Linux-Advocacy Digest #260, Volume #28 Sun, 6 Aug 00 08:13:13 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451763 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown (Ed Cogburn)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
The truth about Tim Palmer... (Jacques Guy)
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Alpha vs Intel (Patrick Vogt)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Aaron R. Kulkis' signature (Stuart Krivis)
Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown (Ed Cogburn)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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, 06 Aug 2000 06:32:13 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >> I don't really see how Windows benefitted from lacking a sane shared
>> >> library system for so long, for example.
>> >
>> >What is insane about DLLs (note, how they are designed, not used) ?
>> >
>> >And that really doesn't have anything to do with the original issue.
>>
>> It is precisely the original issue, and what is wrong with their design
>> is the cause of how they are used.
>
>An assertion you can prove, I'm sure ?
A statement of fact which has already been proven, in my estimation.
YMMV, and if you're riding a tricycle, all bets are off.
>> The pathetic pretensions of the
>> *potential* for a versioning system which Windows' itself neither
>> provides nor supports is mere hand waving.
>
>There is no "potential", all the information necessary for versioning exists
>and is easily accessible.
And is unused. Are you familiar with the meaning of the word
"potential"?
--
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: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 06:38:34 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>
>> >> I'm defending my statement that Win9x is "poorly engineered".
>> >
>> >Keep going. I remain stunningly unconvinced.
>>
>> You remain stunningly unconvinceable, and your theories remain
>> unfalsifiable, and thus worthless.
>
>Alas, for people like you, Max, I am unimpressed by people who throw around
>big words and complicated sounding explanations trying to appear as if they
>know what they're talking about. If you want to convince me, you're going
>to have to be more convincing than "just because".
I certainly never expected anyone to believe that whether or not Windows
was crap depended on my persuasiveness. Its easy to miss the writing on
the wall with your eyes closed, Chris, and you appear to rest your case
on an argument from ignorance.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451763
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 10:57:35 GMT
Here's today's Malloy digest.
150> Tholen continues to thole:
150>
150> Where does he say anything about clergy, Tholen?
Here, Malloy:
EB] It follows from your pontificating actions and the discussion
EB] of the clergy,
150> Typical Tholen, typical reading comprehension problems.
How ironic.
==========
Malloy likes to hear himself talk. The evidence:
"I take it Tholen has attempted to digest me, but since no message
to that effect appears on my newserver today, I present an oldie:"
--Joe Malloy
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 07:01:09 -0400
From: Ed Cogburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Ed Cogburn wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > >
> > > "Colin R. Day" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Americans only ran out of gas once in WWII, and that was
> > > > when they outran their supply bases racing across France.
> > >
> > > Prompting Patton to set up the "RedBall express"
> > >
> > > He designated certain MSR's to be one-way (either to the front or
> > > from the front). This simple changed tripled the efficiency of his
> > > logistics tail in his sector.
> >
> > It still wasn't enough. When Monty started Operation
> > Market-Garden, supplies to the Brits in the North got priority,
> > Patton had to "starve" some.
>
> And what a fucking disaster that was. Monty totally abused
> the 82nd and 101st Airborne divisions.
Not really. 82nd and 101st took significant losses but came out
essentially intact; they weren't the ones trapped on the wrong side
of that "bridge too far". It was the British 1st airborne division
that was essentially destroyed along with a Polish airborne brigade
coming in as reinforcements.
You can't fault Monty (entirely) for the plan itself, although some
said it was too optimistic. Its the Intel people that blew this one
badly. They never knew about the 2 German panzer divisions on the
north side of the Arnhem bridge. Had we known about them, the
operation would have never been tried; no one would expect an
airborne division to hold off 2 armor divisions for up to 2 weeks
without support.
====== 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: "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: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 21:10:45 +1000
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> It is precisely the original issue, and what is wrong with their design
> >> is the cause of how they are used.
> >
> >An assertion you can prove, I'm sure ?
>
> A statement of fact which has already been proven, in my estimation.
Certainly not in this thread. At least not to any definition of "proven"
that I am familiar with.
> YMMV, and if you're riding a tricycle, all bets are off.
>
> >> The pathetic pretensions of the
> >> *potential* for a versioning system which Windows' itself neither
> >> provides nor supports is mere hand waving.
> >
> >There is no "potential", all the information necessary for versioning
exists
> >and is easily accessible.
>
> And is unused. Are you familiar with the meaning of the word
> "potential"?
Your statement above is clearing describing the "potential for a versioning
system which Windows' [sic] itself neither provides nor supports". Windows
does provide a versioning system and does support it. There is no
"potential".
------------------------------
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: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 21:11:44 +1000
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >>
> >> >> I'm defending my statement that Win9x is "poorly engineered".
> >> >
> >> >Keep going. I remain stunningly unconvinced.
> >>
> >> You remain stunningly unconvinceable, and your theories remain
> >> unfalsifiable, and thus worthless.
> >
> >Alas, for people like you, Max, I am unimpressed by people who throw
around
> >big words and complicated sounding explanations trying to appear as if
they
> >know what they're talking about. If you want to convince me, you're
going
> >to have to be more convincing than "just because".
>
> I certainly never expected anyone to believe that whether or not Windows
> was crap depended on my persuasiveness. Its easy to miss the writing on
> the wall with your eyes closed, Chris, and you appear to rest your case
> on an argument from ignorance.
Ignorance of what, precisely ? A statement was made that says Win9x was
poorly engineered. I'm after a shred of evidence, or even just the
reasoning, behind that statement.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 07:03:07 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Max has done some amazing things ... but this one takes the cake
>(literally!). Not only has he changed his original position, but he's
>pretending that he and I have switched positions; he is the one who was
>arguing that recipes weren't functional pieces of work, and that the
>list of ingredients was copyrightable.
I'm afraid you must be confused. I have never held either position.
>I'm not exactly surprised by this level of dishonesty from Max on this
>one, though.
Perhaps it might come as a surprise to you that frequent insistence that
others are being dishonest is an essentially self-defeating position.
[...]
>>>> You seem to think the "ingredients no, description yes" is something
>>>> more than a rule of thumb, as if putting "and" and "take" into an
>>>> ingredients list is a magical transformation.
>
>This is where he demonstrates his continuing lack of knowledge about
>copyright -- I had previously stated that when you have the
>instructions and the ingredients in the same text, and the ingredients
>were not listed separately, then the whole is copyrightable. If the
>ingredients are listed separately, then only the instructions are
>copyrightable.
You don't seem to be able to recognize that the instructions are always
copyrightable, and whether there are ingredients within the instructions
is irrelevant.
>[snip my example]
>
>>> In the former, only the instructions are copyrightable. In the latter,
>>> the ingredients are part of the instructions and are therefore
>>> copyrightable.
>
>> Which is to say there is no list of ingredients, only instructions. Why
>> is it you think there is some sort of list of ingredients in the second
>> recipe, which contains none?
>
>And here he makes his amazing switch of argument side.
>
>>> Actually, when ingredients are listed separately from the instructions,
>>> then they're not copyrightable. The reason for this is that there is
>>> only ONE way to express this list.
>> Actually , when ingredients are part of instructions, only the
>> instructions (which is to say, everything including the ingredients) is
>> copyrightable AFAIK, because it is an intellectual work.
>
>Max, of course, doesn't get it -- this is a badly phrased version of
>what I had said in the first place. He's not asking the reason *why*
>it's not a copyrightable work... (It's an intellectual work, but it's
>representable in only a fixed number of meaningful ways.)
I had to keep this, or I'd suffer more accusations of dishonesty, I'm
sure, but I must admit I don't know what your prattling on about.
>> Are you saying that there is only one way to describe one pound of
>> flour? Which is to say that calling it two half pounds, because that
>> is the way it is packaged, or 16 dry ounces, an equivalent, are right
>> out?
>
>Which is to say that there is no meaningful difference between the
>possible representations of one pound. I could call it 0.001 ton or
>approximately 400 grams, and I still mean one pound. It's a measurement
>and an ingredient. No matter what your chosen measure is, you're still
>representing the same actual amount -- which goes back to the real
>reason why this work, which may be an intellectual work, *isn't* a
>copyrightable work.
You're confabulating. There is no such thing, as far as I am concerned,
as a reason why something *isn't* copyrightable. The law defines what
is copyrightable. It may provide exceptions, but that isn't the same as
exclusions. A list of ingredients is not copyrightable because it is
not a work of authorship. A set of instructions is a work of
authorship; the choice of whether to use "four half pounds of lightly
sifted flour" or "two pounds of flour" is, indeed, properly
copyrightable. The measurements required for the recipe, the
'ingredients', are not protected, however. Even if you include the
measurements only in the instructions, another chef can use the exact
same set of ingredients if he produces a unique and distinct set of
instructions for them.
Perhaps some previous brushing on this issue might by why you thought
I'd somehow reversed my position on this matter. To say "a recipe" is
protected or not is ambiguous. One might say that the recipe
(particularly, I'd guess, for the accomplished chef's perspective)
resolves to the exact ingredients. Or one might say that the recipe
extends to some manner of technique. Or one might say that the recipe
is the description of either or both. Only one of these meanings of
"recipe" is protected by copyright.
[...]
>Uh-huh. You always reply when you're corrected ... that the other
>person wasn't actually listening to you. Could it be that you're so
>often wrong, fuckwit?
Honestly? No.
>> I have to be honest and tell you that it quite
>> frankly scares me how routine an activity it turns out to be. Almost as
>> if there are a whole lot of people who may have a lot of knowledge but
>> somehow still managed to avoid learning anything.
>
>It should scare you, Max. You keep pretending you know things, and you
>keep being shown that you don't know a single fucking thing except that
>most Managerial of all skills ... bullshitting.
Its hardly surprising that unethical business people have such an easy
time bullshitting people, considering how impossible it is to
distinguish between bullshit and any perception which we don't
comprehend. If I had the luxury of not comprehending your perception,
I'd probably be a killer business person. As it is, "Manager" is little
more than an honorary title. I'm more or less a full-time teacher. Not
easy to do in a corporate environment, let me tell you. No telling what
will come of it. But that's a different issue. Almost. The fact
remains that I haven't ever tried to bullshit anyone. And, ironically,
it is only through continued dedication to evidencing, confronting and
thereby proving my own ignorance and misperceptions that I can
substantiate that fact.
So far, I'm making a little headway, but the constant meta-discussions
caused by the repetitive attempts to berate me are getting tiresome, to
be honest.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 11:14:02 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: The truth about Tim Palmer...
... just occurred to me. Good ol' Tim is
a beta tester for the built-in spell-checker
of Windows 2001! With hindsight, it was
obvious, folks, wasn't it? Now watch for
those service packs...
Aren't I right, Tim? (*smooch* *smooch*)
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 07:15:51 -0400
On Sun, 6 Aug 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> I would suppose that for anyone who would know how to use make, knowing
> how to get the free GNU make would be a decisively trivial barrier.
>From a technical perspective, yes. From a business perspective, no.
Given, however, that you haven demonstrated you know exactly zero about
copyright, software development, cooking, and just about every other
topic you've raised in the past month ... I'm not surprised that you
can't understand this, either. (That, and you seem to hate the software
development community with a passion.)
> I don't think people who present themselves as software developers
> should justify a choice to avoid interoperability with such a trite
> idea as this. There may be some *real* reasons that Sun's (or any
> other non-open Unix) 'make' might be preferable, but the fact it
> isn't bundled with the OS isn't one of them, IMHO.
Again, not relevant from several perspectives. I frankly don't like
make at all; it's powerful, it's useful, but it's also unnecessarily
arcane and excessively sensitive (Sun's make, in particular, complains
if the indentation is not a tab; this may be true for other makes).
There are better build systems out there, though there are too few
plain-text build systems that are easier to deal with than make.
> It is open, GPL, GNU make, after all; I think most would agree that
> its your best chance at being platform independent and thus portable,
> isn't it?
If, of course, that's one's goal. I'm sure that there's at least one
other open source version of make, which would have at least as good a
chance as being platform independent and portable. (And in distributing
it, even internally, you don't have to get on the religious bandwagon
of the GPL!)
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 07:22:24 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Lee Hollaar in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>Said Isaac in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>A list of names with phone numbers in alphabetical order are not
>>>copyrightable. I think the answer hinges on the requirement for
>>>creativity. The answer might be different outside the U.S. and I see
>>>that you are posting from a UK address.
>>
>>I understand what you mean, but I'm not sure where any explicit
>>"requirement for creativity" is described. Do you have any specific
>>references in mind?
>
> Original, as the term is used in copyright, means only that the
> work was independently created by the author (as opposed to copied
> from other works), and that it possesses at least some minimal
> degree of creativity. To be sure, the requisite level of creativity
> is extremely low; even a slight amount will suffice. The vast
> majority of works make the grade quite easily, as they possess
> some creative spark, "no matter how crude, humble or obvious" it
> might be. Originality does not signify novelty; a work may be
> original even though it closely resembles other works so long
> as the similarity is fortuitous, not the result of copying. To
> illustrate, assume that two poets, each ignorant of the other,
> compose identical poems. Neither work is novel, yet both are
> original and, hence, copyrightable.
>
>_Feist v. Rural Telephone_, 499 US 340, 19 USPQ2d 1275 (Supreme Court, 1991)
>
>But I'm sure that you had read that case, and just forgot about it, since
>it's one of the major copyright cases in the last decade.
No, I'd never read it; I merely knew of it as "the white pages
decision". A reading of the citations
( http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/CopyrtCases being a
good link for those interested) points out a plethora of references. I
was asking for a reference, more than a citation, but thanks anyway. I
was a bit confused by the reference on this page which seemed rather
unequivocal in stating:
"Article I, � 8, cl. 8, of the Constitution mandates originality as a
prerequisite for copyright protection."
But a reading of the literal text cited might indicate this as a
supposition, but I'm still not sure where the fundamental argument is
made.
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for
limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries;"
As I've mentioned, there are certainly a plethora of web-accessable
sources of information on copyright and case law. Could I trouble you
to provide some more explicit information concerning where the
underlying necessity of originality is founded in precedent or
publication? I would agree that the use of the term "author" does,
indeed, mandate such an interpretation, but I wondering when the courts
first noticed it. I certainly did not until at least the late 1970s.
;-)
--
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: Patrick Vogt <patrick_dot_vogt_at_unibas_dot_ch>
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.admin,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix,linux.redhat,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.help
Subject: Re: Alpha vs Intel
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 13:33:15 +0200
If I would not need the DEC fortran compiler, I would not go into troubles
of having a alpha.
Even though, the stablility of DEC UNIX and the DEC advancedfilesystem
might be worth thinking about it.
--
Patrick
Ben Chausse wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I build a Intranet WebServer on Linux with Apache 1.3.12, mod_perl 1.49
> and PHP4 and I would like to know what will the best between a server
> with 2x667 MHZ Alpha Processer and a 4x700 MHZ Xeon Processer ??
>
> Also, except the 64-bits, what's the big difference between Alpha and
> Intel CPU ?
>
> Thanks ...
>
> Ben0iT
>
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 07:30:21 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
>> Said Isaac in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >So netscape and photoshop are derivative of any plug-in some clown decides
>> >to write at some time in the future right? I don't think you've thought
>> >through all of the consequences of your position. It leads to things
>> >the FSF could never desire.
>>
>> You've completely switched contexts and expect your presumptions to
>> follow? Hang on a sec'. Plug ins are not to applications as programs
>> are to libraries.
>
>Plugins are usually implemented as dynamically loaded libraries.
>So, in most cases plugins ARE libraries, therefore plugins are
>like libraries to applications in a trivial way.
No, plug-ins are programs; the application under them are libraries.
Both are often predominantly implemented as "libraries" of course, but
that is the point of the issue. You seek to make distinctions where
none exists; software is source code; how you use it is not definitive.
[...]
>> >Works need not be complete.
>> You say that as if its true.
>You say that as if it is not?
Its not. If a work is not complete according to the intent of the
author or the anticipated satisfaction of the consumer than it is not a
"work", but a work-in-progress. That all modern software is a work in
progress, never complete because a new version is substantively
dissimilar, is yet another point of conflict, not justification, of
software copyright.
>> >A library is a work.
>> If somebody says that it is, then I guess it must be.
>Why wouldn't a library be a work? At least those who say it is
>can point to a bazillion copyrighted libraries, who are considered
>works already.
No, I'm afraid that wouldn't do it. A work is complete when it is
licensed for production. Once its been paid for by a consumer, the
situation is rather self-evident in most cases. But each case must
stand alone; similarity to complete works is not sufficient cause to
consider a work complete.
[...]
>> If you are considering things like compiling, you've definitely missed
>> my point. But at least you did get near it. No, whether a library's
>> source code will compile is not necessarily (but could be, you are quite
>> correct) what makes it a "work". Compiling is not publishing. Selling
>> is publishing.
>
>Actually, distributing, not selling, is publishing.
No, selling is publishing. You most obviously have to distribute in
order to sell, but whether you do it before or after the transaction is
irrelevant. Selling is publishing, clear and simple.
[...]
--
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] (Stuart Krivis)
Subject: Re: Aaron R. Kulkis' signature
Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2000 15:01:48 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 06:16:17 -0400, Ed Cogburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Considering your response to Ray, I'm not surprised that some folks
>follow you from group to group, you've managed here to get 2 PLONK's
>in less than 24 hours.
He's been in my killfile for at least a year. I did it globally so I wouldn't
have to listen to his whining.
--
Stuart Krivis
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 07:42:21 -0400
From: Ed Cogburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown
Christopher Browne wrote:
>
> This is _exactly_ the sort of reason why the Allies won WWII.
>
>[large snip]
Yes, WW2-Europe can be seen as the ultimate war of *industrial*
attrition. That's basically what it was.
> A hundred crummy tanks, available today, beat out 75 superior tanks
> that won't be available until next month.
Not any more. WW2 was unique, and nothing like it will ever happen
again. It came at a time where the industrial revolution was in high
gear, but the technology level was "simple" enough that the implements
of war could be produced in unbelievably huge numbers, and the raw
resources needed to maintain those huge numbers was readily available
and inexpensive.
We now have weapons that cost hundreds of millions of US dollars and
take many weeks to construct and test, and never mind the training for
the humans controlling those weapons. The soldier, which was just a
"product" that was "mass produced" in WW1 and WW2 just like tanks, is
now an important component of the army again. War, for the winner and
the loser, is now incredibly expensive.
As for those "crummy" tanks with poorly trained crews, I'll happily
take them on with about 30 M1A3 Abrams tanks with trained crews.
Those who recognize the phrase "73 Easting" know why I'll take those
odds...
====== 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
******************************
