Linux-Advocacy Digest #724, Volume #27 Sun, 16 Jul 00 21:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Gary Hallock)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Gary Hallock)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (John S. Dyson)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Mike Marion)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Craig Kelley)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Colin R. Day")
Re: I tried to install both W2K and Linux last night... (Craig Kelley)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 20:09:53 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
>
> Right there. It wouldn't matter if a million engineers thought the Mac
> was a stupid idea; they're still selling units. The market, not
> "experience and logic" decides what is a stupid idea and what is not.
>
You have made a very basic blunder in logic. You assume that since the Mac
did ok in the market and the Mac uses CMT that CMT must be good. That is
not a logical conclusion.
Gary
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 20:10:57 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> Said Gary Hallock in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >What, did you and Max go to the same school? [...]
>
> Without your emotional insistence on beginning your response in this
> way, your message would have been much more likely to receive a reaction
> based on its technical value. You are sabotaging yourself, Gary, and I
> think you should ask yourself why. If you *really* feel it is necessary
> to make such a comment, it will be far more effective if you simply move
> it to after where you're trying to answer the question. Setting the
> reader up to feel defensive is a losing proposition if you expect them
> to consider your remarks logically.
>
As if I cared what you think.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 00:16:05 GMT
On 16 Jul 2000 02:22:53 GMT, Jay Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 15 Jul 2000 18:45:19 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>It is actually the pseudo-PD restrictions that are incompatible
>>with the GPL that keep it free. Otherwise anyone would be
>>able to slap a GPL on it and force any new additions to
>>be GPL'd (or prevent getting any from people who don't want
>>their work to be GPL-restricted).
>
>Ah, but you see, Leslie, GPVists don't understand that it's valid for folks
>not to want their work to be GPV-restricted. They think (as has been posted
>in this very thread) that those who favor non-infective licenses just want
>to shill for the proprietary software industry. They don't understand the
>concept of a developer actually wanting to make his code available for free,
>to *everyone*, no matter what he wants to do with it, so they just slam
...that's what Public Domain is for.
Anything else is just pretense.
>those who favor such a concept as wanting to steal others' work and profit
>from it.
The BSDL remains, "just another licence" because of this.
--
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.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John S. Dyson)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 16 Jul 2000 23:35:39 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Said Jay Maynard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>On 16 Jul 2000 12:15:11 GMT, John S. Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Note the interesting comment by some GPL being called free advocates
>>>that the GPL is now something that one can/should selectively enforce.
>>>This totally blows away any argument, because you are dealing with
>>>individuals who don't necessarily believe in the license that they
>>>advocate!!!
>>
>>Yeah...and these are, often, folks who would find selective enforcement of
>>laws against those not in political favor abhorrent because of the potential
>>for abuse, never realizing that that's exactly how selective enforcement by
>>GPVed copyright holders would work: to abuse those who disagree with their
>>goals. If you espouse the GPV's politics, why, of course you can violate
>>it...
>
> There is no "selective enforcement" issue; this is a straw man you've
> razed in effigy. Confiscation of stolen property is not "selective
> enforcement" of property rights. Not being able to shout "fire" in a
> crowded theater is not "selective enforcement" of free speech rights.
>
Please refer to arguments on another thread. There are indeed weasel
words that allow the GPL to be more free by selective enforcement :-).
Involved in this 'selective enforcement' is an implication that the
GPL isn't free unless only selectively enforced. In essence, even
GPL advocates can show that certain other advocates are terrible
hypocrites by calling it free!!! :-).
Oh well, it is as I had expected... :-).
Call on me in the future for further help, great
to have been of assistance!!!
John
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 00:20:04 GMT
On 16 Jul 2000 21:14:41 GMT, Jay Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 18:35:39 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Many of the rest of us don't have any problem with people who
>> would seek to use common code as if it were their own personal
>> property (with all that implies in software) being restricted.
>
>Of course, you're not going to apologize to the BSD developers for calling
>them, in essence, thieves, now are you? Of course not.
Nope.
If they want their work to be 'free to all' they can release
it completely and drop any pretense. Otherwise, they are in
no position to criticise anyone else's licence.
Although, I rather doubt they are the hypocritical whiners
that we see in this forum. Such twits are likely as far away
from BSD developers as you can get.
--
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.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 00:17:50 GMT
On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 00:00:20 -0400, Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sat, 15 Jul 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> On 15 Jul 2000 16:20:24 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> If you have built something that includes a GPL'd component
>>> and anything else under different restrictions, you can't
>>> give it away, even if the other component is itself freely
>>> available or the recipient already has it.
>> ...those being "commercial" and pseudo-PD.
>
>Jedi, of course, doesn't know what the hell he's talking about -- it's
>pure conjecture and bullshit. Freely available software is not
>necessarily commercial, even though it may not be commercially
>unfriendly, like the GPL.
>
>If I wrote a licence, call it the CLCPL ("CopyLeft Credit Public
>Licence") -- essentially GPL + credit clause -- it's as unfriendly to
>proprietary licences as the GPL, but it's not compatible with the GPL.
Yup, and intentional sabotage.
[deletia]
Those that really want their work to be freely exploitable
by all instead of being the biggest hypocrites of all know
EXACTLY what they can do to resolve the situation yet chose
not to.
Drop the licence, drop the pretense.
--
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.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 20:23:44 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >which, by definition, is not CMT.
>
> No, I am trying to suggest that a CMT system which does not need to
> "forcibly move things around" might be possible. A CMT with a more
> comprehensive mechanism for allowing non-active processes to effectively
> pre-empt the active process without requiring an external scheduler.
> ^^^^^^^^^
Wouldn't that make it PMT?
>
> Perhaps token passing in place of polling might be a suitable
> comparison, or at least analogy. Do you see what I mean?
>
It doesn't matter how the pre-empting is done. If a nonactive process
can pre-empt an active one, then you have PMT
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 00:28:08 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> As for "accidentally" getting as much unsupported hardware, well it
> happens. I didn't deliberately pick a system that I knew would fail on
> Linux, I just tried it out, and found a few problems.
I agree, and it happens the other way too. I have hardware that works
ok under 98, and great under linux.. but won't work right under 2k at
all. This is new hardware too, not really old stuff.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
Windows95, Word97, Excel95: With all the criticisms of Microsoft, at
least they provide "best-before" dating on many of their products...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 16 Jul 2000 19:29:08 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Leslie Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>>>I would point out that its up to you to provide reason to believe it is
>>>>>a practical issue. You have attempted to do so and have found fault
>>>>>with your reasoning because of your assumptions that one must be free to
>>>>>profiteer in order to earn profit.
>>>>
>>>>I've said no such thing. I've said you can't give away GPL'd
>>>>code in many contexts.
>>>
>>>Which?
>>
>>If you have built something that includes a GPL'd component
>>and anything else under different restrictions, you can't
>>give it away, even if the other component is itself freely
>>available or the recipient already has it.
>
>That's because it is not yours to give away.
In what way was RIPEM not the author's to give away because
it lets a library do the math? Why would it be any less
the author's if it also linked to an Oracle client library
to access a backend database? Why shouldn't such an author
be allowed to give such a work away to be used by anyone
who also had the rights to use the needed libraries?
>It is a derivative work of
>both the GPL and the "anything else", and some rights of ownership for
>your end result still resides with their authors, according to copyright
>law.
No question about it. However, I am not aware of any non-GPL'd
code that claims to be able to control code owned by others. This
is approximately like Microsoft being able to say that if
you use any of their code on your machine you are not allowed
to use anything from Corel or some other competitor.
>When you said you can't give away GPL code, I had assumed you
>meant the code itself, which you are always free to distribute.
No, you can only distribute it if you exactly follow the very
specific restrictions.
>Of
>course you can't give away the intellectual property; it is not entirely
>yours.
I mean you can't give away your own source code that links to
something GPL'd if (a) you don't want to restrict it with the
GPL or (b) it also links to something else that already has
a non-GPL copyright.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
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: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 10:44:21 +1000
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said void in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 20:36:46 GMT, Karl Knechtel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >>: If your frontmost task is waiting for human input in a PMT system, the
> >>: rest of the tasks get the vast, vast majority of the CPU time, and the
> >>: system continues to run cleanly. That's the major benefit in PMT. A
> >>
> >>I highly doubt that. Unless your computer is psychic, how is it supposed
> >>to know when will be the next time the foreground app actually
*receives*
> >>input? It won't.
> >
> >Good god, it's T. Max's long-lost twin. I wonder how many people who
> >never heard of blocking I/O are going to pop up with the same bogus
> >arguments before we can put this thread to bed?
>
> If people keep popping up with it, it isn't a bogus argument. Just one
> you can't answer very easily in a way that can be comprehended by
> someone with enough understanding to raise the question but not enough
> knowledge to answer it themselves. Practice makes perfect, though...
The only people who keep "popping up with it" are the people who don't
understand the fundamentals of how the two systems work.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 16 Jul 2000 18:41:30 -0600
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 15:20:27 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>>That 'quantum' marks the difference between a CMT- (which doesn't have
> >>>it) and a PMT-system (which does have it).
> >>
> >>Thank you. That's quite illuminating. Interesting, don't you think,
> >>that while many people were saying "the app decides when to yield, not
> >>the OS", they probably thought this is just what they were explaining,
> >>but none of them thought to put it like that. Perhaps this is why I
> >>kept getting flamed for not paying attention when they thought they had
> >>answered my questions; none of them realized their answers were
> >>misleading. It isn't the OS controlling the multi-tasking which makes
> >>the difference; its the notion of a maximum quantum.
> >
> >Oh come on! What do you think controls the quantum? The OS. It's
> >settable and in the nature of the OS.
>
> Precisely. It is in "the nature" of the OS. It doesn't need to be
> directly controlled or enforced by the OS. If all the apps implemented
> the notion of a quantum in a CMT environment, it magically becomes a PMT
> environment, without the necessity of implementing a scheduling
> algorithm in the OS.
Interesting idea; but really the whole notion of a quantity means that
it can't be broken (you can't stretch it out). A CMT system has no
way to enforce this, and it would be difficult for a CMT appliction to
be sprinkled with stuff like:
if (my_time_left > _MAX_TIME)
give_control_back();
Of course, you could put that sort of semantic into the
compiler... but nobody is forcing you to use that compiler *and* it'd
make your code slower.
Usually a CMT application gives control back to the "OS" (I don't know
if you can call a CMT system a real OS.) during the event loop or
while waiting for input in other ways. Most have a specific call to
give control back as well (but most of these apps are event-driven
anyway).
[snip]
> No, "the app, not the OS is in charge" does not automatically mean the
> app has no notion of maximum quantum.
Yes, but a PMT can enforce it while a CMT can't.
One bug, in one program can take a whole CMT system down (ask any
happy MacOS programmer).
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 20:42:09 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >>
> >
> >And how did the market do this? Did people choose Mac because it
> >had CMT as opposed PMT? Did people choose applications on the
> >basis of the apps' CMT performance, and were they even aware that
> >that was an issue?
>
> No, and that's literally why my question came up. It didn't seem to
> make near as much difference as would be indicated by the resistance to
> CMT as a valid approach. That's the point that confuses me.
>
The average user may not be aware of such issues, but that doesn't
mean that they don't matter. What you don't see can hurt you.
I have not used CMT systems, but the posters in this thread who have
cliam that there is a significant difference, especially under load. Of
course,
they are more sensitive to such difference than an average user.
Also, you compared Mac OS to Microsoft's OSes. Could it be that the
things you don't like about Windows have nothing to do with CMT?
Colin Day
------------------------------
Subject: Re: I tried to install both W2K and Linux last night...
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 16 Jul 2000 18:45:35 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jerry McBride) writes:
> Say what? In who's nightmare? Linux is one of the easiest OS's to
> install that I've ever been exposed to. For crying out loud... OS/2
> is easier to install than windows!
Until you want to configure tcp/ip, that is. ;)
(Of course, my only experience is with the first version of Warp, so
that may have changed)
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 20:51:56 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>How can something be a derivative work of something that doesn�t
>exist?
The intellectual property already existed. The library might not have,
but the IP did, if your example is valid as intended.
>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.
I accepted your description of the relationships involved. The process
you described was meaningless, as regards the question you proffered.
Only the final state of the elements is important for determining their
relationships. The convolutions you appeared to attempt in order to
make something derivative in an apparently non-intuitive way were not
easy to follow, but the intent was clear. If you think its important,
you could try describing it again and I'll see what I can do.
[...]
>Honestly, since you say you didn�t follow the example, how do you know?
Because only the end states are relevant, and I took your word for the
end conditions.
[...]
>> 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.
But you were arguing that "derivative" cannot mean "similar" in some
contexts. Obviously being similar and being created later are not
sufficient for a work to be considered derivative, or much modern
culture would not be available.
The fact that it was created later is a feature of sequential
experience, not any mandate of copyright law. Your attempt to link
without being derivative is a gedanken experiment which highlights this
point.
>> >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?
Based on your badgering, I've gone back and re-analyzed your example.
And it is precisely as I expected, and as I have described.
>Ha!. Go back in the thread, read the example, refute it and come back.
>Calling me ignorant won�t do it, you know.
I won't refute it, I have no need to. You merely expressed incredulity
at your program now being considered derivative of a library which
didn't exist at the time you wrote the library, but was only available
afterwards. I agree that it was derivative, and understand why you are
incredulous. Nevertheless, the case still stands. You aren't ignorant,
precisely, you're merely missing some points about what it means to have
one piece of software be considered a derivative work of another. It is
not surprising, as software IP is a tenuous concept, and the term
'software' applies to both abstract and corporeal things.
Perhaps if you think of it as "deriving functionality from" rather than
"deriving its creation from" it might make more sense to you. If a
program derives all of its functionality from a certain library, then
the program's IP is "a derivative work" of that library, even if the
library wasn't written down until after the program was written down.
>> 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?
The author of libB, in your example, for the most part. Later, libC.
Because libC cannot be considered binary compatible to libB, despite
your claim, if libB is buggy and libC is not.
[...]
--
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
******************************
