Linux-Advocacy Digest #665, Volume #27 Fri, 14 Jul 00 02:13:06 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: What happens when all the bit twiddlers are gone? (Loren Petrich)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: New Linux user & damn glad!!
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Re: New Linux user & damn glad!! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Mike Stump)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
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: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 01:20:50 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Quoting Roberto Alsina from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 12 Jul 2000
>> [...]
>> >A choice between "don't do it" and "do it and die" is no choice.
>>
>> It is when you are a business, not a person.
>
>A company's management has to choose between "do it and go broke"
>and "don't do it"? Of course they won't do it.
OK. So? Again, your argument is predicated on the question of whether
an alternate universe Microsoft would have put TCP/IP into Windows if
the source had been GPLd. I've already told you that, aside from being
an alternate universe where there's no reason to think that Microsoft
would exist of the GPL had been common at the time of TCP/IP's
development, this wouldn't have harmed anybody except Microsoft, even
if, in this alternate Universe where Microsoft still existed and still
intended to monopolize, it did in fact have a monopoly on desktop PCs
just as it did in 1994. In fact, it would have broken the monopoly if
MS hadn't been able to implement TCP/IP into Windows without opening
their source, according to your description.
So I really don't see why you're continuing this discussion.
>"they" is the management taking the decisions in a company.
>I thought they are forced to make decisions to make the shareholders
>earn money. Aren't they? Isn't that their job?
No. Their job is to run the corporation so that it can execute its
charter, which is to produce goods. The shareholders earn dividends
from profits on those goods, which rewards them for providing capital to
the corporation so that it can provide those goods to the public. The
sale of those shares is a capital transaction. It is not, despite
recent trends which appear to contradict this fact, appropriate for the
stock of public corporations to be the focus of massive speculation.
That is essentially what killed the market in the Great Depression to
begin with. The rules that the government enacted to ensure that this
does not happen again have, unfortunately, allowed that speculation,
while the lack of critical thinking on the public's part and the
laudable access to capital that large numbers of people now have has
deprived the stock market of the social and fiduciary controls which
would prevent such speculation.
[...]
>"used not to be the standard" means that years ago, TCP/IP was not the
>universally accepted standard it is today. What else can it mean?
It could mean that it was designed as a proprietary protocol before
being standardized. It could mean that there were previously multiple
variances. It could mean that it existed for many years but was
entirely ignored and unused. It could mean that, despite widespread
adoption, it never was granted by the market or by an authority the
label of "standard". That last one, by the way, is what you meant.
TCP/IP has always been a standard, and it has always been the standard,
it just wasn't always adopted (nor is it still) by everybody for
everything.
And the reason that happened is Mosaic and the Internet, not Microsoft.
>> >> Window's didn't invent the Internet. Did anybody ever mention that
>> >> before?
>> >
>> >Of course they didn't. They made it popular, though. They made it
>"big".
>>
>> It made them popular. It made them "big".
>
>Nonense. Windows was popular and big before the internet was popular
>and big.
Post hoc, ergo proctor hoc, eh? That's what I thought you'd say.
[...]
>Because the internet would have 1/100 of the users, and perhaps 1/1000
>of the infrastructure money. The internet existed for 20 years before
>MS hitched to it. And it was tiny.
Well, not to those who used it. It was growing all the time. And it
got really useful in about 1993, when Mosaic was becoming widely
available. And if it had stayed exactly where it was then, I,
personally would be quite happy. There have been no improvements since
then as far as I can see. Other than wider acceptance and connectivity.
And did I mention it was growing all the time? Yes, there was a
definite increase in its growth rate following Microsoft's bundling of
TCP/IP and a PPP dialer with Windows in 1995. This was done to
forestall AOL and CompuServe and Prodigy, whom they hoped to kill with
MSN. If that sounds familiar, substitute "IE" for MSN, "Netscape" for
AOL, and "web browser" for TCP/IP, and you'll see why. At that point,
the number of hosts did grow at a faster rate than it had before. But
without that change (I'm not a statistician, mind you, and don't even
have the number in front of me, but I've seen a number of graphic
analysis of Internet growth), we'd probably be about seven to fifteen
months behind were we are now, in number of hosts. Of course, I'd
expect that without Microsoft, a lot more of the publicly accessed
numbers would be servers, not just IP addresses for dial-up ports. That
means there'd be more servers per client. So I'd be even better off.
So would CompuServe, who had a damn good host system, especially
compared to AOL. I might even still be using it.
>> [...]
>> >Ok, I am guessing that a GPL implementation would not have been so
>> >popular because it would not have been free enough. I think it's
>> >not much of a guess, but sure, it's a guess.
>>
>> And I can respect that. I understand your underlying issue, and I
>> agree. I think all reference implementations for public protocols
>> should automatically be public domain, though I can see value in
>> making them GPL, because I share RSM's vision.
>
>Then what do you disagree with?
That you should be able to treat derivative works as if they weren't
public domain. I disagree with that. All derivative works of reference
implementations for public (particularly standard) protocols should be
public domain, as well. You can make money selling them, just like you
can make money selling Bibles in a world without religion, that is,
because the truth is available to everyone. Which is to say you can't.
But you can make money selling something that's *better* than reference,
if it is an original work; anybody could come up with something that's
already been done. You can also make money implementing the reference
for somebody else, and they can re-sell your effort. But they can't
re-sell the reference, because its public domain IP, and they can't own
it, so they can't demand a license to use it. Neither can you. Neither
should Microsoft.
But reference implementations aren't public domain, and they aren't GPL.
And nobody but you really cares, because the issue is trade secret
licensing, not the copyright licensing of derivative works.
[...]
>> I am someone who says the GPL is better for standard implementations,
>
>No, you are someone who just said standard implementations should
>automatically be public domain.
Yes. And in the absence of public domain, GPL is better than any other
open source, if your goal is to stop software profiteering.
[...]
>Well, I'd like not to work and have money. I just don't see it
>happening.
You just aren't trying hard enough. Look at Bill Gates. He did it.
[...]
>> Nor would anyone have GPLed the TCP/IP stack, practically.
>
>But I am making a hypothetical case which explains, in part, WHY noone
>would have done that. I am SAYING THAT.
And I am refuting your claim that it would be a problem, even if they
did.
Enough. You should get the point by now.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
[...]
>My opinion is valuable or not based on itself and on who I am and what
>I do, not on what wrong things someone says about me.
Blah blah blah. If the value of your opinion is based on what you say,
your stock just went down. Lighten up for Christ's sake. I was teasing
you at the end of a message. Its common on Usenet, if you haven't
noticed.
--
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: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 01:24:34 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>[snip] I won't debate with you anymore.
>
>> >Honestly, I was in it for fun. People like you make me doubt it's
>> >worth the trouble.
>>
>> Why is that? Is free inquiry a bit too scary for you?
>
>No, it's the part where you asked me to die, bozo, and that you deleted
>in your response. I need not take shit from you.
I've never asked someone to die, except for the rhetorical "eat shit and
die" or "fuck off and die", and I'm sure I haven't said either to you.
>Now, what have you done for this "free software community" you seem
>to like so much? What have you done to pull your own weight?
Defended the FSF from trolls, mostly. I'm not a programmer, you see,
and that's where most of the action is these days. They've got a lot of
code to write.
--
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: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 01:26:21 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
> While RMS may infact want to infect the world, the framework he
> created has taken on a life of it's own and is not under this
> thumb.
Which is to say, it worked. ;-)
--
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] (Loren Petrich)
Subject: Re: What happens when all the bit twiddlers are gone?
Date: 14 Jul 2000 05:29:43 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The Political Left is striving to cause us to collapse from within.
>Sadly, they ar winning.
From a grove of birch trees it came.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 01:29:39 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ken Arromdee in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> If I wrote a program which used libraries, and there are many
>>> essentially equivalent (for my purposes) libraries available, but the
>>> *only one* that my code will work with is a GPL library, then it is
>>> safe, and indeed proper, to reasonably believe that my software is
>>> "based on" (and thus a derivative intellectual work) of that GPL
>>> library.
>>Except that the law seems to state otherwise. You are allowed to
>>manufacture a video game which runs on a console game system
>>without permission, license, or payment to the maker of the
>>console, even when this game can run only on this system.
>
>You're also allowed to manufacture a product which runs only using Microsoft
>libraries under Microsoft Windows. That is not considered a derivative work
>of Microsoft's libraries, even though it runs under nothing else. (RMS
>seems to think otherwise on this, too.)
Well, if there were any Win32 API libraries other than Microsoft's, then
RMS would be consistent, not to mention accurate, in that assessment, I
think. Therefore, (since whether someone else does something can't
change whether a work was derived or not) all software which only runs
under Windows does certainly seem to qualify, and would in law if it
could ever come up (it can't; don't bother with hypothetical arguments
unless you're up to the challenge) as derivative works of Windows.
--
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]>
Subject: Re: New Linux user & damn glad!!
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 22:08:39 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Welcome,
I hope you experience with Linux will be rewarding.
Once note while nice in the beginning, UMSDOS is rather slower and a bit
more wasteful of disk space as I recall. I have not played with the UMSDOS
filesystem for years. So in the long run if you descide that Linux is right
for you, I would recommend setting up one or more ext2 partitions.
Since you are now using a unix operating system, be sure to take advantage
of what it can offer you that was not available to you before. For example
be sure to setup a user account for yourself and use it regularly. Only
use the root account when you absolutly must. SO if you do somthing like
accidently issuing a command that would delete all your program executable
iin /usr/bin, you will be safe because the system will deny you the
privilage to lobotomize you system that way.
richard harlos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi, all.
>
> I'm just about messin' my shorts for joy!
>
> I installed Slackware 7.1 (BigSlack, the UMSDOS install) on my PC and am
> now happily up and running on the 'net.
>
> Aside from a little tweaking to get my cheap, ISP-supplied network card
> enabled, I'm good to go.
>
> And even though it's going to take some time to learn my way around X
> and Linux in general, I'm much happier to be *doing* something about
> my dissatisfaction with Microsoft product (by not using them anymore
> than necessary!) than just *talking* about it.
>
> Don't flame this newbie too bad :)
>
> richard harlos
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 22:21:04 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 11:29:29 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Say for example you had added an ATA66 card into your system and a new
> >> hard drive. Ghosting an old version of Linux with out drivers would
> >> fail too.
> >
> >Are you implying that Aaron Ginn doesn't realize that a backup
> >created on Monday won't account for modifications made on Wednesday?
>
> No, I'm implying that certain hardware drivers can make an OS not
> start if the hardware is no longer present. Adding say... a sound card
> would have caused the image to prompt for drivers.
In my experience if Windows does not have special ATA66 drivers installed it
will just fall back to using that standard IDE drivers. ANy decent
operating system and its drivers should make allowance for the hardware
devices like soundcards that it is configured to use migh not be available
and should continue without the entire IPL failing. Unless the missing
hardware is something is absolutly required like a Dos/Windows boot drive or
a unix root partition. Are you suggesting that WIndows is unable to handle
the simple situation of a missing sourd card?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: New Linux user & damn glad!!
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 05:26:21 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
richard harlos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, all.
>
> I'm just about messin' my shorts for joy!
>
> I installed Slackware 7.1 (BigSlack, the UMSDOS install) on my PC and
am
> now happily up and running on the 'net.
>
> Aside from a little tweaking to get my cheap, ISP-supplied network
card
> enabled, I'm good to go.
>
> And even though it's going to take some time to learn my way around X
> and Linux in general, I'm much happier to be *doing* something about
> my dissatisfaction with Microsoft product (by not using them anymore
> than necessary!) than just *talking* about it.
>
> Don't flame this newbie too bad :)
>
> richard harlos
>
Welcome to the Linux world!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 05:41:36 GMT
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 01:26:21 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
>> While RMS may infact want to infect the world, the framework he
>> created has taken on a life of it's own and is not under this
>> thumb.
>
>Which is to say, it worked. ;-)
...I was hoping someone would pick up on that...
[deletia]
--
The LGPL does infact tend to be used instead of the GPL in instances
where merely reusing a component, while not actually altering that
component, would be unecessarily burdensome to people seeking to build
their own works.
This dramatically alters the nature and usefulness of Free Software
in practice, contrary to the 'all viral all the time' fantasy the
anti-GPL cabal here would prefer one to believe.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 05:31:16 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>But you see, Les, that's because nobody could ever come up with the
>exact same story without ever knowing about the prior art.
You sir are not a physicist. Sure they can, there is a non-zero
probability that it would happen.
Physicists tell me there is a non-zero probability that I will vanish
and reappear on the other side of the wall. I believe them. Am I a
fool?
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 01:49:19 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Quoting Roberto Alsina from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 12 Jul 2000
>> [...]
>> >Assume in the example above that libB is buggy and libC is not.
>> >Now it fits the criteria you describe. Is now progA a derived
>> >work of libC? That breaks causality. Thus, your argument must be
>> >broken somewhere.
>>
>> There is no causality requirements in intellectual property;
>
>Ha! How can I derive my work from a work that does not exist at the
>time I created my work? That's nonsense.
I didn't say you derived it. I said it was derivative. You did, in
fact, derive it, if you are the one who followed the procedures you
described for doing so, I guess (if it was valid; I didn't quite follow
all the "libX" stuff, but assume that you were correct that it fit the
criteria and the criteria were validly interpreted).
You again are confusing intellectual property with the ideas embodied in
it, and the tangible object produced when it is written down. That's
all.
An idea comes to a programmer.
The programmer writes a program, creating a work of authorship by fixing
the idea in tangible form.
The programmer now has the ability to determine, because he owns the
work, who is allowed to copy that work of authorship. He has a
copyright to the work, not the idea.
The programmer gives permission to another for whatever terms he agrees
to, allowing the licensee to make copies of the tangible form. He owns
and can sell the tangible objects thus created, not the original
tangible form, and not the work of authorship, and not the idea.
The licensee can then sell the copies. The purchaser owns the tangible
form, the programmer owns the work of authorship, and nobody owns the
idea.
With software, so many of these agents might or might not be one person,
that it get very difficult to sort out what you are copying, and
therefore what you are creating a derivative work of. Your example, I
believe, simply plays off these distinctions, substituting the form for
the work, the object for the idea, etc. If you could repost it again
with a bit more clarity in the process and the concepts, perhaps it
might illustrate your point better.
>> prior art
>> is the closest you get. "Derivative work" simply doesn't have the
>> physical analogy in relationship that you expect from being a software
>> developer. In many ways "derivative" in IP might even mean simply
>> "similar".
>
>No, derived work does not mean similar, on IP or anywhere else.
>IANAL, but neither are you.
Yes, sometimes a work is derivative merely because it is similar.
Consider the George Harrison "My Sweet Lord" issue which has been
mentioned several times.
>Even if derived could mean similar, then causality must hold, or
>it would be possible to infringe a copyright of a non-created work.
>That is science fiction, right next to time travel.
Have you ever read http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.htm ?
Probably not, based on that statement.
Your example was simply trying to outfox the GPL, not time travel. Your
inability to travel through time so you could *actually* steal someone
else's intellectual property before they wrote it, instead of managing
to merely make it look like you did, is matched by your inability to
outfox the GPL through your shenanigans. You simply do not understand
the concept of copyrighted works sufficiently, let alone free software.
Your continuing frustration at trying to capitalize on someone else's
intellectual property (and flabbergast consternation at being confronted
with the reality of software as intellectual property, which apparently
never really sank in until you got alarmed about the GPL) is merely more
illustration of its integrity and value.
--
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: 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: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 05:53:34 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 21:38:10 -0700, Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 20:41:34 -0700, Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >The more fundamental reason is that the Mac simply didn't have the
> >> >memory to do it. So there is at least one example of a benefit:
> >> >cooperative multitasking is more efficient in terms of memory used.
> >>
> >> The Amiga did it - beginning with the 256k Amiga - and color and a
> >> bigger screen, too. And it did it quite well, too, for 1985 or so.
> >
> >But the Mac had half that amount of memory.
>
> That just shows that Apple likes to skimp on hardware while
> overcharging their customers...
Hardly. The Mac came about as a direct result of the Lisa; a more
expensive system that nobody bought. Incidentally, the Lisa supported
PMT. This was one of the corners Apple had to cut when trying to build a
lower cost system.
> [deletia]
>
> Under System 6 I wouldn't want to run a Mac in less than 2M.
--
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: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 01:53:30 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>Now, could you either concede the points or debate them? Now you
>deleted the entire discussion, and all that's left is the useless
>meta-stuff.
I wasn't debating them. I was debating your vague and spotty (and
strenuously extracted and still brief) representation of them. I have
no reason to assume, though, that there points are any more valid than
yours are. Doesn't Debian distribute Linux, for money?
You haven't presented their position other than "they say blah blah blah
we don't like what Roberto thinks is a bad idea blah blah blah..."
Forgive me for using this for entertainment value, but I'm really
getting bored.
>You called me dishonest for stating something. [...]
Than it must have been because I though you were dishonest for stating
it.
Bye.
--
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
******************************
