Linux-Advocacy Digest #199, Volume #29 Tue, 19 Sep 00 03:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The Linux Experience (Jake Taense)
Re: How low can they go...? (David M. Butler)
Re: GPL & freedom (Zenin)
Re: The Linux Experience (Jake Taense)
Re: The Linux Experience (Jake Taense)
Re: angry programmers (FM)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The Linux Experience ("Rich C")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: GPL & freedom ("D'Arcy Smith")
Re: GPL & freedom ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) (Alan Baker)
Re: angry programmers (FM)
Re: GPL & freedom ("D'Arcy Smith")
Re: GPL & freedom ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The Linux Experience
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 00:51:31 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Not the prosaic way you're thinking of, certainly. If I am
> inconvenienced by having to *avoid* a monopoly; if I have to even think
> for a moment about having to *work around them*, and I would, since I
> serve a large market which is still locked in to the monopoly, it is
> costing me money.
Wow. You must absolutely hate the Unix market. What with dozens of
fragmented implementations with different API's. Having to work around that
would cost you money, and... wait... Unix isn't a monopoly, yet it's costing
you money somehow... I thought only Monopolies do that?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jake Taense)
Subject: Re: The Linux Experience
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 05:39:25 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>>It's very possible to know linux just fine, and not know the ins and outs of
>>one particular distribution. RedHat 6.2 uses a 3.3.x-based Xfree86. My
>
> ...at which point it's your responsibility to EDUCATE YOURSELF
> or admit that you aren't a suitable source of help.
Hmmm... did a search on your prior posts. Zealot, eh?
Well, it's too bad that you can't read worth spit. I am perfectly aware that
they include a truetype-enabled server with RedHat. Read for content.
I solved the problem in short order. As you seem to do on a regular
basis (from your other posts), you missed the point - that given what seemed
to be perfectly good documentation, everything went wrong - an altogether
too-common issue with linux.
She had the necessary information in front of her, and it seemed to cover the
bases. Step by step instructions. All seemed well.
>[deletia]
>
> Besides, Font Deuglification would likely have been an appropriate
> curative for this particular anecodotal user. Besides which, TT
> fonts look nasty without greyscale anti-aliasing.
>
Yeah. That's an intuitive one. Deuglification isn't a word. How would she know
to look for that?
------------------------------
From: David M. Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 01:49:12 -0400
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
Quote A:
>>>>>> Except you can use a commonly available alternative window manager
>>>>>> with X, and there is no such thing with monopoly crapware.
>> Did I say "you cannot do this?" I think not.
> Yes. You did. Scroll up... it's still in the quotes.
>> I said it isn't commonly
>> available, and observed that nobody that I know of is using this (and I
>> have several thousands more people that I'd know about beyond my 'circle
>> of friends' if they were).
> No, you said:
>>>>>> Except you can use a commonly available alternative window manager
>>>>>> with X, and there is no such thing with monopoly crapware.
Quote B:
> See there where it says "and there is no such thing with monopoly
> crapware." That's you saying it doesn't exist. Fess up.
God that's a mess. Ok, my quick interjection here. You seem to be
ignoring what you're quoting. The original quote (marked A above) says
that there are commonly available window managers with X, and not with
[Microsoft]. Then you go on to tell him that he was claiming that Windows
couldn't even use an alternate window manager. He never said this, he said
there were no commonly available alternative window managers for Microsoft.
If you read his entire sentence instead of taking just one half of it (as
in quote B), you might notice that he indeed never did say that there were
no alternative window managers for MS, just that they weren't common.
Which is true, relative to the choice and availability of X-Windows
managers. That's all, continue fighting.
D. Butler
------------------------------
From: Zenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 05:45:08 -0000
D'Arcy Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Zenin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> The changes however, are mine, I made them, and therefor just like the
:> original author I have the right to choose if and how those changes are
:> given to anyone.
:
: No you do not (in the case of GPL).
:
:> The point is *other* people have NO RIGHT whatsoever to be telling ME
:> what I must do with MY WORK.
:
: Yes they do (in the case of the GPL).
Legal abilities and human rights are drastically different issues.
You confuse the two too easily.
:> I may well give them back to the community, but the choice should be MINE
:> as it's MY WORK.
:
: If you wanted to derive work off of GPL work then you have to abide by the
: wishes of the original author(s). he original author(s) said "you can do
: what you want with this as long as the source for any derived works is
: available to everyone". If you do not want to release the source for your
: derived work then do not try to benefit from GPL software.
IOW, "You can use my work so long as you grant me permission to tell
you explicitly how you can use your work."
It's pathetic and sad, full stop.
: Your position that the GPL loks in the original authors does not make any
: sense.
Then you're categorically blind.
:> What it explicitly does *not* do is make the decision for you (as a user)
:> as to how you must license *your* work (extensions, whatever). It only
:> cares about itself, as it should.
:
: Right - which means that it isn't as "free" as the GPL since you can take
: your extensions away from the rest of the community.
They never belonged to the community to begin with...unless I give
them to the community. The issue has nothing to do with weigher or
not the community gets my work, it has to do with MY RIGHT (in the
"human rights" sense) to determine the fate of MY WORK.
--
-Zenin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) From The Blue Camel we learn:
BSD: A psychoactive drug, popular in the 80s, probably developed at UC
Berkeley or thereabouts. Similar in many ways to the prescription-only
medication called "System V", but infinitely more useful. (Or, at least,
more fun.) The full chemical name is "Berkeley Standard Distribution".
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jake Taense)
Subject: Re: The Linux Experience
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 05:49:58 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>>So, she called up another linux user and asked what she could do to fix that.
>>
<snip>
>>"I'll mail you a link. Download the tarball and make sure you follow the
>>instructions in the INSTALL file."
<snip>
> Why did you bother with a tarball for a Redhat system?
>
>[deletia]
Hmmm... there is that reading comprehension issue again.
Note: once your reading reaches grade school level you might want to reread
this post, just to confirm that I, in fact, didn't suggest the tarball.
I welcome reasonable responses, but for some reason you can't be bothered to
understand before posting.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jake Taense)
Subject: Re: The Linux Experience
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 05:52:12 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David
M. Cook) wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 18:16:21 GMT, Jake Taense <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Red Hat 6.2 has built in TT font support. You wasted you're friend's time.
>
>http://customer.support.redhat.com/rhoaprod/plsql/xxrh_know_pkg.srch2?p_id=138
>
>Dave Cook
>
*sigh*
Yet another moron with minimal reading skills.
Why is it that so many people just skip right on past the fact that while I
fixed the problem, I had not suggested the install in the first place?
I know RedHat has TT support. I run it myself.
Take the time to read before replying. It helps.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (FM)
Subject: Re: angry programmers
Date: 19 Sep 2000 05:51:47 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I object to the title of this post. DOn't know about you, but I haven't
>heard of any notable Linux developer by the name of "FM".
Of course not, since I'm not a software developer.
I also don't go by FM in the real world.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 01:20:55 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I don't play games with trolls. If you can refute my assertions, feel
> free. If you can only hem and haw and argue from ignorance, you're
> wasting your time. State your case or shut your trap.
Aliens have come to earth and experimented with T. Max Devlin's brain,
causing him to find the most illogical statements to seem perfectly
reasonable, and finding reasonable statements to be difficult to fathom.
If you can refute that statement, feel free Max. If you can only hem and
haw and argue from ignorance, you're wasting your time. State your case or
shut your trap.
If you can't refute it, then it must be true. Right?
> It wouldn't surprise me if they weren't. Only a moron would assume that
> there aren't lock-in contracts whenever Microsoft is involved. They're
> not interested in competing on their merits, remember; they don't see
> anything wrong with breaking the law.
You seem to be under the impression that you must sign a contract to use the
Windows API. I've never done so, yet seem to be able to use things like IE
all I want without threat of legal prosecution.
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Linux Experience
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 02:06:04 -0400
No, as I said, I just did a quickie search as the average semi-experienced
user might do to see if there was readily available info about RedHat's
support of TrueType fonts. It was an experiment to see if Jake's claim was
reasonable.
-- Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
"David M. Cook" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 16:10:32 -0400, Rich C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> >Also doing a quick search of RedHat's web site with "truetype" or
"truetype
>
> Did you search the solutions database at
>
> http://www.redhat.com/apps/support/
>
> Dave Cook
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 01:22:21 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> You'll have to take that up with them. I believe they were told by the
> these organizations that they would have adequate protection, because
> they did not understand, as Sun does, what that actually entails.
Oh, poor Sun. They were duped by the evil ISO and ECMA into thinking that
their copyrights would be protected, despite the fact that no other
copyright in the entire history of either organization has ever been
protected.
------------------------------
From: "D'Arcy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 06:22:14 GMT
"Zenin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> D'Arcy Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : "Zenin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :> The changes however, are mine, I made them, and therefor just like the
> :> original author I have the right to choose if and how those changes are
> :> given to anyone.
> : No you do not (in the case of GPL).
> :> The point is *other* people have NO RIGHT whatsoever to be telling ME
> :> what I must do with MY WORK.
> : Yes they do (in the case of the GPL).
> Legal abilities and human rights are drastically different issues.
> You confuse the two too easily.
You willingly give up your "rights" if you agree to the license
(also I should have had a see below as that statement really
meant to go with the main point of my post).
> :> I may well give them back to the community, but the choice should be
MINE
> :> as it's MY WORK.
> : If you wanted to derive work off of GPL work then you have to abide by
the
> : wishes of the original author(s). he original author(s) said "you can
do
> : what you want with this as long as the source for any derived works is
> : available to everyone". If you do not want to release the source for
your
> : derived work then do not try to benefit from GPL software.
> IOW, "You can use my work so long as you grant me permission to tell
> you explicitly how you can use your work."
No you can use my work as long as you agree to keep any derivitives
freely available.
You also keep forgetting that nobody is forcing you to base your
work on GPL code.
> : Your position that the GPL loks in the original authors does not make
any
> : sense.
> Then you're categorically blind.
Try reading - this time don't snip it.
Your position that the GPL loks in the original authors does
not make any sense. If I develop a brand new bit of code from
scratch and choose to make it GPL then that is my choice.
Nobody forces people who are starting from scratch to release
their code under GPL.
> :> What it explicitly does *not* do is make the decision for you (as a
user)
> :> as to how you must license *your* work (extensions, whatever). It only
> :> cares about itself, as it should.
> : Right - which means that it isn't as "free" as the GPL since you can
take
> : your extensions away from the rest of the community.
> They never belonged to the community to begin with...unless I give
> them to the community.
You skipped a step.
1) I write some GPL code from scratch.
2) You extend it.
I gave my code to the community - if you CHOOSE to use my
code you agree to give your code back to the community.
*** Your code would not exist if it were not for my code ***
so if you want to base work of my code then it goes back to
the community.
> The issue has nothing to do with weigher or
> not the community gets my work, it has to do with MY RIGHT (in the
> "human rights" sense) to determine the fate of MY WORK.
Which has nothing to do with the "freedom" in the GPL. If you
would understand that then...
..darcy
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 01:38:37 -0500
"Brian Langenberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8q5kks$7j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> : It's fine if each module is copyright by a single person. But after
each
> : file has been modified by dozens of people, hudreds of times it will be
> : virtually impossible to track this, even with version control.
>
> Obviously projects are easier to re-license in the early stages of
> development rather than waiting until it reaches version 102.
> But whether or not figuring out whose code is whose is easy is
> beside the point. If developers really want to re-license their
> project (which is a pretty rare occurance anyway), they'll need
> to figure out who owns what before they can proceed.
That's why it's effectively impossible to relicense an open source project
after it's been underway for a while. You simply will not be able to figure
out who wrote what, and the only way to relicense it would be to have
approval from all copyright owners.
It may have been a rare occurance in the past, but it's not so now with many
projects preferring to be under multiple licenses. Qt and Mozilla are just
recent examples, there are others. Of course these are examples of projects
moving TO a GPL license (while maintaining the old license) but things could
definately get hairy down the road with trying to maintain both licenses and
figuring out which code is what.
> The key is that source released under the GPL is clearly marked as
> to what flavor of "free" it falls into. If one doesn't like the
> GPL for any reason, there's plenty of opportunity to avoid it
> simply by not using it in your own projects. People have to
> actively seek out GPL'd code; it's not going to creep into your
> projects without your permission. So you'll always be free
> to not worry about it.
I'm not arguing that the GPL is bad. Only that people claiming that the GPL
is somehow "more free" than other licenses are either using some definition
of "free" that nobody else in the universe other than GPL advocates and
despots use, or they're seriously deluded.
------------------------------
From: Alan Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 23:53:01 -0700
In article <39c6f112$6$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 09/18/2000 at 03:00 AM,
> Jason Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> > According to the Encylopedia Brittanica that fast current glaciers
>> > advance at as much as 25 metres a day. That's 9.125 kilometres a year.
>> > To advance over half of Canada (say conservatively, 1800 kilometres)
>> > glaciers would have to advance at roughly 200 times that fast or 5
>> > kilometres a day. I just find that a little hard to believe.
>
>> I should say formation and not advancement, sounds wrong.
>
>Too late, liar. You stated several times that Canada was half covered with
>an ice sheet in the past decade. Now you try to weasel out. I for one will
>not let you off the hook.
Umm, Bob. Dial it down, would you?
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that
wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the
bottom of that cupboard."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (FM)
Subject: Re: angry programmers
Date: 19 Sep 2000 06:03:11 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>FM wrote:
>> have this new vision of computing. Hell, NONE of the new features
>> you elaborated failed to come up within 2 hours of my initial
>> brainstorming for a new design, and that was way back in high
>> school (or was that a middleschool). That you're so in love of
>Is THAT what this is all about? Sour grapes that someone is
>actually doing something while you're just a dried up bitter old
>geezer? Resentment at idealism because you've had to "learn
>better" and can't share it anymore?
I'm not dried up, I'm not bitter, I'm not old, and I'm
not a geezer. I'm just telling you that your so-called
criticism of Unix is just cliched idealism that usually
comes from juvenile pretense more than anything.
>You don't know me. You don't know anything about me. You
>don't know anything about what I have in mind, what I'm doing
>or what I've done.
Well that works completely against you, since what you've
been saying here is all I know about you. Do you think I
just chose a random person to attack? What is it that made
you such a target? You don't build a great system until
you understand the beauty in existing good systems.
Trashing unix for certain things that it wasn't designed to
address to begin with is obviously ridiculous.
>So from where are you pulling all these wild
>accusations if not from your own personal experience? What
>makes you so compelled to bash someone you don't know
>anything about for doing you-don't-know-what?
Your criticism about Unix's non-features makes it obvious
certain features that you'd like to put in your operating
system. That you're unable to present how to implement
these features while continuing to exhibit ignorance that
some nonsensical features are actually fundamental enough
to be put into the operating system, continues to trash
your own case without my contribution. Or screaming about
inconsistency when what you're describing is not really
inconsistency, nor presenting a clear alternative or even
a clear example.
>Buddy, your outbursts have nothing to do with me and everything
>to do with you. I think you have some serious emotional problems.
>Visit a therapist sometime, or go meditate or whatever, but as it
>is you aren't contributing anything to the discussion.
That's funny. I'm just amazed at your boldness combined
with ignorance and stupidity. I have absolutely no emotional
problem of any sort, and as some people pointed out, you're
the one who seems to be emotionally challenged.
Dan.
------------------------------
From: "D'Arcy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 06:38:53 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:zCDx5.2666$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I'm not arguing that the GPL is bad.
I don't think anyone thinks that you think its bad either ;-)
> Only that people claiming that the GPL
> is somehow "more free" than other licenses are either using some
definition
> of "free" that nobody else in the universe other than GPL advocates and
> despots use, or they're seriously deluded.
" "Free software" refers to the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute,
study,
change and improve the software."
Given that goal the GPL is more "free" than other licenses.
If you want "free" to mean that you are "free" to take the code, change
it, and keep the changes away from others then no the GPL is not
"free".
The problem you (and Zenin) are experiencing is that you are trying
to give attributes to the word "free" that the GPL doesn't have.
..darcy
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 01:46:21 -0500
"D'Arcy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:YbBx5.2357
> Freedom to always have access to the source of any work based
> on original GPL code. Where is the hypocricy? It only becomes
> hypocricy if you attribute a different meaning to the word "free"...
> a menaing other than what the GPL specifies.
That would be as silly as saying "You're free to listen to my speech, so
long as you never charge anyone else for ever listening to your speeches
ever again in your life". Sure, you could do it, but it's not freedom.
The argument here seems to be that outlawing walls, fences, cages, and all
other kinds of obstructions guarantees freedom. Except that it ignores that
a certain percentage of the people *LIKE* to live behind walls, enjoy fences
and like the fact that obstructions keep others out as much as they keep
them in. That percentage of the population should be free to live within a
cage if they want to. Forcing them to live in the wilderness is violating
their freedom.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Linux Experience
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 23:33:33 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Jake Taense <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Spent some of my Sunday helping out a friend with a problem.
>
> Seems she has been happily using Linux for most things (RedHat 6.2) for a
> little bit now. However, like many users, she disliked the lack of
Truetype
> support.
>
> So, she called up another linux user and asked what she could do to fix
that.
>
> "Oh, just add a truetype font server."
>
> "Where can I get that?"
>
> "I'll mail you a link. Download the tarball and make sure you follow the
> instructions in the INSTALL file."
>
> To her credit, she did exactly that. She downloaded the right file,
extracted
> it properly, and followed the instructions precisely. She replaced the
> existing xfs file with the new one as indicated in the INSTALL file,
replaced
> the man page, and the other files as necessary, taking care to back up the
> originals.
>
> Finally, the moment of truth - she rebooted. What happened? The xfs server
> failed during initialization. She uses the redhat graphical login. Result?
A
> machine that just sat and kept switching video modes. Killing the x-server
> with ctrl-alt-backspace didn't fix it. All she could do was
ctrl-alt-delete,
> which shut everything down.
>
> She was without a machine until I could come over and fix it.
>
> "What was I supposed to do?" she asked.
>
> "You did everything fine. In fact, I'm glad this happened. Welcome to the
> linux experience."
>
> "Would I have been more successful if I had just completely upgraded to
> Xfree86 4.0.1?"
>
> "Good Lord, no."
>
> Xfree86 has the wonderful role of being the worst group I've ever seen for
> writing documentation that is completely useless to the world at large.
I'm a
> technical guy, and my upgrade to 4.0.1 was problematic to say the least. I
> succeeded, but only after much exasperation.
>
> Linux. Documentation is "no longer being maintained", outdated, and
frequently
> flat-out wrong. What should be simple "make"'s become nightmares due to
> dependencies or programmer assumptions. Precompiled binaries fail. RPM's
torch
> X-settings. Instructions are written by programmers, for programmers, with
no
> thought at all given towards non-technical users.
>
> Go ahead. Flame away. But unless you are prepared to spend a huge amount
of
> time in support, turning a friend on to linux is probably a mistake.
Either
> that, or lock them down, don't give them root access to their own
computer,
> and get call-display so that you can avoid their calls.
Let's recap the chain of events, rendering the factual chain of events
without the FUD.
Your friend goes to another friend of hers with a complait and excepts the
advice to install a piece of software from XFree86 4.0.1 into her working
installation of Xfree86 3.3.x. In the process she fouls up her working
installation and has no safe fallback position, to recover from such a
failure. Her other friend did not warn her of that possibility and did to
provide her with any advice of how to prepare for an failure mode or how to
recover from it. She then contact you to pick up the pieces, which you did.
The XFree86 is third party software, the product of The XFree86 Project,Inc.
which is a work built on the X Window System's X11R6. The failure did not
involve Linux. The failure was not the fault of XFree86 either, it was the
faulty advice from your friend's other friend and that other friend's
failure to advise caution and provide instruction to prepare a safe fall
back position that was at fault.
Using a piece of the Xfree86 4.0.1 distribution in a working Xfree86 3.3.x
installation and blaming Linux for the failure is crazy when you consider
that the same situation would have happened if the OS was BSD, or OS/2 or
any other OS that XFree86 can run on. What is more this would be like
taking a piece of thrid party software written for Windows 95 and installing
it into a working installation of a older version of the sofware written to
run on Window 3.x and blaming Microsoft for the failure of the hybrid
installation to function.
The fact the the xfs from 4.0.1 could be made to work with the 3.3.x
installation at all is to the credit of the XFree86 Project's efforts to
maintain that level of compatibilities between the two major releases of
their software. While Linux is not a part of this equation, if would blame
Linux for the failure, then you should instead credit it along with the
efforts of the XFree86 Project.
You are glad that the failure happened?! That is the most disturbing detail
that you presented.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
