Linux-Advocacy Digest #636, Volume #27 Thu, 13 Jul 00 00:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (void)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Corel Does Nothing To Help The Linux Cause (Christopher Browne)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why use Linux? (Steve Jones)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (ZnU)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 23:13:32 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Jay Maynard from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 12 Jul 2000 08:18:14
>On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 02:35:11 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>But what is the point of preventing derivative works?
>>Promoting innovation! Come up with your own works!
>
>This is exactly the argument advanced by those who favor softwar patents.
>Don't like having to pay someone patent royalties? Come up with your own
>way to do it!
>
>I find it curious that those who oppose the idea in one context support it
>in another.
I don't. In one situation (patent) it is used to profit from your
invention. In another (software 'copyright', actually trade secret) it
is to profiteer and lock-in the customer. I am not against or for
things like copyright or patent in the abstract. It is their
application in ethical terms that is all I am concerned about.
>>Pity someone try to promote something besides exorbitant profits;
>
>Your leftist cant about "exorbitant profits" is tiresome, and I find it hard
>to read past your continual assumption that profits are evil. In our
>society, that's just plain wrong. If you can't profit from a thing, then you
>don't own it.
I didn't say profits are evil. Did I say profits are evil? I make
profits myself. I'd make more if I could, and would expect others to do
likewise. I'd make enough profit that I have a comfortable living and a
bit of capital, and then I'd retire. I wouldn't ever charge anybody
1000% profits on something that cost me almost nothing year after year
after year. That isn't leftist cant; I'm not a leftist! I'm a strong
free market capitalist, and have the credentials to prove it.
You can profit from a thing without exacting exorbitant profits. Pick
the level you want to call "exorbitant"; I'm not interested in making
moral judgements. But to pretend that there is no such thing as the
dishonest use of your customer's desire for your product in order to
lock them in to having to pay over and over at huge profits and deter
them directly from choosing an alternative and giving you the boot...
that is evil.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 23:16:14 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Leslie Mikesell from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 12 Jul 2000 \
>Copyrights let you re-implement if you don't copy anything. Patents
>cover the process or thing itself so you can't avoid the
>patent license even if you re-invent it without seeing the original.
You overgeneralize the term 'copy', Les. You can copy the code, you
can't copy the intellectual property. There is no absolute distinction,
but there is always a distinction. A physical hard bound set of pages
with printing on them is not intellectual property. A book, is not
intellectual property. There is intellectual property in the book, yes,
but there is (and never will be) any empirical test to distinguish the
printing from the IP.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 23:18:27 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Lee Hollaar from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 12 Jul 2000 11:53:44
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>It is not necessary to modify or distribute the re-used code for the
>>U.S. Government Patent and Trademark Office to consider your work a
>>derivative, either. RMS is just a bit more stringent in applying that
>>point to ensure he maintains control of his intellectual work.
>
>Just what does the United States Patent and Trademark Office have to
>do with considering your work a derivative?
>
>Just asking ...
As far as I know, they define the concept. I'm possibly
over-simplifying, as the statutes aren't really the Office. But they
develop legal guidelines for what might be considered derivative, and
the courts interpret them when they apply the law, AFAIK. If not, then
assume I was speaking rhetorically.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (void)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 13 Jul 2000 03:13:04 GMT
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 21:38:58 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Quoting void from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 12 Jul 2000 05:12:33 GMT
>>On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 04:44:14 GMT, ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>>
>>A modern scheduler is sufficently self-tuning to work well on servers or
>>desktops without modification. When my FreeBSD machine runs its nightly
>>2 am maintenance scripts, I can only tell if I'm physically present to
>>hear the disk drive's noises.
>
>All right, so I've been overstating the case.
You haven't been overstating the case so much as you've been just plain
wrong.
>But when somebody says
>that something which has been successful in the market does something
>"wrong", I can't help but notice that they have to be making
>assumptions. The fact is, it *did* make sense at the time, and changing
>to PMT on the Mac would still not make a lot of sense.
It made sense at the time because they were keeping hardware costs down
by keeping the operating system small. Changing to PMT on the Mac in
fact makes plenty of sense, which is why Apple is doing it.
>>>Virtually every PMT system allows priorities to be assigned to tasks.
>>>You just need to give user interaction tasks very high priorities, so
>>>the system remains responsive under load.
>>
>>It tends to do that anyway, because interactive tasks spend a lot of
>>time waiting for user input, which causes them to accumulate priority.
>
>Which may, indeed, be the exact *opposite*, again, of what is called for
>on a desktop client system. If I have twelve apps waiting for user
>input, it is because I want them to wait. I don't want them to slow
>things down by increasing their priority; it isn't *that* kind of
>"scheduling". This isn't my todo list, where things should rise to the
>top of their own accord.
How is an app that is waiting for input going to slow anything down?
It's *waiting*. Instead of trying to explain blocking I/O and sleeping
and wait channels to you, I'm just going to gently suggest that you read
a book.
>The software I'm interacting with has absolute priority, at all times,
>as far as I am concerned. Anything else is bad design for a desktop
>system.
Let's say I've got a rendering job running in the background. Perhaps
it's some expensive graphics operation, perhaps I've just got a web
browser rendering a web page while I post to news. All we know about it
is that it's mostly CPU-bound.
As I sit pondering what to type, my foreground app accumulates priority,
while the CPU-bound task expends priority by using the CPU. Every
fraction of a second, the CPU-bound task's time quantum expires, and the
kernel issues it a new one if there are no higher-priority runnable
processes. When I press a key, my news reader becomes runnable, and is
granted the next quantum. The time between my keypress and the time
when the news reader is granted the CPU is not noticeable.
For more complete descriptions of the algorithms involved, I recommend
_The Design and Implementation of the 4.4BSD Operating System_ by
McKusick et al., and _Unix Internals: The New Frontiers_ by Uresh
Vahalia.
>Not a show-stopper, necessarily, and of course it doesn't have *as much*
>importance on a modern super-desktop, and probably even less when you're
>dealing with a desktop/host. But I still think it is important, and
>would like to see the issue more directly addressed in practical ways,
>rather than theoretical ones.
What issue? The unix algorithms give desirable results in every
scenario you've described.
--
Ben
220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 23:22:46 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Austin Ziegler from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 12 Jul 2000
>On Wed, 12 Jul 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> GPL restrictions are only a problem for software *exploiters*; they
>> don't cause any severe burden on software *developers*, and they cause
>> no burden whatsoever on end users. No wonder you guys are scared. You
>> must be exploiters. And the GPL is actively and intentionally hostile
>> to you. Unapologetically.
>
>Max, you don't know the first fucking thing you're talking about. I'm sorry
>that it's taken me so long to realise it.
You'd think with the volume I post...
>If you haven't recognised it yet, the -exploiters- are not those who
>wish to make derivative works. They are the distributers. Under the
>GPL, the distributers have *all* the cards and the developers have
>effectively *zero*.
In commercial software, the exploiters are the distributors. The way
you described the relationship of the two sounds like a very good
scenario, to be honest. Why should developers do anything except what
distributors pay them to do because they can sell it to users?
>You obviously do not value software, nor do you care enough to think of the
>livelihood of those who produce it.
You are correct, sir. I do not value software in and of itself in any
way; its only interest to me is what results I can obtain by executing
it, and I already have most of the software I need. I do not feel it is
my responsibility to be concerned about every other person's livelihood,
and expect far far far more value for the price of software today than I
am getting.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 23:26:06 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Leslie Mikesell from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 12 Jul 2000
[...]
>The sheer numbers of things that can't be combined is enough
>to convince me, but if you want something concrete start with
>the example of including GNU readline in a program that
>processes GIF files.
You'll have to be more specific in identifying the issues; I am not
familiar enough with the details of GIF or readline to know why this
would be a problem. Is there some particular reason I'm supposed to be
scared that GIF will disappear if GPL is successful? Good. That'll
save me a lot of downloading time next time I hit the web.
Bear in mind, if you want to explore this further. I have no concern
for whether GIF/readline would be a problem for software developers. If
it isn't a problem for the consumer, it isn't a problem.
[...]
>What are you talking about? The GPL restrictions have nothing to
>do with exploiting anything. They restrict giving things away
>just the same as selling.
You're trolling.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 23:28:50 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Leslie Mikesell from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 12 Jul 2000
[...]
>>All commercial
>>software is distributed with two different licenses, in much the same
>>way you describe. They're called "developer license" or "OEM license"
>>and "End User License Agreements", respectively.
>
>But the purpose of applying these licenses is to apply certain
>restrictions - in perl's case it is to avoid them.
I was hoping for a response that would give some comparison to the two
license dichotomy, not a value judgement on the motivations of the
authors in choosing their license strategy.
>>So what are the particulars of the Perl licenses? I'm not familiar with
>>it (the licenses, I am familiar with Perl).
>
>One is the stock GPL, the other is called the 'Artistic' license
>which allows just about anything except redistributing modifications
>without identifying the changed copy as being modified. Embedding
>in commercial products is also explicitly permitted. This scheme
>allows it to be combined with GPL'd code without being trapped
>by it.
Does this, in fact, end up being similar to commercial software, in that
the GPL is the "end user", and the Artistic license is only of
restriction or interest to developers?
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Corel Does Nothing To Help The Linux Cause
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 03:29:53 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when [EMAIL PROTECTED]
would say:
>Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On the other hand...
>>
>> b) Games do not put a high premium on interoperability between
>> applications. You don't embed game components in one another the
>> way that people try to do when putting spreadsheets inside Word
>> documents, or embedding graphics in spreadsheets, or connecting in
>> a DBMS query using ADO or DAO (or the likes).
>
>
>Data base management systems got their start in the mainframe and unix
>environments. Applications that used embeded DBMS queries that would
>communicate with a DBMS server through its query language was pioneered in
>unix.
>
>The idea embeding objects was also pioneered on unix. It never really
>caught on, it was viewed as being to much trouble and there were other
>methods available without the overhead. It was from unix that Microsoft got
>the idea for embedding objects. Just like they did for the other process
>intercommunications and other unix style features that has been introduced
>into Windows and Dos over the years.
>
>If there is a need for the Windows style implementation of embedding and the
>rest, they can be ported. If you think this would be worth while, then why
>don't you do it? On a personal note, When considering all the trouble that
>these methods have caused under Windows, I hope that this won't become
>standard feature of Linux applications.
I don't disagree with anything you've said, but you say nothing to
disprove my contention that the _HARD_ thing about emulating/porting
from Windows is the "embedded objects" part.
I don't think it would be a wonderful thing _at all_ to jump into the
frying pan of emulating DAO, OLE, and DCOM on Linux. Indeed, I think
that would be a quite _terrible_ thing.
But if that's _necessary_ in order to port Wintendo apps to Linux,
then you're left with two choices:
a) Emulate the WinCrud, or
b) Don't bother trying to port the software.
There isn't any third alternative.
Suggesting that we use CORBA, and split off components in some other
more sensible way, will require _redesign_, and amounts to "Don't
bother trying to port the software."
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/compound.html>
"Although UNIX is more reliable, NT may become more reliable with
time" -- Ron Redman, deputy technical director of the Fleet
Introduction Division of the Aegis Program Executive Office, US Navy.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 23:31:11 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] () from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 12
[...]
> You seek to alter the argument by exploiting the potential
> ignorance of those involved.
Ooh, I *like* that one.
But now that you've got it copyrighted, I guess I need to ask permission
to use it in my derivative works, don't I?
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[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: Steve Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 22:33:08 -0500
Pete please don't let them bait you any more. I've been reading your
post for a while now and most of your detractors aren't very good at
arguing so they insult you, then you fall right into their trap and
point to you as a win troll. ( I for one do not think you are! )
I'm definitely impressed at your win uptime, I too have experienced such
up time on various win boxes of various pedigrees. I have found that
there are 3 main reasons for win unstability: poor HW ( usually a power
supply, but that's another NG), incompatible 3rd party apps ( dll hell),
or software development.
I definitely understand your desire for some balance in here, some of
these advocates are in my killfile (T Max for one) along side the
obvious trolls (simon et al). And I can tell that you've had a
frustrating time with your home GNU/Linux setup. I also did until this
spring with RH6.2 and I never looked back.
Since I have only posted a few times before now let me fully introduce
my self. I'm (still) an undergrad CS student (SR). [finishing school
after a 10 year drunk] I am a research team leader working with a very
distinguished prof in the fields of AI, Image Processing, and Data
Base. I do know almost every MS product inside out and happen to hate
every one of them after I found the competition. I currently run 2
GNU/Linux boxes at home and NO MS stuff at all. I truly believe that MS
and BG are tring to take over the world but their not going to get mine!
--
Steve Jones
User Friendly == Idiot Compatible
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 12 Jul 2000 22:37:17 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>But it isn't and can't be because of existing restrictions, including
>>patents which preclude the possibility of GPL'd re-implementation.
>
>Do you have some more specific description of how patents preclude GPL
>implementation?
There is nothing specific about it. Anyone owning the patented
resource can restrict it with any license they want. There are a
few that have been released to the public domain, like the setuid
bit as used in unix, but typically the license requires payment
for use. The compression code used in GIF's is probably the
best-known example because it was published without mention of the
patent and wrongly assumed to be unrestricted at the time the GIF
format was developed and released for free use. Later the patent
owners came forward and demanded license fees.
>AFAIK: ALL patents are inherently "open source" to
>begin with, after all. Having to license a patent in order to prepare
>derivative works of GPL software is a requirement for the developer to
>deal with, and does not inhibit or affect GPL itself.
If the derived work includes a patented component that is
not freely redistributable itself under the GPL, then no
GPL component can be used at all if the work is to be
redistributed (you can write and use such a thing yourself
but you can't give away even your own part according to
the FSF interpretation of libraries being part of the whole).
>No specific
>patents are *necessary* for any specific piece of general purpose
>software. No requirement that all software become GPL before patents
>expire has been indicated. These are all AFAIK. Feel free to correct
>me; please do not feel free to contradict me unless you also present
>some reasoning or information.
At issue is the problem of re-using any GPL'd component in the
case where you need to combine it with some patented resource.
This is really no different from any other existing code
with restrictions that differ from the GPL, but with the
twist that you cannot re-implement it to avoid the issue.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
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: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 03:41:23 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Quoting Aaron Kulkis from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 12 Jul 2000
> [...]
> >I disagree. By eliminating pre-emtptive multitasking, you eliminate
> >the ability to do a renderining (CPU-bound) in the background while
> >running netscape (mostly user-input bound, occassionaly network bound).
>
> You don't *eliminate* it. It gets much slower, potentially much much
> slower. But that's OK; ITS IN THE BACKGROUND. I don't *need* it right
> now. What I *need* is for absolutely nothing on that system to slow
> down the *foreground* netscape from rendering. And I don't care what
> bounds it, because I'm not here for the theoretical value. I need to
> get a job done, and I want the computer to wait for me, not vice versa,
> regardless of the circumstances or what else the computer might be
> programmed to believe is important.
You ever actually try the above on a Mac? Netscape will become horribly
unresponsive, because the 3D render will hog the CPU in spite of being
in the background. This is the point you're not getting, it seems. Once
an app grabs control of the CPU, it can keep it for as long as it wants.
It don't matter at all if it's in the background or not.
> How trivial would it be to configure the scheduler on Linux to give
> whatever window is on top of my display a priority orders of magnitude
> greater than everything else (unless I change it, of course)? If this
> can be done, I'm going to want to do it.
>
> And I'm going to expect that all the software is going to continue to
> function without screwing up because they assumed I'd give them a fair
> shot at the CPU. From there perspective, it should look like they're
> just one of four million other processes that want time, right? How
> prevalent is it for typical programs to get "choked to death" by lack of
> CPU time? And how does a Mac manage to run a TCP/IP stack if CMT is so
> bad when it comes to background processes?
It doesn't use CMT. The TCP/IP stack and several other faceless
background tasks are preemptively tasked against each other and the rest
of the system. Mac OS has PMT features, they just can't be used by
anything that calls the toolbox because many toolbox calls aren't
reentrant.
> Maybe I'm not as done with this topic as I thought...
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 23:48:49 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Roberto Alsina from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 12 Jul 2000
[...]
>> That only means there are exceptions to the norm.
>
>So, what? You know, the old latin proverb doesn't say that the exception
>proves the rule, but that the exception TESTS the rule. Meaning that
>if the exception is real, the rule is not universal.
...which is meant to indicate that no rules are universal, and so you
cannot use one exception to indicate that a rule doesn't exist.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
