Linux-Advocacy Digest #701, Volume #27 Sat, 15 Jul 00 18:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Windows (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Anyone here developing for Linux? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451741.4533^-.0000000000000000001 ("David T. Johnson")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451741.4533^-.0000000000000000001 (tholenbot)
My brain is new (Bob Lyday)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Roberto Alsina)
Re: one step forward, two steps back.. (Gary Hallock)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Roberto Alsina)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Windows
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 21:21:15 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>[4] Application opens window, application goes off and does something
> else, window sits there and can't be moved or iconified. Dumb.
KDE/Gnome have a Window manager; applications can freeze their content but
the windows (outline) keep going.
>[5] I'm not sure what's causing it, but if an app opens a window while
> I'm dragging another window (from a different app), the window
> I'm dragging tends to jump *back* to where I started.
Depends on the application.
>[6] Click-on-focus. This might be a personal preference.
Sometimes works for me, sometimes against.
>[7] That damned registry. It not only saves such irreleventia (hm,
> is that a word?) as window positioning, it also saves such things as
> file type registration. Needless to say, this confuses things.
> I've also heard horror stories about that registry. Do I trust it?
> No.
The registry was invented partly to get rid of the thousands of small INI
files scattered all over disks that have large clusters, wasting space. It
was supposed to gather all the configuration data in one place.
In practice it keeps on growing and growing until it hits a hard limit in
Windows 98 SE then you get either corruption, or errors trying to install
applications. Windows 2000 has an adjustable hard limit so at least you can
change it.
>[8] Let's play Randomly Change The Icons! I've only seen this once,
> and on what I might call "unimportant files" -- but what makes one
> think it won't happen again, this time on slightly more
> important ones?
It's a bug in Windows 95/98 icon cache. It's also the reason why explorer
appears to be a lot faster then KFM, but it messes up as it starts
replacing icons with the wrong ones.
I don't know if they've fixed this in Windows Me or 2000 yet.
>[9] Yeah, like I really really need detachable menu bars. (I don't
> mind tearoffs, but why detach the bar and have it sitting around,
> not relating to anybody? Very confusing to the user, IMO.)
> And Netscape even *borrowed* this concept. WHY???
It's a cosmetic thing. You either like it or hate it (I hate it!).
>[10] The Start menu, to log out of the system. Yeah, that makes
> a *lot* of sense; couldn't they think of something a little more
> intuitive, like "Systemops", "Utility", "Control", or "Session"?
> (KDE uses a big K on top of a gear, for what it's worth.)
Start Shutdown?
>[11] The Shutdown entry in the Start menu, to either
> * Shut down the computer,
> * Restart the computer, or
> * Close all programs and log on as a different user.
>
> Does this make sense to anyone? It doesn't make a lot
> of sense to me...
Makes sense to me.
>[13] Eenie meenie minie moo -- what do those right-hand icons do?
> If you're lucky, something expected...
Another half baked idea. Did you know they're restricted to 16 colour
icons!
>[14] Look Ma, no multiple desktops. (To be fair, there is add-on
> software that can implement this; you'd think, though, that
> Windows might have its own example.)
Tried multiple desktops once but never liked it, so I don't really miss
this feature.
>[15] "Hi, my name is Clippy"... Die.
Oh I dunno, I like the puddy tat in Word. But then I like cats in general.
>[16] Outlook Express is expressly inconsistent with regards to including
> text from another message, or from the current user while editing
> included text from another message.
Don't use Outlook Express.
>[17] Duh, is it COM, ADO, DAO, RDO, um....hell, what?
It's all of them. They're trying to find something that works and... well
ODBC was getting to be a pain.
COM is what used to be OLE and other things, but they muddled up the names
so it all got very confusing.
>[22] "Hi, I'm IE 4.0 and I'm going to secretly replace half your
>system..."
That's one of the really nasty things Microsoft did. They added system
functions that were only available if you installed IE4.
>[23] Scroll bars that like to play "snap back to original position"
> if one moves the mouse bar too far from the horizontal or vertical.
> This is another personal preference, but is annoying to me.
I think it happens if you move outside of the scroll bar rectangle.
Annoying isn't it!
>[24] J++ and those damned Java extensions. ("delegate"??)
Another one of Microsoft's bad moves.
>[25] DLL Hell, which is (finally!) being allegedly fixed in Win2K.
> I'm not hopeful.
This is something that happened due to OLEPRO32, OLEAUT32 and a few others.
If you got the wrong combination, then heaven help you!
However, I am curious, since Linux supports shared libraries, how does it
deal with applications upgrading shared libraries that may break other
applications?
>[26] And how many megabytes of RAM does Win2K require, again?
64Mbytes.
>[27] And how many GIGAbytes of disk space does Win2K require, again?
400Mbytes. Hardly gigabytes.
>[28] "Monopoly? What monopoly? We just provide everything for you."
Microsoft are in denial.
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Anyone here developing for Linux?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 21:24:11 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <8kodad$ag6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Anyone else care to share? How's KDevelop? Anyone holding their breath
>for Kylix? Or a Linux version of C#? Java? Perl? Python? TckTk?
I'm waiting for Kylix, after using Delphi for several years now on Windows.
Pete
------------------------------
From: "David T. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451741.4533^-.0000000000000000001
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 14:30:41 -0400
Joe Malloy wrote:
>
> > You still haven't learned, Thorne.
>
> And you still haven't learned to read, Tholen.
Hey there, "Joe Malloy" Everytime Dr. Tholen makes a Usenet post, you
reply with a meaningless post about his words. You have been trashing
our comp.os.os2.advocacy newsgroup (and others unfortunately) for months
now with this vendetta against Dr. Tholen. Since we all have to read
your drivel, do you think you could at least give us the reasons for
your grudge?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 22:41:09 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard) writes:
> On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 04:34:17 GMT, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>A BSDL developer is free to use GPLed software in his programs. What
>>he is not free to do is to conspire to coopt the freedom that the GPL
>>brings with it.
>
> No. He can only use GPVed software in his programs if he then agrees to
> license the whole of his work under the GPV. The GPV has thus infected his
> work, taking it out of his control. This is hardly freedom; it's coercive
> re-licensing of someone else's work, and the exact thing I've been
> complaining about all along.
Well, no. The GPL specifically disclaims rights to code that you
wrote yourself and that is identifiably _not_ a derivative work,
as long as you don't distribute it as part of a whole containing
the GPLed work (quote from the GPL):
| These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
| identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
| and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
| themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
| sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you
| distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
| on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
| this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
| entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
|
| Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest
| your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to
| exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or
| collective works based on the Program.
If your program calls a GPLed library, but doesn't contain any code
from that library, then it "can be reasonably considered an independent
and separate work in itself", and you can distribute it under your
own terms and conditions.
Before you start whining about RMS' opinion of derivatives, know
that I'm aware of that opinion, and don't agree with it. RMS'
opinions don't have an influence on the GPL, however.
> You and the other GPVists here have been proclaiming that people should be
> fre to adopt the GPV for their own work, yet you continually refuse to
> acknowledge that others have reasons for not doing so, and you continually
> refuse to allow them the same right.
Incorrect. You're free to adopt whatever license you want, as
long as you respect our right to license our software under
whatever license we want. Your code is your code, but when
it is a derivative work of someone else's code, you cannot
do with it as you please. Get the law changed.
I've repeated it a few times now, and I'll try again:
You cannot deny the right of the original developer to have
a say in how her work is relicensed, whilst claiming the
right to do with your code as you please. You want more
rights than you're prepared to give others, and the cornerstone
of freedom of any kind is to accept that others have the same
rights as you.
--
Stefaan
--
Ninety-Ninety Rule of Project Schedules:
The first ninety percent of the task takes ninety percent of
the time, and the last ten percent takes the other ninety percent.
------------------------------
From: tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451741.4533^-.0000000000000000001
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 17:45:14 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "David T. Johnson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joe Malloy wrote:
> >
> > > You still haven't learned, Thorne.
> >
> > And you still haven't learned to read, Tholen.
>
> Hey there, "Joe Malloy" Everytime Dr. Tholen makes a Usenet post, you
> reply with a meaningless post about his words.
Incorrect. He does not reply to every Tholen post.
--
Prove that African swallows are non-migratory, if you think you can.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 14:44:48 -0700
From: Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: My brain is new
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 21:30:03 -0700, Bob Lyday
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
> >>
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Yes it is and that was the original topic of my "Bit-Twiddler" post. I
> >> > was not talking about programmers or techno-geeks, I was speaking
> >> > about the average user who grew up and suffered with DOS, OS/2
> >
> >Suffered with OS/2, one of the best OS's ever made? I think you need a
> >brain transplant.
>
> Bzzzzt wrong again.
>
> Guess you don't remember when OS/2 worked on PS/2's and very few if
> any clones.
Before my time, oldster.
>
> Used OS/2 since 1.0. Suffered through 30 somewhat diskettes of 1.2 EE
> hoping that none of them had a bad sector.
Ah, the nightmarish install, I get it!
Used 1.3 which was ok
> except for the DOS penalty box and the fact that OS/2 applications
> were rare.
Suffered through the lack of apps, ok.
Went through all the versions of Warp to the current
> version.
Congrats!
>
> Went through all of the hardware comparability problems with OS/2 2.0
> when as a Team OS/2 member I was begging manufacturers to write
> drivers for their hardware.
Suffered thru the lack of drivers, I get it. Slap on the back to a Team
OS/2 guy!
> I didn't say OS/2 was a poor OS I said I suffered THROUGH it.
I c.
I happen
> to believe, and have stated many times, OS/2 was one of the best OSen
> ever written.
Is. Great, so we agree. :)
> As for the brain transplant comment, It appears you have already been
> through the process, so I will pass until the bugs can be worked out
> of it.
Sing to the tune of "My Heart is Blue" (remember that one?):
New, new
My brain is new
It's guaranteed til 2002.
--
Bob
USER ERROR: Replace user and press any key to continue.
Remove "diespammersdie" to reply.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 21:35:32 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 19:30:54 GMT, Roberto Alsina <ralsina@my-
deja.com> wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> >> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 17:21:28 GMT, Roberto Alsina <ralsina@my-
deja.com>
> >wrote:
> >> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 15:59:17 GMT, Roberto Alsina
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Jedi said there was no likelyhood or necessity of libraries
being
> >> >GPL.
> >> >>
> >> >> ...a claim rather well supported by the fact that the
one
> >> >> trying to undermine it infact works on a large
generalized
> >> >> framework that is not, which itself exploits many
facilities
> >> >> that are themselves not.
> >> >
> >> >Oh, my goodness. Are you drunk or something? You can't create
> >> >generality out of examples.
> >> [deletia]
> >>
> >> Just give it up already. You are simply full of shit.
> >
> >Again, you are confusing me with jedi.
> >
> >> Now anyone else can make up their own mind if they wish to
bother.
> >
> >Hopefully.
> >
> >>
> >> The vast array of support libraries that come with a Linux
> >> distribution, including KDE and those that it depends on are
> >> a far more meaningful indication of what is 'likely' with
> >> Free Software.
> >
> >Man, changing what you said can actually make you say something
>
> You're spliting hairs based on an implication. While the
> pedantic difference between 1% and 0% may infact exist,
> it is considerably less significant than 1% vs. 51% or
> 1% vs. 90%.
The quantity difference is not much, the quality difference is much.
Truthfulenss is often more related to quality thn quantity.
> >correct. Amazing.
> >
> >Brief recap: I made a hypothetical example of what could happen if,
> >say, the TCP sample implementation was GPL, in the context of having
>
> ...which is absurd.
Why would it be absurd? If the FSF was deevloping the sample
implementation of something today, what license would they use?
> It doesn't reflect the reality of how most Free Software library
> code is actually licenced, INCLUDING THE LIBRARIES YOU YOURSELF
> USE.
Since I never said it did, that can�t mean I�m dishonest.
> It's an artificial situtation created specifically to mislead
> the ignorant that might not be aware that most libraries are
> not licenced using the GPL and that Free Software != GPL and
> CopyLeft != GPL.
You assign intent to my actions. That intent is incorrect.
> >sample implementations be copylefted.
> >
> >You accused me of being a dishonest liar who misrepresents something.
> >I still have no idea of why.
>
> You argue based on a false representation of reality.
Well, duh. I�m presenting a hypothetical case, not reality.
> >You said that there was NO LIKELIHOOD of a library being GPL.
> >
> >Now, you change it to "libraries being GPL is unlikely" and try to
> >continue the argument. As long as you know you are not saying the
>
> Actually, I immediately changed my rhetoric to avoid
> a gross overgeneralization. I try to avoid those
> generally and meant to in the example you cite.
QED. So, you recognized waht you had said to be "a gross
overgeneralization" and changed it. Now don�t try to defend it.
> Some KEY facts:
>
> The vast majority of Free Software libraries are licenced LGPL.
> Free Software != GPL.
> Copyleft != GPL.
Indeed.
> Your argumentation depends on misleading the reader into
believing
> one or all of these to not be the case when infact they are the
case.
You seem to have no idea of what I was arguing, much less how I did
it.
[snip]
> 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.
That�s why I say the GPL is worse than the LGPL.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 17:55:19 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: one step forward, two steps back..
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> I'm still investigating KDE. I'm not sure I like the two toolbars - why not
> one?
>
Do you mean the separate toolbar and taskbar? You can control their
positions so they are right next to each other. You can also disable the
taskbar or make it so that it disappears from view after a delay. Move the
mouse to the edge of the screen and it comes back. I do this on my thinkpad
since I only have an 800x600 screen and I need to preserve screen space. I'm
not sure, but I seem to remember that KDE 2 had an option to embed the task
bar in the tool bar.
Gary
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 21:54:42 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Quoting Roberto Alsina from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Thu, 13 Jul 2000
> [...]
> >You say that there is no likelyhood of libraries being GPL, despite,
> >say, REALITY, and I am the one that's making bad rethoric? Excuse
> >me while I puke.
>
> And you say you're an engineer?
No, I don�t. Can you abstain from putting words in my mouth?
It gets tiresome.
> You might work well with computer code,
> but you don't parse human language too well. My apologies if English
is
> a second language for you, but "no likelyhood" does not mean "can
never
> happen".
Apologies accepted. What does it mean, then?
> If there are examples of GPL libraries, it doesn't refute the
> notion that there is no likeklyhood in any given context, particularly
> the one that was being discussed, that libraries would be GPLd.
I never claimed that library was likely to be GPL anyway.
However Jedi claimed I was dishonest for claiming jut that. This was
just a tangent.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 21:50:52 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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.
How can something be a derivative work of something that doesn�t
exist? Because it�s either that, or it becomes derivative after
it�s created, which is just as bizarre (accepting your definition
"things that link are 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).
So, you didn�t bother following the example, yet you claim to know
about the status of the example�s elements? That�s not serious.
> 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.
Honestly, since you say you didn�t follow the example, how do you know?
> An idea comes to a programmer.
> The programmer writes a program, creating a work of authorship by
fixing
> the idea in tangible form.
Indeed.
> 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.
Yes.
> 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.
And this is connected to the example you claim to refute, in what
way?
> 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.
It is similar, and it is also created LATER.
> >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.
Indeed not.
> Your example was simply trying to outfox the GPL, not time travel.
You mean the example you didn�t follow?
> 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.
Ha!. Go back in the thread, read the example, refute it and come back.
Calling me ignorant won�t do it, you know.
> Your continuing frustration at trying to capitalize on someone else's
> intellectual property
And whose IP am I trying to capitalize on? Is this some sort of
abstract accusation?
>(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.
Your aspersion of weird accusations about me is illustration of your
integrity and value, too.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
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
******************************
