Linux-Advocacy Digest #494, Volume #28 Fri, 18 Aug 00 23:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Switch to NT? (pete@nospam)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Lee Hollaar)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE) ("Mike Byrns")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says (Gary
Hallock)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says (Gary
Hallock)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Open source: an idea whose time has come ("Tim Cain")
Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE) (Stephen S. Edwards II)
rpm 4 ? gcc 2.96 ? What gives ? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right! (Bob Hauck)
Re: GNOME & KDE, and the motivation for creation... (Bob Hauck)
Re: rpm 4 ? gcc 2.96 ? What gives ? (OSguy)
Linux Column (Mike Chandler)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 01:08:18 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Said R.E.Ballard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >I know you work for a company that makes and sells Microsoft
> >products. Have you ever seen, read, and reviewed with a lawyer,
> >the terms and conditions of the standard Microsoft alliance
> >agreement?
> >
> >Some of the clauses that really stick in my mind:
> >
> > 1. The strategic partner is OBLIGATED TO PROVIDE ... (everywhere)
> >
> > 2. Microsoft will MAKE A REASONABLE EFFORT TO PROVIDE (everywhere)
> >
> > 3. The partner will make no public statements without submitting
> > the copy, in writing, and getting prior approval from
Microsoft.
> >
> > 4. Microsoft may announce this agreement at any time (including
> > even if the partner has since switched to UNIX).
> >
> > 5. The partner will not speak to attorneys in any legal action
> > without a Microsoft provided attorney being present.
> >
> > 6. The partner will not volunteer to speak to attorneys without
> > Microsoft's prior approval.
> >
> > 7. The partner will not disclose the contents of this agreement.
>
> [...couldn't bear to snip that, but then you get into space-men,
Rex.
> Talk about "not looking good in public", don't you think this might be
> just a bit more damaging than using swear words?...]
>
> >I have no clue what happened in Roswell. It was probably just
> >military activity of some sort. But I doubt anyone will ever
> >sort out the multiple revisions of history that have occurred
> >since the first sighting. [...]
>
> Actually, a truly amazing job has been done. Check out
> http://www.csicop.org and their publication *Skeptical Enquirer* for
> details. These are people who have tracked down the specific person
who
> must have been "the red haired nurse" from original stories and such,
> and have ruthlessly deconstructed just where the multiple revisions of
> "history" have occurred in modern space-alien mythology.
Yes. I've seen several documentaries on Roswell on A&E and History
Channel. On one hand, there is one school that presumes that we are
the only intelligent form of life in the universe and that we COULDN'T
have been visited by aliens, at the other end of the spectrum, you have
people who claim to be abducted by aliens.
I tend to think that Aliens wouldn't find this planet particularly
interesting. We're at the edge of a galaxy in "the sticks", and
even the hassle of exploring this far out would be a pain. Until
about 5 years ago we didn't know if there were other star systems
with planets. With the space telescope, we no know there are many
stars with planets. This tends to increase the odds that there
would be SOME intelligent life out there. But anyone capable of
space travel would consider us too privitive and violent to risk
unneccessary contact.
Especially if they watch WWF Wrestling and read usenet news :-).
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> -- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
> of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
> Research assistance gladly accepted. --
>
> -----= 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! =-----
>
--
Rex Ballard - I/T Architect, MIS Director
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 42 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 8/2/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: pete@nospam
Subject: Re: Switch to NT?
Date: 18 Aug 2000 17:36:39 -0700
any one who ties themselevs to a proprietary, closed, non-standard
system WHEN there is a good choice that is none of the above, got to be
an idiot.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 19 Aug 2000 01:21:29 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>The mere fact that the court found it "weighty" and "pertinent" that the
>work was software and not any old literary work is a cogent argument for
>my point (contrary to Lee Hollaar, Resident Expert's opinion) that the
>functionality of software might not be protected by software, but is
>very relevant to software's copyright protection.
I assume you mean "the functionality of software might not be protected
by copyright". What you wrote is pretty obscure otherwise.
Of course functional aspects of any copyrighted work is not protected
by copyright. That's true of software, or lamps with statutes as their
base. And of course, that makes functionality relevant to copyright
protection.
Software isn't unique in that respect. It's just that it comes up more
often with software.
And I doubt that I said otherwise ...
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 21:48:51 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Isaac in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On 17 Aug 2000 21:26:48 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>"Aha!" say the FSF (and supporters). "This is just a thinly veiled
>>attempt to create a derivative work from our GPLed applicaiton, and
>>we're convinced any judge would agree with us. Give us your source code
>>under the GPL."
>>
>>And in this case it's true, the intent was to avoid the GPL but still be
>>able to extend the GPLed application.
>
>No matter what the intent was, if the actions and result are legal, then
>I don't think we need to call the attempt thinly veiled or deceptive.
>It's just as fair to call it an open attempt to exploit something that
>appears to be allowed by copyright law.
As seems to be clearly indicated by legal precedent, the option would be
to not use a library. Sorry.
>>Over time the sentence "a library/plug-in linked to GPLed code with the
>>intention of avoiding the GPL is really a derivative work of the GPLed
>>code" seems to have changed to the bizarre "any two code segments linked
>>together are derivative works of each other".
>>
>And with good reason. No one can figure out any substantive difference
>between the two.
Good point. Kind of like whether either code segment might be a "work"
in its own right.
>>What they need is a good way of demonstrating an intent to avoid the GPL.
>>Just saying "you put it in a plug-in instead of compiling it in" isn't
>>good enough these days.
>>
>It is my believe that this intent thing is useless. Why should it matter
>what the rationale for a legitimate legal action is?
>
>I find your argument about intent similar to the situation where I get
>together with a buddy to split the cost of a "buy one get one free
>offer" and the merchant tries to call it a subterfuge covering an
>actual theft.
Yea, that happens all the time, I'm sure. The fact is, the
justification of intellectual property laws is to force people to
re-write good ideas, so that we aren't stuck with just copying the same
ones over and over. To provide for this is the point of the
"originality" requirement. It is a requirement, in order to promote the
sciences and useful arts, that an author have secured for him by law the
right to control the use of his intellectual property. And if he wants
to GPL the code, and wants to say "you can't use my library unless you
GPL your program", he is *perfectly* entitled to do so. You can
re-write his ideas in your own words if you'd like, and he can't stop
you. You may feel that the FSF doesn't speak for all authors who GPL
their code, and you would be right. But that's why cases like this will
*always* be decided, by either the author or the courts, on a per-case
basis. You are allowed to *entirely* discriminate in who you pick and
choose to allow to use your work as a basis for their own, and you are
allowed to allow rampant and blatant public use and then pick someone
out and say "*you* can't use it". This isn't trademark, this is
copyright. And if you demand exorbitant fees for using what everyone
else can get for free, you are more than entitled, you are civilly
responsible, to sue them for anti-competitive business practices
according to anti-trust laws.
Discriminatory licensing is a right. Discriminatory pricing is a
privilege.
I wonder just how many people were going along with me in reading this
argument until I got to that last bit, which seems to me to be a
classical "Maxism", if I may be so bold as to recognize that my
perspective has been acknowledged as 'unique'.
This text, of course, by nature, law, and the Byrne Convention, is
copyright by T. Max Devlin. I didn't even need to say that for it to be
true. You are free to use the ideas in it, even copying them quite
precisely, if you can figure out what they are. Reproducing the text,
not replicating the work involved in creating it (along with a dash of
originality, I must insist), is against the law unless I give you
permission to 'use' it.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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: "Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 20:51:07 -0500
"Nathaniel Jay Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:8njsas$43h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >My point was that people who post false accusations and continue to do so
> >for purely inflammatory reasons don't warrant getting bent about. I'd
have
> >made fun of them and left it at that. Any more static from them and they
> >get plonked.
> >
>
> One point of contention is that this particular person
> goes out of his/her/it's way to be unplonkable. (It's
> tough to plonk someone when they go so far out of thier
> way to have a new identity as often as possible.)
Tell Kulkis that this guy said something about his Mama. I bet you could
get him to off the guy -- like "permaplonk" :-)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 21:52:17 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Mike Byrns wrote:
>
> Would this be the same AIX that I've got on my WebSphere farm? The same one
> that performs 90% slower than the single CPU Windows 2000 development box?
> The same AIX that I've had IBM on site TWICE in the last month to fix so it
> retains eCommerce session data when OSE protocol app server load balancing
> is enabled? AIX may be powerful but it sure doesn't look like it on MY
> RS/6000 rack...
>
> BTW, you wouldn't have any clue as to what's wrong with it would you? ;-)
Comparing AIX and Windows 2000 performance is meaningless without knowing what
kind of hardware you are running on. Is AIX running on an RS/6000 model 320
with 32MB of ram or on a dual processor model 260 with 1GB of ram, or perhaps a
4-way 604e base machine?
Gary
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 22:03:16 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
> Actually, didn't someone in here say that Alpha
> support was coming back in Windows2000?
>
That seemed to be a short lived rumor with no substance.
> Which mainframes does Linux run on? Is it another
> branch of the Linux project or something? I'd like
> to see NetBSD do something like that.
Anything from a P/390 to S/390 G6. I'm running it on a 12-way S/390 G6 at
work. IBM ported Linux to S/390 and the source is now part of the standard
Linux kernel distribution.
http://www.s390.ibm.com/linux/
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: 19 Aug 2000 02:14:28 GMT
On Fri, 18 Aug 2000 12:51:43 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > He seems to
>> > discount the concerns of the very user base that have assisted building
>OS
>> > into a platform that makes his project possible.
>>
>> Nonsense. If you feel a need to throw an ad hominem at me,
>> I'm game, but be specific, or go fuck yourself.
>
>Thank you, you have proven my point for me in this issue.
Bullshit. The fact that he doesn't care for your attacks doesn't mean that he
doesn't listen to users. The claim that he "discounts the concerns" of the
user base is simply false. I suggest you apologise.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Tim Cain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Open source: an idea whose time has come
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 03:24:19 +0100
>>And do you think that the minimal numbers of users supporting it are going
to
>>continue to work for free? Someone has to pay the piper eventually.
>
>I'm not sure what you mean here; could you elucidate?
What he means, chump, is that programmers would like to be able to eat and
pay the rent.
Simple enough for you?
Tim.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen S. Edwards II)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE)
Date: 19 Aug 2000 02:25:52 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Byrns) wrote in
<8nkp64$ps3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>"Nathaniel Jay Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:8njsas$43h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >My point was that people who post false accusations and continue to
>> >do so for purely inflammatory reasons don't warrant getting bent
>> >about. I'd
>have
>> >made fun of them and left it at that. Any more static from them and
>> >they get plonked.
>> >
>>
>> One point of contention is that this particular person
>> goes out of his/her/it's way to be unplonkable. (It's
>> tough to plonk someone when they go so far out of thier
>> way to have a new identity as often as possible.)
>
>Tell Kulkis that this guy said something about his Mama. I bet you
>could get him to off the guy -- like "permaplonk" :-)
Nah. Kulkis would just add the guy to his .signature,
saying something like
M.) [suchandsuch], you'are a big fat idiot, bite my
weenie, because I know you're full of poopoo, you
stupid-head!
--
.-----.
|[_] | Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount/
| = :| -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
| -| "You are a waste of space; a disgrace to your profession;
| | both the one you claim and the kindergarten student you
|_..._| act like..." -- Robert Moir to Aaron R. Kulkis in COMNA
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: rpm 4 ? gcc 2.96 ? What gives ?
Date: 19 Aug 2000 02:30:32 GMT
I noticed that on the redhat beta site, there's RPM 4, and gcc 2.96. But
these aren't available anywhere else. Is this a new version of gcc that
the gcc maintainers don't know about ? What about RPM 4 ? ( which is not
available on rpm.org ) I'd like
to get hold of a newer gcc, because 2.95 is having fits ( internal
compiler errors ) with some of my C++ code
The reason I care about RPM is that I can't unpack the gcc rpm without
rpm 4 ( which is apparently only available in rpm ! argggh ! )
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 18:17:50 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8nkkv7$are$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <8nk80v$v1c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> http://www.microsoft.com/hcl/default.asp
Is this URL currently functional for you? I tried it a couple of times but
by wbe browser died on it each time.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 19:24:24 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2000 14:05:43 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >This is not in relations to the the Gnome verses KDE debate is an entirly
> >sepperate discussion in which Roberto has been rather abusive of long
time
> >members of the Linux community.
>
> You describe "long term members of the Linux community" as though they
> were venerable war veterans or something. Clue: they are not. Most of the
> people I've seen Roberto get mad at are those who contribute nothing to
> the Linux community, and yet find it their place to pass judgement on
> developers who contribute their time, energy, and passion to the free
> software movement.
>
> >have less right or even no right to state their concerns over the future
of
> >the OS, as opposed to the desires of those who have never used Linux.
>
> Where does he say this ? Can you give us a quote or a deja URL ? I believe
> you are misrepresenting him.
Read back this thread and the "Why my company will NOT use Linux" thread.
Here are a few choice fibers from the threads:
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Nathaniel Jay Lee escribi�:
>
> > I don't want to see it become a Windows clone. You say it won't
> > be, or if it is I can just fork it. What if neither of those options
> > sounds good to me (either use the clone, or fork the code)?
>
> Let's put it this way: if linux somehow did become a windows clone
> (as unlikely as that is), and you didn't find it "good" to fork,
> why should you be provided a free OS by those who spend money and/or
> effort creating one?
>
> Quid pro quo, sir. You HAVE been provided a OS for free. Now you
> use it or you don't. You improve it or you don't. You influence its
> development or you don't. And that's all there is.
After that post of Roberto's I emailed him suggesting that he should use
caution with the assumption of the lack of contribution by members of the
Linux community to the community. Even if he is not familiar the the
person's name, he may have contributed to software or another project that
he is not familiar with. Also many of the members of the Linux community
have contributed to the developement of the OS and have not sought nor
recieved any acknowledgement of their efforts. While Linux is a free OS
many have paid for it through there effort for the community and the
codebase even if he not familair with them. The longer a person has been a
Linux user the more likely that it is that they have paid for the free OS,
so it was not *given* to them. When someone is communicating with another
member of the community they never know if they are communicating with one
of those unacknowledged contributers.
The reply I recieved was an email with two words, that I don't want to
quote, (inorder to keep this message G rated), an additional reply was in
the form of Roberto continuing in his baseless assumptions.
Latter in the thread Nathaniel did say that he has developed for Linux.
Roberto ignored Nathaniel's statement and latter said, "You should say more
constructive things, or even better, do things." I responded to Roberto's
comment and got this reply.
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribi�:
> >
> > Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Nathaniel Jay Lee escribi�:
> > > >
> > > No, you should not shut up. You should say more constructive things,
> > > or even better, do things.
> >
> > Do you know for a fact, that Nathaniel has not done things to improve
Linux?
>
> No, I don't. Of course it's easy, just say "oh, I did this", and I will
> shut
> up about it.
>
> > On the obverse of that, I don't know for a fact that you have done
things to
> > improve Linux.
>
> Well, I, on the other hand, know :-)
>
> --
> Roberto Alsina
The key statement here was:
> No, I don't. Of course it's easy, just say "oh, I did this", and I will
> shut
> up about it.
So I reminded Roberto that Nathanial had all ready addressed that issue.
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribi�:
> >
> > Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribi�:
> >
> > > > Do you know for a fact, that Nathaniel has not done things to
improve
> > Linux?
> > >
> > > No, I don't. Of course it's easy, just say "oh, I did this", and I
will
> > > shut up about it.
> >
> > Didn't he already say that?
>
> I must have missed it. No big deal anyway, since the argument died
> already.
>
> --
> Roberto Alsina
Nice, first Roberto state that if Nathainal claims that he has contributed
he will back off on that point; but, when it is pointed out to him that
claim had already been stated, he says to the effect that is makes no
difference.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right!
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 02:43:44 GMT
On Fri, 18 Aug 2000 12:11:42 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Great :) Keep up the good work. But when it comes down to it, someone has
>to lose this battle eventually. And one side will have to admit defeat.
Why? We're talking about free software here. Nobody is going to go
out of business, nobody has to answer to vulture capitalists. The
success of one project does not imply the failure of another. Things
co-exist in the same niche all the time. Two similar but different
versions of Emacs have existed for years, there are bazillions of
scripting languages, and so on. I see no reason why there can't be
more than one popular GUI toolkit.
Even in GUI toolkits, the fact of Motif/CDE being "the standard" for
commercial Unix has not prevented dozens of other toolkits from
continuing to exist. The impact of Motif on the trajectory of Linux
would require test equipment to measure. Sun does not determine the
axis of the earth's spin, even in the commercial Unix world where IBM
and HP seem to sell a lot of boxes.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GNOME & KDE, and the motivation for creation...
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 02:43:43 GMT
On Fri, 18 Aug 2000 00:09:25 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Well, there's a difference between spending a few hours, days or even
>weeks working on some bit, and spending years fine tuning and pouring
>your heart and soul into something, only to have it rejected.
People who are using KDE will likely continue to do so. KDE is hardly
being "rejected" by anybody. Your success does not detract from mine.
KDE has not suddenly quit working or being developed because of some
press releases from boneheads in suits. I use both types of apps on
this computer, yet don't run either "environment". Works fine for me.
And I'm frankly a bit wary of Sun's "support" of anything. After
seeing the great job they did with NeWS and Openwindows and Motif and
CDE and Java one could make an argument that Gnome is soon to be dead.
Hopefully the boneheads won't get to make any actual decisions.
Not that I wish Gnome to be dead of course. I frankly think it is
a *good* thing that there are two strong contenders for the crown of
"standard GUI toolkit". Having 20 is a bit much, but having only one
would be bad too. Too much risk of bad decisions and/or complacency
holding up progress that way.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: OSguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: rpm 4 ? gcc 2.96 ? What gives ?
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 21:58:38 -0500
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> I noticed that on the redhat beta site, there's RPM 4, and gcc 2.96. But
> these aren't available anywhere else. Is this a new version of gcc that
> the gcc maintainers don't know about ?
I'm sure the maintainers know about it. The changes redhat have done so
far I'm sure is in the gcc repository. However, the Key word is 'Beta'.
> What about RPM 4 ? ( which is not
> available on rpm.org )
Actually, I did find the source for RPM 4, compiled, and installed it. The
results ended up being not having rpm capabilities at all for me. I had to
reinstall RPM 3 on my Redhat 6.2 installation before rpm was back to
normal. Obviously I didn't have all of the necessary software for RPM 4 to
work successfully.
> I'd like
> to get hold of a newer gcc, because 2.95 is having fits ( internal
> compiler errors ) with some of my C++ code
I haven't played with the newer gcc and g++ yet
> The reason I care about RPM is that I can't unpack the gcc rpm without
> rpm 4 ( which is apparently only available in rpm ! argggh ! )
>
> --
> Donovan
You can do what I did....which was to download and burn the RedHat 6.9.5
(Pinstripe) Beta you were looking for (It is 2 iso images to be burned on 2
CDs). I performed an upgrade to my Redhat 6.2 and it was
successful....didn't damage anything, but did restore Gnome 1.2 for me that
didn't work after some Redhat 6.2 security upgrades (I don't know why it
affected Gnome). I'm posting this on Netscape running under Pinstripe
now. On my laptop, I am running the Pinstripe beta with kernel-2.4.0-test6
and everything is doing just fine. And, RPM 4.0 works just fine now. For
now, I'm pleased with the new Redhat Beta Upgrade.
Good Luck....
------------------------------
From: Mike Chandler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Linux Column
Date: 18 Aug 2000 18:52:32 -0700
I'd like to invite your attention to my column "Linux universe", appearing twice
monthly at extra.newsguy.com. It will walk the line between "newbies only" and
"gearheads only", but with a bias toward the newer users who are the current
majority of Linux users. I've been working with Linux since 1994 and with
computers since the vacuum tube days, and hope with this column to pay back some
of the help the net community has given over the years.....
Thanks!
Mike chandler
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
