Linux-Advocacy Digest #615, Volume #32 Sat, 3 Mar 01 12:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Craig Kelley)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("JD")
Re: [OT] .sig (Ian Woods)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Craig Kelley)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Craig Kelley)
Crimosoft will get off scot-free (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Maximum Linux Magazine Is Going Out Of Business- when? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: KDE or GNOME? (Karel Jansens)
Re: Microsoft dying, was Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux (Karel
Jansens)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Karel Jansens)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (The Ghost In The Machine)
Emacs vs. proprietary solutions (was: Re: why open source software is better) (Per
Abrahamsen)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (The Ghost In The Machine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Date: 03 Mar 2001 08:10:28 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard) writes:
> This is standard GPV zealot doublethink. You *cannot* remove freedoms from
> the original code. That code is now, and will always be, free. If that were
> not the case, then the BSD codebase would have disappeared into SunOS a
> long, long time ago.
>
> Freedom must necessarily include the freedom to do things that piss you off,
> or else it is a hollow shell. The BSD license does, and the GPV does not.
> That is why calling the GPV free is a baldfaced lie.
Enforced freedom.
Whether it's an oxymoron or not depends on who you are.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "JD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 10:15:36 -0500
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:97qm1h$3op$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
.
> >
> > And for the recipient.
>
> No. The recipient may receive it with restrictions.
>
The GPL creates restrictions for redistribution. The BSDL has no such restrictions,
other than giving credit. The restrictions for GPL redistribution can be having
to give your work away, in the same way that restrictions for commecial redistribution
can be to give money away. For commecial purposes, money is equivalent in many
ways to work-time or work-product.
Free software doesn't constrain the freedom of those who redistribute code. It doesnt
add conditions or create additional requirements (including payment of money or
code.)
For example, for fun, link a GPLed library with your own code. The entire work
becomes redistribution encumbered (you must be able to provide source code),
especially if there is no other GPLed library with the same interface. Not only is
the GPL a restrictive license, but it invokes the much hated interface copyright
concept (per RMS.)
By affecting your freedom (the owner of the code), by having to make a choice between
using the library or not by giving your source code to the recipient, the software is
no
longer free. Therefore, the GPL takes your freedom away, and the software library
that was licensed under the GPL is certainly not free.
That doesn't mean that it might not be somehow morally good to entice people to
give their source code to another, that ends up being a cost of using the GPLed work.
Justify it all you want, but GPLed code isn't free.
Claims that the GPL disallows restrictions are nonsense, becuase you can use the
same argument that software can require payment of money. That licensed software
for money disallows restrictions on the flow of someone elses' money :-).
John
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Woods)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: [OT] .sig
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 15:19:28 +0000 (UTC)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Kulkis) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>Ian Woods wrote:
>>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Kulkis) wrote in
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>And yet, you continute to waste bandwidth on the issue.
Continually wasting bandwidth is also not topical in comp.lang.c
>You make Daffy Duck look like a genius.
Daffy ducks geniatic appearance is, you guessed it, not topical in
comp.lang.c
(note... since the topicallity of comp.lang.c probably isn't topical in
comp.os.linux.advocacy, any similar posts from me will not be cross
posted.)
Ian Woods
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: 03 Mar 2001 08:23:04 -0700
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > I think this debate is silly anyway; it's pretty obvious that
> > Microsoft charges more than they need to, look at their enormous
> > profits. They have every right to do so, but denying that Windows
> > costs more than it should is silly.
>
> This is a nasty proposition. If they charged a price that was in
> line with "typical profits" of a company, they would be accused of
> dumping and preventing competition by making it impossible for
> another company to make a profit selling at the same prices.
That's why it sucks to be a monopoly. One shouldn't aspire to it.
> MS's profits are because of their large volume. If they had 20-40%
> of the market, they would probably lose money in their current
> spending level. That means that no company could spend what MS
> spends on R&D without having at least a 50% share of the market, and
> as such would not be able to develop the technology to compete.
Now you're getting it! They spend enormous resources for the single
purpose of ensuring that they continue to have enormous resources.
It's a self-perpetuating eventuality that has no consumer interest at
heart.
Microsoft makes some very nice products. They have some brilliant
engineers working there. They also have some of the most restrictive
and beligerent management in the world.
> > Windows XP is the same thing as Windows 2000; they use the same NT
> > core that NT4 and NT3 did.
> >
> > Windows ME isn't much cheaper than Windows 2000.
>
> Windows XP will ship in three major versions. Personal, Pro, and
> Server. Pro is equivelant to Windows 2000 today and will cost about
> the same. Personal has fewer features and will cost what ME costs
> today.
Just like NT4 had a workstation, server and enterprise product that
were all the same thing?
> > > I think that's a far stretch. Electronic Publishing has gone through
> the
> > > roof. The markets for these software packages are orders of magnitude
> more
> > > than they were 10 years ago.
> >
> > Yes, but most people use Microsoft Word and not professional tools.
>
> Most professionals do not, and the market for professionals has
> increased greatly.
Regardless; I know one single person who owns PageMaker. I know
dozens who own Photoshop. Adobe hasn't made a new major version of
PageMaker in over three years now. They've come out with 2 new
versions (5 and 6) of Photoshop in the same time.
Photoshop is mass-market, Pagemaker is a niche one. Photoshop is less
than half the price that it was 5 years ago. Pagemaker is the same
price.
> > Because it's not *worth* that much for a word processor. Microsoft
> > gets away with it because they have enforced compatibility (IMHO).
> > This is the reason why the monopoly is a bad thing for consumers, and
> > is the core of the argument.
>
> Wordperfect can read and write word documents just fine.
Then why isn't it the market leader?
It costs about 1/4th as much as Word. It is just as stable as Word.
It has all the *word processing* features of Word.
(hint: It can't read Word documents "just fine", especially when OLE
is being utilized)
> > WordPerfect, in short, *can't* compete because the market isn't fair.
>
> How is that MS's fault? What could they do to prevent that?
How about competing on merit instead of bundling Office Home Edition
with their monopoly product (Windows)?
They've already done their damage with Word 97. WordPerfect couldn't
read those files for at least a year, in which time the remaining
users moved over to the Microsoft camp. Some of us just threw our
hands in the air and moved to a more sane solution that didn't involve
a monopoly product.
We haven't had the same problem since.
> > I know you're going to disagree, but that's the heart of the argument
> > as described by Orin Hatch (R-Utah), 18 states' attrouney's general,
> > the US Department of Justice and the very conservative judge Jackson
> > (appointed by Ronald Reagan).
>
> Uhh.. I didn't see Wordperfect mentioned in the trial.
It's the same issue.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: 03 Mar 2001 08:26:33 -0700
Amphetamine Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, actually, almost everyone I know who has used both WordPerfect
> and Word much prefers WordPerfect. And the same with Word Pro. That
> is a truly excellent WP! There are lots of great ones out there.
> Ever try Describe or XYWrite? Do. The saddest thing about the MS
> monopoly is how much much superior products were illegally murdered by
> Bill Gates. And we all pay for that. :(
And the *really* sad thing is that Word is actually a great product
if Microsoft would just let it compete on merits without "bundling" it
with your new Sony Vaio (no, you can't remove WORD from the laptop;
you MUST PAY FOR IT when you buy the thing).
Now we have Microsoft DHCP, Microsoft DNS, Microsoft SOAP (.net) and
Microsoft CIFS/SMB (NTDOM).
But no, their monopoly is harmless....
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Crimosoft will get off scot-free
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 15:34:48 GMT
I'm basing this assertion on the DOJ mess involving only the
Netscape debacle which occurred... aeons ago. That crap
is but a small part of Crimosoft's predatory tactics, but
it is essentially the only part allowed into testimony.
Bill Gates used resources of the Harvard computer center
to run a business, and got his wrists slapped.
Looks like he won't get even a wrist slapping this time.
What a travesty. The most nauseating worms are the
slipperiest.
Chris
--
[X] Check here to always trust content from Chris
[ ] Check here if you're a dazed follower of Crimosoft
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 15:39:42 GMT
JD wrote:
>
> Free software doesn't constrain the freedom of those who redistribute code. It
>doesnt
> add conditions or create additional requirements (including payment of money or
> code.)
>
> For example, for fun, link a GPLed library with your own code. The entire work
> becomes redistribution encumbered (you must be able to provide source code),
> especially if there is no other GPLed library with the same interface. Not only is
> the GPL a restrictive license, but it invokes the much hated interface copyright
> concept (per RMS.)
>
> By affecting your freedom (the owner of the code), by having to make a choice between
> using the library or not by giving your source code to the recipient, the software
>is no
> longer free. Therefore, the GPL takes your freedom away, and the software library
> that was licensed under the GPL is certainly not free.
So you're saying that using the standard C/C++ libraries as embodied in gcc
means your software is encumbered. Horse shit.
--
[X] Check here to always trust content from Chris
[ ] Check here if you're a dazed follower of Bill Gates
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Maximum Linux Magazine Is Going Out Of Business- when?
Date: 3 Mar 2001 15:59:39 GMT
Just picked up the new issue (Mar/Apr 2001) of Maximum Linux at
my local supermarket. Cd is full of programs. Haven't opened it
yet, but they have not died 'yet'. BTW, would you rather spend
$8-US @ the store or $4- by mail for a promised issue. Especially
when you noticed it first in the store. If I see any future
issues I'll scap them up. The editorial content seems to me to be
very good and miles ahead of the usual PC mag 'M$ fluff'. Also
the mag could easily survive a trip thru the washing mashine.
Solid like Linux.
Vacuo
"Osugi Sakae" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Wiley Post"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > The thiefs at Maximum Linux magazine stole my 30.00 subscription fee
> > almost a year ago. They never sent me any magazines and now they are
> > closing down. Good!!!
>
> I second that. I subscribed because it looked like it was aimed at a
> newbie like me (Linux Journal is high quality but a bit over my head).
> Fschers haven't sent me a single issue yet. It is refund time.
>
> --
> Osugi "I now have a lawyer" Sakae
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE or GNOME?
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 16:13:06 +0100
Rex Ballard wrote:
> It's a mixed bag. KDE has lots of eye candy and a similar look and feel
> to Windows ME
> and Windows 2000 (which makes sense since Windows tried to emulate the
> look and feel
> of both CDE/KDE and Motif). Many of the applications are remarkably
> similar to Windows,
I was under the impression Windows is a tuned-down copy of Presentation
Manager/WorkPlace Shell (pretty obvious if one compares the Windows 95
"interface" to Warp, which predated Win95). Did CDE and Motif predate PM?
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
]]] "Go go gadget linux!" Zzzooommm!! [[[
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft dying, was Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 16:25:21 +0100
Joel Barnett wrote:
>
> I understand it all, it's just that it isn't true. In fact I recently
> bought a new AMD Duron 700 based pc with no OS, MS or otherwise. I already
> own W95 and do not need to buy it or another version of Windows.
>
I believe you. So how much cheaper was it, compared to a system with an O/S
already installed?
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
]]] "Go go gadget linux!" Zzzooommm!! [[[
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 16:34:34 +0100
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> Then I will rephrase what I said.
>
> I'm surprised any OS or application needs extra or multiple drivers in
> this day an age. All the drivers (and there should just be one set) ought
> to be in the OS, not in an application. Is that clear enough for you?
>
But that is just your opinion. Other people may have different ideas about
what they prefer (I know e.g. that I do like the fact that Applix Office
has native, fast drivers for PCL printers which bypass the Ghostscript
pipe).
So we come to the conclusion that this entire thread, which you have
baptised as an example of a linux flaw, has been about the fact that _you_
prefer things done differently than others.
Well duh...
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
]]] "Go go gadget linux!" Zzzooommm!! [[[
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 16:33:41 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Amphetamine Bob
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 02 Mar 2001 22:46:51 -0800
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Craig Kelley wrote:
>>
>> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > > >
>> >
>> > Wordperfect can read and write word documents just fine.
>
>Wrong again, Erik. Gong! There is no product on the market that can
>read and write Word docs, or any other evil proprietary MS formats.
Pedant point.
There are a few programs (OpenOffice/StarOffice for one, WP for another,
as you already mention) that attempt to read Word documents. It's not
clear how successful they are, of course -- especially since Word
can't read its *own* (older) format(s) at times, never mind its
competitors.
[snip for brevity]
>> If they
>> weren't so *afraid* of losing (Bill Gate's paranoia at work, I
>> suppose) all the time, they could actually work with other
>> companies and people instead of against them all the time.
>
>This will never happen. Anyone that knows anything about MS knows
>they are evil to the core. The only solution is total destruction.
>Hence the name of this newsgroup. ;)
I for one would hope that Microsoft self-destructs because they
lose their market monopoly. Ideally, Linux would do them in!
(If not Linux, a combination/panoply of Linux, FreeBSD, Freedows,
BeOS (if they're still around), JavaOS (ditto), etc.)
One can dream, anyway. :-) Of course, by then Microsoft may have
spread to other locales -- the X-box is a clear attempt for them
to attempt to get into the gaming market, for example.
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 26d:13h:00m actually running Linux.
It's a conspiracy of one.
------------------------------
From: Per Abrahamsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Emacs vs. proprietary solutions (was: Re: why open source software is better)
Date: 03 Mar 2001 17:39:59 +0100
[ FUT: gnu.misc.discuss ]
David Masterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As an example, any company that wanted to develop a proprietary next
> generation Emacs (let's say one that was fully multi-tasking and
> allowed any programming language to be plugged into it in the way
> Elisp is along with other bells and whistles) couldn't possibly hope
> to compete with the "free" (cost, not freedom) Emacs.
Hmmm... Maybe because they targeted the wrong areas. Emacs has been
free on win32 for a long time, and free on DOS before that. Yet I
don't see it threaten the proprietary text editors or IDE's for that
platform. The proprietary solutions mainly compete on areas that it
is hard for free software developers to get enthusiastic about, such
as integrating and conforming to the environment, user friendly
customization options, and a light learning curve.
And even in features the proprietary solutions aren't doing that bad,
SlickEdit has a featurelist that looks like Emacs, and recently Emacs
has been copying features from Visual Studio rather than the other way
around.
The people who use Emacs on MS Windows are mostly people who'd rather
use Unix, plus a few Gnus enthusiasts and TeX users.
I hope you are right, that Emacs is doomed to outcompete the
proprietary solutions because it is free, however I don't see it
happen right now.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 17:01:29 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 03 Mar 2001 04:53:34 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>Amphetamine Bob wrote:
>>
>> Dave wrote:
>> >>
>> > It's too late now because of the DMCA,
>>
>> Ok, clue me in, someone, what is this obviously fucked-up, Bill
>> Gates-type law?
>
>Digital Mellinium Copyright Act
>
>Something that's going to get overturned by the Supreme Court
One wonders.
Napster is still stuck in the court system, and is most likely going to
have to bow down to the music industry, at least in the interim;
presumably, they'll appeal. Ramifications of decisions for the music
industry may perambulate all over the Internet (what is a website if
not an efficient method for distributing copyrighted [and non-copyrighted,
such as _Alice in Wonderland_ and the Bible] [+] material? what happens
if one archives that material in an offline cache for later viewing,
then distributes that cache? what happens if a Content Delivery Network
such as Akamai propagates a web site without the copyright holder's
consent? what happens if the Internet propagates data packets without
the copyright holder's consent?).
This could get real interesting -- and not in a good way. It could
also affect Linux, GNU, and anything else: is modification of
a GNU copylefted source file "fair use"? Is modification of a
general design (Unix) or "look and feel" "fair use"? (I forget the
participants, but there was an issue some years back regarding
the duplication of menus -- back then one used '/' to access them
-- on spreadsheets! I think sanity prevailed in that case, fortunately.)
Mind you, the original Copyright Act needed tweaking anyway -- it didn't
allow for violations of copyright over electronic media. But a simple
extension of those violations (e.g., it's illegal to copy a book),
which is apparently what we have now, is going to have some goofy
issues, such as how to find the copy on occasion -- especially if
someone encrypts it on a hard drive and has the private key on
a removable cartridge, drive, or card, which conveniently disappears
as soon as the police get too close. (I'll leave the mechanics
of such disappearance to the interested hacker. :-) )
It gets even more interesting when one uses HTTPS [*] instead of
HTTP; sniffers might have a slight problem even detecting the
violation and the police would have to rely on the copyright
holder's and violator's website logs for evidence of an illegal copy,
assuming the violator bothers. Couple that with the search engine/
peer-to-peer copy scheme Napster was using (I don't think they
were encrypting) and now law enforcement has a real problem:
"his website says you violated the law; you're going to jail!".
And then there's the mechanics of authorization. Is posting text
on a Website (or, for that matter, Usenet!) publishing it, making
it available for (legal? illegal?) copy, or both?
My brain hurts.
[rest snipped]
[+] Actually, I'm not quite sure of the status of materials such
as these. _Alice in Wonderland_ et al was written by Lewis
Carroll (sp?), and no amount of hand-waving can take that
away, although there's the issue of modification and redistribution
of an intentionally-corrupted copy. The Bible was written
by a lot of somebodys; presumably the church would have an
"official" version, but again, somebody could get real cute.
My understanding is that the copyright has expired in both
cases and that they are in the public domain; the Gutenberg
project (www.gutenberg.org) may have information on this.
[*] HTTPS = HTTP+TLS+some additional headers for certificate validation,
if memory serves; cf RFC2246 and RFC2068.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 26d:13h:09m actually running Linux.
No electrons were harmed during this message.
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
