Linux-Advocacy Digest #365, Volume #29 Sat, 30 Sep 00 08:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: GPL & freedom ("Simon Cooke")
Re: How low can they go...? (Zenin)
Re: GPL & freedom (Zenin)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: GPL & freedom (Zenin)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: GPL & freedom (Zenin)
Re: programming languages and design (FM)
Re: GPL & freedom (Tim Tyler)
Linux community. (Bartek Kostrzewa)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time?
("colineal")
Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 02:22:38 -0700
"Frank McGrath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:pNcB5.30297$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> IMHO, Capitalism is superior to Communism.
>
> IMHO, GPL is a threat.
>
> There *should be* a movement for a truly free, open, common platform that
is
> ideology neutral.
See BSD.
Si
------------------------------
From: Zenin <[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: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 09:25:43 -0000
Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: James, what's the deal with the formatting of your posts?
You mean the correct formating which you don't know enough to use
yourself?
--
-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: 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: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 09:34:46 -0000
Jonathan Revusky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Jon A. Maxwell (JAM)" wrote:
>snip<
:> Several people where I work believed that they could distribute GPL'ed
:> code with their own non-GPL'ed code as long as the GPL'ed code was not
:> modified. In other words, if I only *use* the gnu-regex library then my
:> program doesn't have to be GPL'ed. I think the commonly-misunderstood
:> meaning of GPL is more in line with the L-GPL for libraries.
:
: That was roughly my understanding. I was under the impression that, as
: long as you were using it as a separate dynamically loaded library, it was
: okay.
It's not okay. Not by a long shot. This is explicitly forbidden by
the GPL.
: After all, there are commercial programs on linux and they call system
: code (in libraries) that is under the GPL, don't they?
libc isn't GPLed, it's LGPL. Big difference.
Non-GPL can NOT call GPL libraries, even dynamically. This is why
no non-GPL programs can use GNU readline or any other GPL library.
--
-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: "Simon Cooke" <[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: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 02:29:30 -0700
Because he's admitted to running Windows in prior posts?
Si
"Chris Sherlock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> How do you know that he isn't using Free Agent running under WINE?
>
> Chris
>
> JS/PL wrote:
> >
> > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > > >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > > >> >
> > > >> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >> >
> > > >> >I hate to break it to you but - you are supporting Windows. You
are
> > > >> >unnecessarily relying on the very company you are bashing, which
only
> > > >> >mirrors you ingnorance to the world.
> > > >>
> > > >> So now "supporting" becomes "relying on"?
> > > >
> > > >No - it becomes "unnecessarily relying on", dim bulb... notice the
word
> > > >"unnecessarily".
> > >
> > > Care to supply the amazing amount of research you've done to determine
> > > if I or ELTRAX has incorrectly determined what is necessary for us to
> > > run out business?
> >
> > What's this have to do with the fact that you post anti-microsoft
statements
> > to usenet in your leisure time USING the very software you apparently
hate?
> > And then grasp at straws trying to justify it. You haven't got a leg to
> > stand on when it comes to the issue. Your a hypocrite... you are to this
> > issue as a person bringing a six pack of Bud to an AA meeting, and then
> > justifying it by saying it's cheaper to keep drinking than it is paying
for
> > treatment.
> >
> > > >Less expensive than "free".
> > >
> > > No, less expensive than 'avoiding the monopoly'.
> >
> > What does it cost to avoid MS products, Your Dimness? The only cost I
can
> > see is maybe replacing a winmodem and maybe a video card or sound card,
but
> > most of the latter are supported. The value of the thousand apps that
come
> > with most distros would probably more than compensate you for that.
> >
> > The fact that a pro-MS person like me has to explain this to you is
quite
> > ironic. Get a clue from it! There isn't a legitimate reason on earth
which
> > forces you to use MS software to post to usenet in your leisure time. If
you
> > need the hardware to make it possible I'll get you an old 486 system to
help
> > you out, I can probably pick one up for less than $100 complete with
> > monitor, unless that's beyond your means. I'll even let you use your
laptop
> > as a proxy server if you can't afford a non-winmodem.
> > Let me know.
------------------------------
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: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 09:38:35 -0000
Frank McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>snip<
: There *should be* a movement for a truly free, open, common platform that
: is ideology neutral.
Check out the BSD license. The real movement for real free software
has been around longer then the FSF and the GPL.
>snip<
: Consequently, I would urge the industry to NOT support GPL. We should
: come up with an alternative approach that is *truly* free, one that
: accepts freely offered source into the public domain, and allows *any*
: extensions, public our private, to flourish.
Public domain isn't the answer either. I urge you to read the BSD
license.
--
-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: "Simon Cooke" <[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: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 02:36:48 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Mike Byrns in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >[...]The anti-trust case came about for the reasons that
> >Jackson's conviction did -- Microsoft refused to play ball with the
bureaucrats
> >and pay their lunch ticket like McNealy, Ellison and Case did.
>
> Please be specific. What "lunch ticket" have these men, or the
> corporations they represent, paid; when, and how much?
for the full amount, you have to investigate:
Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers (and the board members of the former, and
their spouses) -- this is the venture capital firm behind the Java
'Keiretsu' -- a japanese word which means collusion between companies.
You also have to investigate Sun, AOL, Oracle -- their board members, their
executives and their spouses.
http://www.opensecrets.org/ should get you started.
Simon
------------------------------
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: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 09:44:58 -0000
Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
:>
:> "Brian Langenberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
:> news:8q54dd$riu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> > If the majority of the authors agree to change the license, the minority
:> > code can be replaced by new code in order to make the new work not
:> > derived from theirs, and thus not copyrighted by them, and thus no
:> > longer bound by the GPL.
:>
:> And just exactly how are you going to tell which code is copyright by whom?
:>
:> 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.
:
: Doesn't the contributed code still belong to the original author?
No. Each author maintains their own copyright on their own code.
: Maybe I'm incorrect here, but I was always under the impression that the
: original author had the right to merge/get rid of any changes that they
: wanted in the "official" version of the software.
Yes, they do, but that doesn't transfer the copyright ("ownership")
of the contributed code and thus does not transfer license control.
Erik is quite right; it's a practical impossibility to un-GPL a GPL
project of any significant size...even if if you're the original
author.
If you think you might ever want to use your code again in a non-GPL
work, you'd better at the very least dual license it (GPL +
something else) and accept contributions only which are submitted
under similar terms (both licenses). This has worked very well for
projects such as Perl and Qt. It allows them to mix with other GPL
projects, but maintain's their own *real* freedom for non-GPL 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] (FM)
Subject: Re: programming languages and design
Date: 30 Sep 2000 10:29:38 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Roberto Selbach Teixeira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hmm. Very true. That is what comes to my mind when I hear someone
>talking about a language not being powerful enough.
Perhaps you haven't tried programming in Unlambda...
It's turing-complete, you know.
>Most languages
>nowadays allow you to do _anything_ you want, provided you have the
>necessary knowledge and skills.
And *time*. More powerful languages allow you to build
necessary abstractions more quickly and in a more robust
manner.
>Computer languages do vary in easy of use. One can argue that Delphi
>(not my favourite language, really) is *far* more suited to creating
>an administrative system than C, because of RAD, etc... and I believe
>it probably is for most people. A few people prefer the high level of
>control they sense in programming in a low level computer language. It
>is almost a matter of taste.
It's more about using the right tool for the task, and
using the right abstraction for the problem. For most
applications, you don't *need* that low-level control so
you naturally trade that ability for more powerful
abstractions. Also, Delphi is a programming environment,
and as a language, it is considerably nicer, but isn't
all that much better than C variants, in my opinion.
Dan.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 10:34:40 GMT
In comp.lang.java.advocacy Zenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ "unrestrictive licence" is an oxymoron?]
: An "unrestricted" license my allow for any and all usage, so long as
: you don't hold the copyright holder responsible for any possible
: damages or other liabilities should they occur.
In fact, you can often try to do that. You're just not very likely to
succeed in getting anyone in a court of law to support you, in the face
of an explicit disclaimer.
--
__________ http://alife.co.uk/ http://mandala.co.uk/
|im |yler [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hex.org.uk/ http://atoms.org.uk/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 13:11:20 +0200
From: Bartek Kostrzewa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux community.
Hello,
I just wanted to express my extreme gratitude to the Linux community. It
seams to me that *.advocacy is the right place to tell the world what I
think :o)
So, thanks to all of you again for bringing me to Linux 4 years ago and
making an *almost* admin out of me (euhmm... actually experienced home
user, but who cares if it compiles, right?)
Now I just need some more games for my box, and a DVD player (I have
DeCSS, but it's a pain to decrypt every DVD before watching it :( ) and
yet another C learning book, maybe I'll write that DVD player myself...
uhhmm... nah, that's only a dream.
Sincerely,
Bartek Kostrzewa - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<<< http://technoage.web.lu >>>
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 11:22:12 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> Everyone is a 'formalist'. They just have different conceptions of what
> rules to 'formalize'.
'Formalism' is a philosophical position about reality along the lines
of "if it can't be formalized then it's meaningless and can't exist."
> So you're assuming there is no benefit to being able to navigate a
> filesystem?
No. I'm saying that those people who won't or can't learn how to
do this for some reason should not be arbitrarily penalized for it.
> That sounds pretty flakey, to me. And I'm not the type to
> allow assumptions about how people use PCs, though I'll admit that
> 'saving files' is the paradigm I'm most familiar with. I haven't seen
> any reason to believe any other paradigm is more *efficient*, in the
> end.
I do. The Smalltalk system works on an image with orthogonally persistent
objects. It is *extremely* useful to just save the image (snapshot the
system) and have the application I'm running on top of that image keep
all of its internal state; state like the 8 different windows I have open
in 3 different virtual desktops, the exact positions of ALL of those 8
windows, the dozen or so buffers I have open among those 8 windows, the
*uncommitted* changes I have made to *individual panes* inside of the
individual buffers of those 8 windows. If I want to just start changing
a method in a Browser and quit before I've committed the change then
restart and cancel the change, I can do that!
Years ago, when I was new to Linux, I would open 'less' or 'vi' on
many different files in multiple Linux Virtual Consoles. And if I
was in the middle of reading file X, which I couldn't even retrace
the location of again, and I needed to do something else then I just
did it. Now what do you think happened every time I had to reboot?
I was screwed. The only choice I had was to record the filenames and
line numbers of every file viewer and text editor in all of my VCs.
Orthogonal Persistence isn't something I thought might be a good
idea. It's something I *need*!
> >Can you provide an example of something that will never be
> >provided in Unix that you think would make perfect sense in
> >a general purpose OS?
>
> No, not off the top of my head, because I believe that a Unix OS can
> provide all the benefits of a general purpose OS, since it is a general
> purpose OS, in the perfect sense, though not necessary a perfect general
> OS.
You lack imagination.
It doesn't matter that Unix can "provide everything" (and it can't (*))
since it must provide those things *easily*. Performing a given operation
should not be more complicated than it needs to be.
*: As a simple example, it is impossible for users on *the same machine*
to share their own objects in any way, shape or form.
> Yes. Entirely bereft of assumption and intellectually capable of
> dealing with any concept; understanding being entirely subjunctive and
> synthesized by unique recognition of cognizant relevance. Just like me.
An anti-formalist who doesn't believe in formal logic or otherwise
verifying that what he says is in any way meaningful. No thanks.
> >People who have given up on their ideals and have "learned" to be
> >non-judgemental are eager for youth to follow in their diseased
> >footsteps because of fundamental insecurities about their positions.
>
> Never trust anyone over thirty, eh?
Something like that.
> No, it proves, as thousands upon thousands of years of cultural
> development have proven before them, that 'angry young men' may, or may
> not, turn in to wise old men.
And apparently it is your opinion that almost everyone over thirty
is a "wise old man" instead of merely a sell out.
> The ultimate problem of your generation is, indeed, that you know too
> much and understand too little.
A trite aphorism, nothing more.
> Yes, you're right. Yet your idealism is misplaced. Unix is a 'best
> guess effort', and will not be overturned by your fanciful ideas of
> end-result sans user abstraction.
I've said it before and it seems I'm doomed to repeat it: I don't
give a shit about overturning Unix. I'll settle for pissing on it
and wiping it off my hard drive.
------------------------------
From: "colineal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.windows98
Subject: Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time?
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 06:18:11 -0500
You forgot one You must have at least 36 hours a day on your planet and
spend 32 of them learning this os. Sorry .I feel for you. I'm on the s**t
box too. Voodoo 3000 AMD, k63, SBLive! x-gamer, winshaft 98. Jesus can you
think of a worse nightmare! I bet I even crash more than you (not to boast.)
I can manage to figure out when my Internet explorer is gonna crash like ESP
or something. If I open around three more windows from a link right now (by
right clicking) bammo!! I've been messing with this OS from its begining and
I still cannot get it to work flawlessly for a minute either no matter if I
do clean formats, tweak, delete, ect. When I get enough $ to ditch this one
I'd like to see someone get it to work as described (no crashes for a week)
if they can they can go home w/ it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 11:54:52 GMT
Todd Rundgren is a computer geek. Some would say he makes pretty good
music :)
claire
On Sat, 30 Sep 2000 15:16:37 +1000, Chris Sherlock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Perhaps it's because computer geeks don't make cool music.
>
>Chris
>
>Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>>
>> Philo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>> >...don't have alife right now...
>> >but i had one...and probably will again soon
>> >
>>
>> Don't count on it. Once you get into computers you are
>> pretty much done having 'a life'. ;-)
>>
>> If it wasn't for the fact that the girl I ended up
>> marrying had enough guts to almost literally club me over
>> the head and drag me out of my computer room, I probably
>> wouldn't even have the semblance of a life. At least now
>> when I get frustrated with my computers I have someone to
>> complaign to about it :-).
>>
>> Oh, and BTW, I'm only 26 at the moment, and gave up my
>> life for computers about five years ago. Before that I
>> was a guitar geek (and it's still my favorite hobby).
>>
>> So, why are guitar geeks considered cool for their
>> aloofness, and computer geeks are considered outcasts and
>> wierd? Must have something to do with the stage lighting.
>> I have yet to see good stage lighting on a computer geek's
>> desk.
>>
>> --
>>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
