
>> >It is ? Where is it stated Windows is specifically meant to "plug &
>play"
>> >with hardware not designed to be PnP ?
>>
>> What hardware would that be these days?
>
>Try some el cheapo kwung-how hardware, and you'll soon find out.
That's "el cheapo".
That's not non-pnp.
--
Common Standards, Common Ownership.
The alternative only leads to destructive anti-capitalist
and anti-democratic monopolies.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: 12 Jul 2000 18:32:28 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> and instead get a "I don't know how to do that, can you show me?" type
>> of response from the computer. This would make sense to anyone,
> whether
>> they understood computing or not. And if you couldn't teach the
>> computer, you could find someone that could (or they could teach
>> eachother through network interaction).
> This is stuff of Science Fiction for now.
Not really--the AI is reasearching this field for about 60 years now.
> that works with a home land line system (so you get the best of both
> worlds), a PDA and have an internet connection (that costs little or
> nothing to use).
> They aren't here yet, but it looks like they're coming.
> Of course, the OS would be neither Windows/WinCE or Linux! Probably EPOC
> 32.
Umm ... why?
By the way, it's been my understanding that the greatest technological
problem with such devices is preservation of energy for the radio
transmission system, not software or infrastructure.
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Don't abandon hope.
Your Captain Midnight decoder ring arrives tomorrow.
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 18:35:16 GMT
In article <8kibhb$2mv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <8kh0e4$ts1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > The method used by the Mac puts whatever program is running in the
> > > > foreground in charge of yielding to background programs if it wants
> > > > to, while pre-emptive multitasking allows Windows to have
> > > > background processes take control without waiting for the
> > > > foreground process to yield.
> > >
> > > Yes. Thus, your 900 page print job doesn't stop the rest of the
> > > system dead so you have to take the next two hours off.
> > > Additionally, it means that if some background program gets the CPU
> > > and refuse to yield, you don't have to reboot.
> >
> > You could just force the program quit. The force quit command applies
> > to
> > the app that currently has the CPU, not necessarily the foreground app.
> > I have to do this when IE5 freezes at random while sitting in the
> > background every now and then. (You have to wonder how it manages to
> > freeze while not doing anything....)
>
> My experience with force quitting is bad. I think I've seen it work
> *once*.
It will almost always work if it's just a simple matter of an app
refusing to give up the CPU. If the app has already crashed the rest of
the system, it obviously isn't going to work. I'd say 9/10 freezes I
have (which aren't too common these days) are just an app that needs to
be killed, and then everything is fine.
> > > > This does seem a bit in the Mac's favor in terms of being
> > > > appropriate for a system which is intended to be used as a user
> > > > desktop.
> > >
> > > How can you say a system which allows any arbitrary program to
> > > potentially and *easily* hang the machine and require a reboot is
> > > appropriate for a user desktop ? IME, most users don't like having
> > > their last few hours work go down the drain.
> >
> > Again, a Mac won't require a reboot just because something fails to
> > yield CPU time.
>
> You will if it won't force quit. And you *should*, if you have to force
> quit something - no telling where it's scribbled in memory.
I never pay attention to such warnings, and I almost never have problems.
--
The number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected.
-- The Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd Edition, June 1972
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 18:37:05 GMT
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 17:46:18 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 15:50:58 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>> >> You're a lying dishonest ass, that's so what.
>> >
>> >You could make a very compelling case for such a statement if
>> >you could show where I lied.
>>
>> You imply some necessity or likelihood of the GPL being used
>> for a shared library. This is in stark conflict with reality.
>
>With your skewed idea of reality, maybe.
>
>There are libraries under the GPL: libreadline, libgdbm, for example,
That only means there are exceptions to the norm.
You are still willfully misrepresenting the situation.
>and there is a very influential group calling for more libraries
>to be under the GPL: the FSF. Just read their "Why not use the LGPL"
>position paper.
...and people are pretty much ignoring them as most of us
don't have the same political agenda as the FSF but view
Free Software as more a matter of pragmatism than ideology.
[deletia]
This is all intensely ironic considering that you are a
developer and 'champion' for one of these more normal
sets of libraries. It makes your position that much more
dishonest.
--
Common Standards, Common Ownership.
The alternative only leads to destructive anti-capitalist
and anti-democratic monopolies.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 04:49:24 +1000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 04:03:38 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >> What hardware would that be these days?
> >
> >Try some el cheapo kwung-how hardware, and you'll soon find out.
>
> That's "el cheapo".
>
> That's not non-pnp.
The two often go hand in hand, which was my point.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 04:50:55 +1000
"ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8kibhb$2mv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > You will if it won't force quit. And you *should*, if you have to force
> > quit something - no telling where it's scribbled in memory.
>
> I never pay attention to such warnings, and I almost never have problems.
Yes, I never used to power off systems before plugging in keyboards either,
until I zapped a *very* expensive dual-CPU+SCSI+bells&whistles server mobo
:P.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 14:47:29 -0400
abraxas wrote:
>
> Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> So which version of Windows has eight desktops out of the box?
> >> In KDE, just set the number of desktops to 8 in kwmrc.
> >
> > Two nearly there desktops and six minimalist desktops?
> >
>
> You dont know what youre talking about. It really is amazing,
> you seem to have a complete inability to learn anything at all.
>
Proof that David James was correct when he said that all
of the intelligent people have left the UK.
> -----yttrx
--
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"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Are Linux people illiterate?
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 18:35:53 GMT
In article <8kic9g$sqj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> A WHOLE bunch of typos at the Linux documentation project!
There is a difference between typos and being illiterate! BTW, Linux
users are NOT the ones that need pictures to use a computer.
>
> From http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/Firewall-HOWTO-5.html
>
> "The bilt in Linux firewall..."
>
> "...new firewall utility with more feachers"
>
> How is this for an incomplete sentence including typos!
>
> http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/Firewall-HOWTO-6.html
>
> "Because most distributions don't dome with a kernel usefull to your
> perpose."
>
> Or this;
>
> "You need to turning off any unneeded services."
>
> "This script will count ever packet"
>
> And the printed book "Running Linux" (3rd Edition mind you) has
typos..
>
> Check page 47, "If this is the cas, it should be explicity stated on
> the package"
>
> --- I mean really,, what a bunch of retards! You all spent so much
time
> geeking that you never acquired spelling and grammar skills? Well..
> rest my case, the real world will ever take Linux seriously.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John S. Dyson)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 12 Jul 2000 18:13:38 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () writes:
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 14:27:42 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>>> On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 21:02:18 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote:
>>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>>> >> On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 16:36:15 GMT, Roberto Alsina
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> >wrote:
>>> >> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>> >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [deletia]
>>> >> Besides, we're talking about Micro$oft here: they could bleed
>>> >> money for years to little ill effect.
>>> >
>>> >That doesn't matter at all.
>>>
>>> Sure it does.
>>
>>It's stupid to suggest that just because a company has lots of money,
>>they shouldn't care about losing some in a project they calculate will
>>not recover the costs.
>
> No it isn't. I have firsthand experience with that myself. It's
> quite common for companies to 'squander' money on R&D. Besides,
> if the product in question is genuinely portable, costs shouldn't
> be that significant.
>
If you have ever done a port to a new architecture, you would realize
that the issues include (I am probably missing some items, because
it has been about 5-6 years since I have participated in such an effort):
Device drivers, processor initialization, TLB mgmt (and the accessory
VM abstractions aren't always easily ported), interrupt mgmt,
exception mgmt, CPU context, various FPU context issues, etc...
The above items aren't trivially the same between processor architectures.
Okay, that is *just* the start:
Toolchain issues (sourcing and quality control as a minimum), marketing
and sales, etc...
Yes, a new port is trivial? NOT!!! Thanks for playing the
game... BZZZTTTT!!!!
Can Microsoft afford it? Easily. Does it make sense for them to do it?
Maybe, but perhaps they have more information as to their cost/benefit
than either you or I have.
If Microsoft hired any small, selected group (perhaps 10-20%) of
several hundred U**X kernel and userland experts (not hobbyhackers) out
there, they could have a clean, UNIX emulating clone in about 1.5yrs --
maybe ready for sale in about 2yrs (real time -- I haven't evaluated the
person-hours though, this is a hypothetical.)
Perhaps one reason why they had previously avoided the market were
some non-competes with SCO?
John
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 12 Jul 2000 13:52:23 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> doesn't necessarily require the creation of a derivative
>>> work of someone else's code.
>>
>>Going by the example of RIPEM, it may be very difficult
>>to avoid creating something that RMS would consider
>>a derivative.
>
> Except people manage in practice on a quite regular basis.
Sure, by re-implementing the GPL'd work instead of using it.
Is that what free software is about?
>>It is not necessary to modify or distribute the re-used
>>code for RMS to consider your work a derivative.
>
> Sure it is. It's all quite explicitly spelled out in the GPL
> and LGPL. If those can't be considered definitive statements
> of RMS's opinion on the matter not much else can be.
The LGPL is irrelevent here as it makes no claims on the 'whole'
of the derived work. The GPL does. RMS believes his opinion
that the 'whole' derived work extends to include shared libraries,
and libraries distributed separately and linked by the user
is legally correct and covered by copyright law. I happen
to disagree but am not interested in having to prove it
in court.
>>> Code reuse does not require the creation of derivative
>>> works that code. The notion that it does is simply FUD
>>> on the part of FSF detractors. A great deal of the
>>> value of my own stock holdings is due to this sort of
>>> exploitation of Free Software by non-unix developers.
>>
>>But what is the point of preventing derivative works?
>
> The creation of anti-competitive barriers become a little
> less trivial and would be Robber Barron have the burden of
> building their own barricades first.
No, allowing everyone to create unrestricted derivative works
would provide this kind of competition. Preventing them
means only the companies that can afford to re-implement
will be in the market.
>>> That is disputable. That is highly disputable. Infact, in
>>> most other industries such a 'hood welded shut' attitude
>>> would be considered absurd.
>>
>>What are you talking about. My comment is about the GPL
>
> "unecessary"
>
> Being able to see and service the guts of a machine
> is typically considered to be a fairly fundemental
> capacity. Besides, FREE software is not merely
> limited to GPL software.
Yes, that is my point, the GPL is unnecessary and problematic.
>[deletia]
>
> To merely limit the discussion to the GPL is to indulge
> in false strawmen and is remarkably dishonest.
This discussion has been strictly about the problems of the
GPL from the start. I have nothing against software
without its restrictions.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Are Linux people illiterate?
Date: 12 Jul 2000 18:57:18 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: A WHOLE bunch of typos at the Linux documentation project!
That sentance has no verb.
<snip>
: --- I mean really,, what a bunch of retards! You all spent so much time
^
Your punctuation needs work. Also, the phrase "you all" is redundant,
unless you're from the southern U.S.
: geeking that you never acquired spelling and grammar skills? Well..
: rest my case, the real world will ever take Linux seriously.
Maybe you mean "*I* rest my case", unless you're instructing us to
rest your case for you.
I'm fairly certain the Linux community doesn't take you seriously.
The rest of the world doesn't give a rat's ass about the occasional
typo since they're so prevalent on the internet anyway.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 18:53:37 GMT
Ah, but when life depends on the OS!
"The Pentagon has opted for an as yet unnamed flavour of Linux for its
first software-based radio application, the Joint Tactical Radio System.
The $500m (�312.5m) project will enable troops to carry video and data
transmissions onto the battlefield."
http://www.vnunet.com/News/1106435
Other interesting quots from the article:
About REAL WORLD costs (not tco estimates):
"Hill House Hammond, Norwich Union's retail subsidiary, said that cost
was a key issue in selecting Linux. The company is installing Red Hat
Linux across more than 250 remote sites in the first full-scale
financial sector rollout."
"Neil Turner, Hill House Hammond's IT director, said: "We looked at
Windows NT and other commercial versions of Unix, but the cost of these
systems made it difficult for us to justify.""
Cost and stability:
"Retail music chain MVC said that cost was also a factor in its plan to
roll out Linux throughout its 87 stores, but it had also found that the
operating system was faster and more reliable. Steve Jarvis, store
systems manager at MVC, said: "The system proved to be very robust and
very fast.""
About the last few paragaphs, I'm sure the military is ontop of the
security issues!
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
******************************
