Linux-Advocacy Digest #207, Volume #29 Tue, 19 Sep 00 10:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Computer and memory (No Name)
Re: Computer and memory (No Name)
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) (Jason Bowen)
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) (Jason Bowen)
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) ("Chad Myers")
Re: Computer and memory ("Chad Myers")
Re: Computer and memory ("Chad Myers")
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) (Jason Bowen)
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie! ("Stuart
Fox")
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie! (Tim Kelley)
Re: GPL & freedom ("D'Arcy Smith")
Re: GPL & freedom ("D'Arcy Smith")
Re: GPL & freedom ("James A. Robertson")
Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (No Name)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: 19 Sep 2000 12:08:23 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 13:07:24 GMT, Chad Myers said:
>
>"2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8pt3mu$hkn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> The US won't let the UK build a like from the UK to the US without
>> permission, so we can't `just build a better link' to the US.
>
>You're the first person to have said this.
>
>What, EXACTLY, do you mean by "US won't let the UK build..."
As said in a previous message, the US restricts ownership of any
Telecommunications company to US citizens, so that in
practical terms means that an UK (or any other company
form any other country for that matter) company can not
build a transatlantic link because there would be no way they
could market it in the US.
Is that easy enough to understand? Refer to Deutsche Telekom's
bid to acuire American companies and to the interference of the
American Senate for further information.
>
>What's preventing you? What bill, law, etc is preventing you?
>
>> Is that concept really that hard for you to understand?
>
>Well, so far, I have only your word to go on, so it's more a matter
>of believing than understanding.
>
>> We can't `just do it' because once the cable laying ships get as far as
>> the US territorial waters, they'll have to turn back and go home.
>> Strangely enough, the US doesn't let anyone with some $$$ to spare`just
>> build a fiber link to the US'.
>
>Ah yeah, right. These cable laying ships charged blindly into the Atlantic
>spending millions of dollars laying cable only to find out the Coast Guard
>wouldn't let them enter huh? They had to turn back and abandon everything?
>
>Give me a fucking break. Now I KNOW brits aren't _THAT_ stupid. Any
>3rd grader will tell you that you check with the requisite authorities
>on both end to get clearance before you spend ANY money.
>
>This is complete bullshit and you know it. If not, please provide a URL
>documententing such an action.
>
>Please show me a specific law in the U.S. which forbids foreign cable laying.
>
>You can't, because their isn't one and you're full of shit.
>
>> If you can't understand this, then I'm surprised that you have the
>> ability to use a keyboard.
>
>Like I said, it's not a matter of understanding, it's a matter of beleiving
>your bullshit. Provide one SHREAD of documentation or proof of any of this.
>
>-Chad
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (No Name)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: 19 Sep 2000 12:18:43 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 18:44:29 GMT, Chad Myers said:
>Low Earth Orbit satellites don't experience as much of this as
>high-orbit satellites do.
>
>Teledisic www.teledesic.com is building a global LEOS network
>that will provide low-latency broadband internet access globally.
>
>Now here's an example of a company that's DOING SOMETHING to
>solve a problem. Not ironically, it's an American company...
A company that without the favor and openess of other countries to
market its services would find impossible to sell a global
link.
In the other hand the US has protectionist policies against
foreign Telecom/Media Companies. As an example token, Mr Robert
Murdoch had to become an American citizen to expand his
empire insto the US, but that is not an option for each
non American company which in most cases will not have
an individual shareholder calling all the shots (and anyway
only somebody like Mr Murdoch would give up his/her
nationality in the name of bussiness).
But of course other countries can't dare to institue their
own protectionist policies because then the US cries with the
ITO and imposses unilateral sanctions.
If I were a British Telecom company I would stear clear
of the US by fear of wasting my time and money until the time
some that the US realizes that they have to practice what
they preach: free trade.
>
>-Chad
>
>
>"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>> on Fri, 15 Sep 2000 19:18:24 -0400
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >Steve Mading wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> : Why is it the US's fault that there's a small link between here and
>> >> : there?
>> >>
>> >> It's two countries fault. If one of them (US) is unwilling to help build
>> >> a better link, there isn't a damn thing the other country can do about
>> >> it, whether they have the money or not.
>> >>
>> >> : American companies have no incentive to build one because the UK laws
>> >> : are so restrictive that demand for Internet in the UK is low -- or rather
>> >> : the availability and fesability of getting Internet access is low.
>> >>
>> >> : Besides, why is it completely America's responsibility to build a bigger
>> >> : link. What have the brits done besides bitch that we don't spend all our
>> >> : money and build them a bigger link to us?
>> >>
>> >> You must be speaking a strange language that is almost but not quite
>> >> entirely unlike English, seing as how in your language the word "all"
>> >> means something different than it does for the rest of us.
>> >>
>> >> : Who's stopping the Brits? Like I said, quit whining about us and just do
>> >> : it.
>> >>
>> >> So are you advocating that they trespass on US waters and build the whole
>> >> cable themselves?
>> >
>> >Satellites are cheap.
>>
>> Unfortunately, for technical reasons mostly related to retransmission delay
>> (I'd have to look up the details; I'm not expert on this stuff),
>> my understanding is that satellites will not work horribly well
>> for Internet (TCP/IP) transmissions. I'm not sure if this is a
>> surmountable problem or not; obviously, for non-live transmissions
>> it's merely a matter of mirroring, but for live transmissions, it
>> could be a problem.
>>
>> [.sigsnip]
>>
>> --
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
>
>
------------------------------
From: Jason Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles,alt.fan.jackie-tokeman
Subject: Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 06:30:23 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Jason Bowen wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > >
> > > Jason Bowen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Bob Germer wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On 09/18/2000 at 08:13 AM,
> > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Do the math. The numbers are not actual numbers just a guide for those
> > > > > > that had trouble with algebra 1 in middle school. You are like Bob, you
> > > > > > just can't follow along.
> > > > >
> > > > > Post REAL numbers which can be VERIFIED independently. Otherwise your post
> > > > > is just more crap from a real stupid fool.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > You know Bob, I was proving a point about about total output, and how
> > > > North America having a deficit doesn't mean the rest of the world has a
> > > > deficit. You are obviously too incompetent to understand. I'll tell ya
> > > > what, if you can find a carbon cycle diagram that says otherwise you are
> > > > free to post a link to it but I know you won't be able to. Sucks to be
> > > > you.
> > >
> > > Goddamn, you're a stupid fuck!
> > >
> >
> > You can provide proof of your claims to if you like. I'll grab the
> > carbon cycle numbers that you can look up too.
>
> That's all meaningless. The Eco-wacko theories that you espouse
> are based on cooked data. This was demonstrated years ago.
>
> Now...once again, you ignorant, pseudo-intellectual shit-for-brains....
>
> SIT DOWN AND SHUT THE FUCK UP
Too bad you can't take Abe's words to heart. Provide proof. Frankly
your schtick gets old.
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> ICQ # 3056642
>
> H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
> I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
> A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
> B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
> C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
> D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (D) above.
>
> E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> their behavior improves.
>
> F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
> G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: Jason Bowen <[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: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 06:33:48 -0600
spiralx wrote:
>
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > spiralx wrote:
> > >
> > > Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > In case you haven't noticed, the most technologically advanced
> > > > societies are producing the LEAST amount of pollution, environmental
> > > > waste, etc.
> > >
> > > Apart from America, which produces 25% of the world's pollution and yet
> has
> > > only 5% of its population. Maybe you need to rethink your assumptions
> there,
> > > because you seem to have the wrong end of the stick.
> >
> > Yes, but you must realize that a lot of the pollution is produced
> > making products which are EXPORTED to other countries. Therefore,
> > THEY get the goodies without having the pollution counted on
> > their tally sheets.
>
> Errm, no, America produces so much pollution because of it's policies of
> rampant capitalism which makes the government afraid to impose any kind of
> environmental regulations. Hence America's unwillingness to enter into any
> kind of international agreements on reducing pollution - the government is
> afraid of the backlash from its industrial sector.
Capitalism is the best system. Unfourtunately you can't always count on
people to act in their best interest so the best policy is to try to
make it in their best interest to act in responsible way. Take your
communist/socialist dogma somewhere else. The old USSR has some of the
most polluted land on earth. Tell me about the evils of capitalism
again. It's all about people needing to act responsibly.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[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: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 12:42:55 GMT
"Alan Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <39c6f112$6$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Too late, liar. You stated several times that Canada was half covered with
> >an ice sheet in the past decade. Now you try to weasel out. I for one will
> >not let you off the hook.
>
> Umm, Bob. Dial it down, would you?
Bob "The Boob" Germer uses OS/2. What else need be said?
He's got a grudge and an axe to grind with the whole world because
it abadonned his beloved OS/2.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 12:47:14 GMT
"No Name" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8q7kvn$jht$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> As said in a previous message, the US restricts ownership of any
> Telecommunications company to US citizens, so that in
> practical terms means that an UK (or any other company
> form any other country for that matter) company can not
> build a transatlantic link because there would be no way they
> could market it in the US.
So? Who says they have to market it in the U.S. The whole point of
this thread is why aren't Europeans trying to make life better for
themselves rather than waiting for America to do it for them?
I still don't see any proof as to why European companies CANNOT
or are RESTRICTED FROM building such a link. The money they made
from Europe alone would pay for the link.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 12:52:59 GMT
"No Name" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8q7lj3$jht$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 18:44:29 GMT, Chad Myers said:
> >Low Earth Orbit satellites don't experience as much of this as
> >high-orbit satellites do.
> >
> >Teledisic www.teledesic.com is building a global LEOS network
> >that will provide low-latency broadband internet access globally.
> >
> >Now here's an example of a company that's DOING SOMETHING to
> >solve a problem. Not ironically, it's an American company...
>
>
> A company that without the favor and openess of other countries to
> market its services would find impossible to sell a global
> link.
Teledesic has already gained the approval of all the major communications
control companies. So far, third world countries are excited about this
technology as it will bring easily accessible, reasonably priced Internet
access to their countries which don't have any type of cable or telephone
infrastructure to build upon, or have remote citizens with now direct
land-line link of any sorts.
They've gained US FCC acceptance, the ITU's acceptance. They've also
had several foreign investors including a Saudi gentleman that
invested US $200 million
> In the other hand the US has protectionist policies against
> foreign Telecom/Media Companies. As an example token, Mr Robert
> Murdoch had to become an American citizen to expand his
> empire insto the US, but that is not an option for each
> non American company which in most cases will not have
> an individual shareholder calling all the shots (and anyway
> only somebody like Mr Murdoch would give up his/her
> nationality in the name of bussiness).
What does this have to do with anything?
Or are you just spouting off BS to make yourself feel better
about not living in the U.S.?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen)
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: 19 Sep 2000 13:14:58 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jason Bowen wrote:
>>
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>> >
>> > Jason Bowen wrote:
>> > >
>> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Jason Bowen wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Jason Bowen wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Jack Troughton wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > Jason Bowen wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > Bob Germer wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > On 09/18/2000 at 06:38 AM,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Except I didn't do that. I pointed to some facts and
>didn't make claims
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > as fact. CFC's are man made and the CO2 level is
>verifiably higher than
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > it has been in 600k years.
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > You claim the CO2 level is higher now that it was 600 years
>ago based on
>> > > > > > > > > > > > experiments on artic ice. You claim that CO2 levels are
>higher in North
>> > > > > > > > > > > > America when the facts prove they are in deficit!
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > You don't understand what is being discussed. North America as
>a continent produces less CO2
>> > > > > > > > > > > than the plant life on it consumes. The rest of the world
>produces way more than is consumed.
>> > > > > > > > > > > It is called the addtive property of numbers and perhaps and
>elementary algebra class will help
>> > > > > > > > > > > you understand.
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > Then maybe you ought to convince those OTHER countries to reform
>THEIR
>> > > > > > > > > > ways, and keep your fucking opinions to yourself in this country.
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > MORON
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > You really are into silencing dissent, aren't you? I was under the
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > No. I'm into getting the Ignorami among us to stop spreading their
>> > > > > > > > baseless PROPAGANDA.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Bullshit. You've been proven to be a liar, your claim about not
>> > > > > > > attacking first was a lie. You discredit one of my statments and then
>> > > > > > > support it to use it to take other countries to task for that which was
>> > > > > > > discredited. Can't have it both ways.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > impression that the intellectual foundations of the US system of
>> > > > > > > > > governance were all about making sure that people didn't keep their
>> > > > > > > > > opinions to themselves.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Are you saying arguing that it is good to NOT oppose liars....
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > You haven't given a source to back up your claims I've noticed, just a
>> > > > > > > belief system.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Your Eco-chicken-little scenarios were discredited YEARS ago, little
>> > > > > > *BOY*
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Notice Aarons persists that I am from the left and doesn't provide proof
>> > > > > for his claims. A stinking pile of shit has more sense than him.
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > If it looks like a duck
>> > > > waddles like a duck, and squawks duck-nonsense, chances are, it's a
>> > > > duck.
>> > >
>> > > I'm sorry you can't back your claims with proof. If my claims were
>> > > discredited years ago you should have a lot to reference and yet can
>> > > seem to provide them.
>> >
>> > I'm not the New York Public Library. Look it up for yourself.
>> > Speakin of homework....don't you have some you should be doing...
>> >
>> > ...little boy.
>>
>> You made the claim it's on you.
>
>You're the one claiming that ice-sheets advanced across Canada
>at a rate of 200 meters / day.
>
>Even if there was ZERO melt-off, that's 10x faster than any known
>glacier
>could do.
>
>Know...you ignorant little imbecile...SIT DOWN AND SHUT THE FUCK UP!
I didn't claim that, I've already corrected myself with the word formation
and not advancement. I have provided references for proof of the Vikings
losing contact with their Greenland colonines due to the ocean freezing up
and making trips to Greenland to prohibitive for them
>
>
>--
>Aaron R. Kulkis
>Unix Systems Engineer
>ICQ # 3056642
>
>H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
>I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
>A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
>B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
>C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
>D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (D) above.
>
>E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> their behavior improves.
>
>F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
>G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 14:34:03 +0100
"Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:qEIx5.218$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
> news:8q7j0n$4dm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:M7Hx5.216$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
> > > news:8q75ls$e0u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > Win2K took about 30 mins on a P-III 800, 256 MB, with 2 reboots. I
> > guess
> > > if
> > > > you can't count past 1, you might lose count...
> > >
> > > pure BS Stuart ...Windows 2000 takes at least an hour to install...(1
> hour
> > > and 5 minutes to be exact, on my machine, p3 733, 256 MB, geforce gts,
> > > sblive platinum)
> >
> > Pure BS, or just different from what you experienced? Windows 2000
takes
> a
> > varying length of time to install - minimum install time would seem to
be
> > about 25 minutes.
>
> welll, you didnt perhaps include time for formatting?
> most os setups is kind of bitchy about that...they would like to have a
> formatted partition to install on...:-)
>
Nope, Windows 2000 does a quick (very quick) format as NTFS. Much like
doing a quick format from inside Windows NT 4.0.
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 08:35:33 -0500
Ingemar Lundin wrote:
>
> "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
> news:8q75ls$e0u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Win2K took about 30 mins on a P-III 800, 256 MB, with 2 reboots. I guess
> if
> > you can't count past 1, you might lose count...
>
> pure BS Stuart ...Windows 2000 takes at least an hour to install...(1 hour
> and 5 minutes to be exact, on my machine, p3 733, 256 MB, geforce gts,
> sblive platinum)
... but you don't meet the minimum hardware requirements (at
least a p-800)
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "D'Arcy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 13:44:33 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:PJDx5.2667$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "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.
If your speach incorporates my speach then it isn't really just your
speach is it?
> 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.
And they don't have to use GPL.
> 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.
Nobody is forcing people to use GPL.
..darcy
------------------------------
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 13:44:33 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:WfEx5.2672$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "D'Arcy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:1SDx5.2386
> > " "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.
> Except that it doesn't even meet that goal. Sure, it gives you the
freedom
> to run the software, copy it, distribute it. You cannot study it, change
> it, or improve it for any reason other than personal use without having
your
> actions dictated to you by the GPL.
Sigh. The goeal is to gurantee that any changes are given back to the
community fo furthur study/change. Again your trying to change what
is meant by "free".
> Now, the first three items are guaranteed by other, less restrictive
> licenses as well, and the last three are not more free than other
licenses.
> So I fail to see how it cain be claimed that it is.
Please name another license that gurantees that all derived works
are given back for further study/change.
> > 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.
> I guess it's a sufficiently small quanity of freedom then.
No, it just doesn't mean what you would like it to mean.
..darcy
------------------------------
From: "James A. Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [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 13:55:07 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "D'Arcy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:1SDx5.2386
> > " "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.
>
> Except that it doesn't even meet that goal. Sure, it gives you the freedom
> to run the software, copy it, distribute it. You cannot study it, change
> it, or improve it for any reason other than personal use without having your
> actions dictated to you by the GPL.
>
> Now, the first three items are guaranteed by other, less restrictive
> licenses as well, and the last three are not more free than other licenses.
> So I fail to see how it cain be claimed that it is.
>
It's a license; get over it. All licenses restrict your rights and/or
access to code in some fashion.
It's the price you pay for having some entity take stewardship over a
code base.
--
James A. Robertson
Technical Product Manager (Smalltalk), Cincom
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux
Date: 19 Sep 2000 13:45:12 GMT
In comp.unix.admin Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perhaps dropping a few thousand copies of linux over a few big cities or
> maybe
> getting a few newspaper companies to give away copies will have a similar
> effect
> as who is going to spend the prices MS charge for windows when they have
> just
> had something better delivered free with their morning paper - especially if
> it includes
> eqivalents of all the applications they could be considering purchasing.
Bwahahahahaha ROTFL :)
Yeah, right - the average computer user can't work an ftp client unless it
looks *exactly* like Windows explorer, so I'm sure they'll get along just
*grand* with Linux. (And don't waste your breathe mentioning the pre-release
"Desktop"s like KDE and GNOME in your reply - not till they're finished.
J
--
John M Dow
Director, Systems - dowcarter, Edinburgh, Scotland
"Mixing Kittens and Asps is most definitely a recipe for larger Asps."
Aquarion, in C.S.S.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
