Linux-Advocacy Digest #646, Volume #32 Mon, 5 Mar 01 01:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows... (Donn Miller)
Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/ (Bloody Viking)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (J Sloan)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Steve Mading)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Ed Allen)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Steve Mading)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Steve Mading)
GPL Like patents. (mlw)
Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/ (Bloody Viking)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Why Linux Is Giving Microsoft a Migraine (Bloody Viking)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Steve Mading)
Re: Time for a Windows reinstall! (Bloody Viking)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Ian Pulsford)
Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows... (Steve Mading)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 23:43:31 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows...
Bob Hauck wrote:
> Install Cygwin then, and use bash. Also has a vi clone (vim I think),
> the usual GNU utilities, gcc, etc. It even comes with ssh (hi Chad).
Yeah, Cygwin comes with vim. IMO, Cygwin is one of the bright spots of
working with Windows right now. I love the bash port. I also like the
fact that you can still use DOS devices, but in a nix context. For
example, to copy a file from a floppy, like say readme.txt, to your
working directory, you'd do
cp //A/readme.txt ~
> Well, there is that. I prefer a real Unix too, but if you have to use
> NT, Cygwin is great.
Yep. I also compiled XEmacs on Win ME using Cygwin. It's really
fantastic as an IDE, and I don't have to give up my favorite unix tools.
Cygwin has gotten a lot better since it's been first introduced. Also,
I like the fact that you can opt to not link w/ the posix layer by using
the -mno-cygwin switch to gcc. I like the fact that I have gcc on other
platforms. Cygwin is kind of neat in that you can compile gcc on Linux
as a cross-compiler with the "Cygwin" arch. This allows you to build
Windows executables on a Linux machine using gcc as a cross-compiler.
Then, you can use Wine to test out the resulting executables. One
caveat: you have to make sure your exe's have a .exe extension. ;-)
But, I'd prefer to stay away from Windows altogether. The only reason,
for me, to use it is that there's always a strange piece of Win HW, a
WinScanner, or Windows-only app that I have to run.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/
Date: 5 Mar 2001 04:47:55 GMT
Marada C. Shradrakaii ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: However, does that mean it will grow linearly? As I recall, the standard home
: circuit offers about 120V, 15A (In the US)-- ~1800W. There will probably be
: some discontent when people need to rewire their houses for new machines.
Not to mention the _electric bill_ for running such a power hog, especially in
the summer.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 04:50:28 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 07:53:55 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Other trolls usenet postings are of no interest to me; I have my hands
> >full as it is.
>
> Oh I see your Linux machine has finally arrived :)
hmm, from the sound of it I'd say he's still struggling with
windoze....
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[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: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 04:55:53 GMT
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:97t59h$pcq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > The GPL creates restrictions for redistribution. The BSDL has no
> >> > such restrictions, other than giving credit. The restrictions for
> >> > GPL
> >>
> >> BUT it allows for further restrictions ot be introduced.
> >
> > Only on additional work by other people. The original code remains as
> > available as ever from the original author without any further
> > restrictions.
>
> I believe you don't have to modify the work to change the license.
You cannot 'change' the license on the existing work unless you are the
one who owns it. The BSD license does not have terms that require
it to be changed for most purposes.
> Besides the origional is not necessarily easy to obtain.
The original is as easy to obtain as the author wants it to be. Why
should it be anyone else's choice, and why should someone else
writing additional components that might be used together in a
derived work not have the same choice?
The GPL does not require that anything be easy to obtain, only that the
sources be as obtainable as binaries. It is a reasonable assumption
that many programs are not shared at all because of the restrictions
the GPL makes on the way it must be done.
> >> > 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.)
> >>
> >> Neither does it constrain the freedom of the recipients, but if someone
> >> gets something under the BSDL and distributes it under the EPL, the
> >> recipient has restrictions, not freedom.
> >
> > The recipient has the freedom to make his own choice about using this
> > work which can't even exist with any restrictive GPL components.
>
> Choice is only one measure of freedom. there are others.
There are also fanatical demands made to advance a political agenda
and assert control over others that claim to be descriptions of freedom
when they are really just the opposite. How do you tell the difference
when the result is taking away choices?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: 5 Mar 2001 04:59:56 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: 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?
Is it at all clear to you that this is in no way a condemnation of
the OS itself, though? This is a "problem" that also exists in
MS Windows, where if an application chose to misbehave by bypassing
the system's drivers in favor of its own, it could.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Allen)
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 05:01:03 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JS PL <js@plcom> wrote:
>
>"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> In engineering they teach a rule of thumb that one quantity being
>> over ten times the next largest means than the smaller can be
>> ignored because the larger totally dominates the input.
>
>That's what Apple was probably saying just before the PC hit the market.
>It's why they gambled and made the worst decision in their history, not
>allowing clones.
>
Apple has less than 9% of the market therefore they cannot have a
significant effect on it.
>> Your fantasy of "it can't be a monopoly if it is not 100%' was not
>> true for Standard Oil either, it did not save them from a breakup
>> either.
>
>Completely different barrier to entry with software, therefore that's a piss
>poor anology.
>
The "barrier" which software companies use is depending on government
force of law to back theirs instead of just depending on the cost of
building production facilities, yes.
The voluntary production of code by the Open Source community
represents an investment that even IBM's Lou Gerstner says that they
could not match.
That is a pretty big barrier when one of the largest companies in
the world cannot afford table stakes.
Don't try to claim a low barrier because an individual niche can be
entered by small companies. That does not address the larger issue.
Because it is the combination of lots of little barriers which exist
for every app and utility which looms large enough to keep the likes
of IBM from attempting it.
>>
>> The percentage does not make a monopoly, that is just market share.
>>
>> Having a large market share can happen by good business pactices, it
>> is the abusing it by acting anticompetitively which breaks the Sherman
>> Act.
>
>Except for government granted monopolies you don't get a large market share
>unless you meet the demands of your customer.
What do you think their "copyright wrapped in a trade secret
license" scam depends on if not law enforcement everywhere ?
That Bill Gates and his father perverted the two into a scam which
has proved so successful is a sign of how little government
agencies, both law enforcement and judicial, understand that thieves
are thieves even when they pervert laws to aid their scam.
> That's why Linux will never convert more than 3 in 1000 Windows users. Even
>if it IS supposedly free. That's also another reason no one likes it. It's
>touted as being free, but it's generally not.
>
>
Touted only by M$ shills. The rest of the world is learning that
the "free" associated with Linux is "freedom" not "no cost".
Freedom of the user from onerous license restrictions and "upgrade
fees" is worth a lot to those who have joined the Community.
As M$ is trying to raise ever more revenue on ever fewer sales their
greedy hand will get visible to ever more people.
Almost all high-school kids have some exposure to Linux and when they
see that their company is sending a fortune to Redmond while their
classmates get along well on Linux more will join the fold to keep
that money within their own company.
M$ is hoping to get GPL outlawed but they will have a hard time
getting it passed when most non monopolist wannabees have it
explained to them.
Sharing of Intellectual Property is the foundation of all Science.
Hardly anybody thinks that Science has not given us all better lives.
--
GPL says
"What's mine is ours,
If you make *OUR* stuff better the result is still ours."
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: 5 Mar 2001 05:02:05 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Any OS that requires multiple copies of drivers per applications has got
: to be the DUMBEST OS around!
That's nice. Now what does that have to do with Linux? (Hint:
"require" is too strong of a word here to describe what is happening.)
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: 5 Mar 2001 05:04:49 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: says...
:> It doesn't _require_ them, it _allows_ them.
:> You get to _choose_.
:> That is a _good_ thing.
:> Unless you are a _dumb_ user.
:> In which case: do _not_ use this O/S.
: Allowing the choice is just as dumb.
Then MS Windows is just as dumb too. (I don't know for sure
if MacOS allows it or not, so I can't tell.)
Experiment: 1 - go onto a windows box. 2 - type gibberish out to
lpt1 or prn at the prompt. 3 - Watch the same thing happen as what
happened with Gimp.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: GPL Like patents.
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 00:15:35 -0500
I have had this thought for a while, and after seeing some criticisms of GPL,
I'm gonna post it. The original purpose of patents was to provide a mechanism
where discoveries and inventions could be made public to advance industry. It
had a couple purposes:
Encourage development by protecting the results of investment.
Make public inventions so that industry can prosper.
The problem today is that patents are used as a legal strategy to limit
industry, but I digress.
GPL is a great mechanism for providing the original spirit of patents, which I
think was a great idea. Someone can implement a GPL program. You are free to
use it. If you want to build upon it, you have a choice: you can contribute
back to GPL or pay the authors.
GPL provides a mechanism to properly compensate the community for the product
of the community, i.e. contribute your modifications.
People argue that this is a form or communism, I think it is the strongest form
of capitalism. GPL code represents a capital investment. (either time and/or
money) If you wish to use GPL code, you MUST compensate the copyright owner. By
releasing something GPL, the copyright owner has agreed that adequate
compensation can consist sharing changes, OR (and this is the important part)
you can negotiate another licensing scheme with the copyright owner.
You are free not to use GPL if you don't want too.
You are free not to use GPL software if you don't want too.
However:
Don't expect any sympathy if you want to use GPL software, for free, and then
charge for your changes. Why should you be able to capitalize on the work of
others without sharing in the cost? Anything less WOULD be communism.
--
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time.
The terror of their tyranny, however, is alleviated by their lack of
consistency.
-- Albert Einstein
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/
Date: 5 Mar 2001 05:13:59 GMT
Edward Rosten ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: If they can ficure out how to grow diamond crystals, and make
: semiconductors on them, that would solve a lot of problems since diamond
: has 10 times the thermal conductivity of copper.
Those chips would REALLY be gems! Faster chips can be had with gallium
arsenide and other exotic materials. A diamond chip would be VERY costly, as
you'd need to be able to manufacture gem-grade diamond wafers. It's not likely
to happen any time soon - or ever.
But switching to copper for the heat sink is doable. An improvement would be
liquid cooling integrated with the chip's housing. Inside the computer would
be the chip, a small water pump, radiator, and fan, like a micro-size version
of a car engine cooling system sans thermostat. Of course, overclockers will
rejoice as they can get better heat dissipation by putting the little radiator
out the window in winter. Or, just using a bigger radiator (such as buying an
oil cooler from an auto parts place) and other assorted tricks.
Brings new meaning to the phrase "analytical engine"!
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[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: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 05:17:44 GMT
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:97t5pr$plf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > Yes, please consider the receiver when the receiver is anyone other
> >> > than a program developer himself, and wants working software,
> >> > software that interoperates with other things that may be propriatary
> >> > and may be willing to pay for it. How is this person's ability to
> >> > obtain and use the well-tested free portion of the code as a part of
> >> > the program he actually wants affected?
> >>
> >> Not everyone in the world has free or broadband access. If I bought
> >> something and got sent the CDs (without source code) I would not have
> >> the code.
> >
> > Not everyone wants or needs code. The burden of getting it should be
> > left to the ones who do want it, not imposed on everyone else.
>
> No but some of us do. It was no burden to get the code along with the CD.
> it would be a burden to get it online.
This is anecdotal evidence at it's worst. You have no idea how much
software is not distributed at all because it would be difficult or
impossible
for the author to meet the GPL demand of how distribution must be handled.
Also, there has always been plenty of open source software available under
*bsd and other less restrictive licenses - and plenty of ways to obtain it.
> >> When I don't have boradband access, it would not be proctical to
> >> download BSD for me to look at the code. Whereas, I paid for Linux on
> >> CD and got the code too. This point is especially important for most
> >> places in the world, since most places do not have unmetered access.
> >
> > Be honest now: how many megabytes of that code have you improved? Has
>
> That is not really relavent. Once in a while I modify a program.
> Sometimes I just look at the code to see what they did.
Of course it is relevant if you are going to make the claim that every
outdated binary must always be accompanied by equally outdated
source, adding to the cost of every distribution whether anyone wants
it or not.
> > it really been too much to download over a modem? Besides, what you
>
> Nothing is too much to download over a modem in theory. But when I'm at
> home, I have one (metered) phonline shared between 4 people. Long
> downloads aren't that fesiable.
Should that be someone else's problem or your own to solve?
> > I thought we were talking about the recipient's freedom, not your
> > unilateral demands. Why do you insist that the recipient not have the
> > freedom to choose the restrictions or lack thereof that are acceptable?
>
> The recipient does not have the choice. The recipient has to put up with
> what the distributer lumped on them. The GPL stope that distributer
> adding new restrictions, but the other licenses don't.
The GPL simply limits what can be distributed at all under its terms. It
has no other scope.
> >> >> However, those licenses enable the distributer to place restrictions
> >> >> on the code, so for the person receiving it it will not be as free.
> >> >
> >> > Beg your pardon, but it those things will be non-existant with GPL
> >> > code. I don't see how people mange to confuse that with 'more free'.
> >>
> >> I don't follow. The GPL disallows more restrictions, so the software
> >> maintains its level of freedom, where as the other ones can lose it.
> >
> > Try again. The GPL can only add restrictions. Consider the case
> > where the software you need must include components (say encryption or
> > encoding/decoding methods) that are patented and under control of
> > someone else, and you are perfectly willing to comply with the licensing
> > terms for those components. The GPL restrictions prevent you from
> > obtaining or distributing ANY GPL component used in a derived work (and
> > the FSF considers linking to a library as making a derived work) with
> > these other needed parts. Such a thing cannot legally exist unless you
> > build it yourself, and even that is questionable. So, back to the
> > recipient of such code - his freedom to obtain and use it doesn't exist.
>
>
> But you want to add restrictions to the derived work, thus making it less
> free for the recipient.
No, please show anything I have said that suggests I think any restrictions
should be added. I want less restrictions instead. I want to leave the
choice
of how some new code is distributed to the author of the new parts, and I
want the choice of combining existing, well tested code with existing
code already under different restrictions than the GPL.
> > But you aren't judging freedom at all. You are judging how well the
> > situation meets your own demands. Freedom does not involve reducing
> > the possible ways you can use a piece of code that anyone is allowed to
> > obtain.
>
> No, you're judging freedom by one standard. I'm judging it by a different
> one. Remember there is no such thing as full freedom for everyone, which
> is why anarchy does not work very well.
The GPL consists only of restrictions. It does not relate to freedom at
all.
If it did, we might see some evidence that it was needed to maintain open
access to freely available software, yet instead there is a vast amount of
evidence to the contrary with code under the bsd, artistic, X, and similar
licenses.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is Giving Microsoft a Migraine
Date: 5 Mar 2001 05:23:33 GMT
Edward Rosten ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: mount /whereever/image /mnt/mount_point -oloop
Thanks!
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: 5 Mar 2001 05:29:28 GMT
On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 19:58:09 GMT, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>Perry Pip wrote:
>>
>> Read Judge Jacksons finding of fact part III-F. He says that Microsoft
>> could have sold Win98 for $49 and still have made a reasonalbe
>> profit. The fact that they have a monopoly, which you acknowledge, by
>> the definition of monopoly means they can fix prices.
>
>Ahhh, so that's why Win ME upgrades were only $49!!! I thought it was
>competition from Linux.
I think competition from Linux tends to be underrated, except when
it suits Microsoft to overrate it, and then they do a hilarious
about-face and temporarily become hardcore Linux advocates!
Microsoft's sales are mostly on preloads, but I suspect it's somewhat
harder for them to sell box sets. IIRC, TurboLinux was outselling Win98
in Japan.
The main advantage they've enjoyed is definitely their preload monopoly,
and their strangelhold on the OEMs. I hope this fizzes out or is broken
up.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: 5 Mar 2001 05:21:29 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Thank you for conceding my point that, yes, you CAN write your
: own printf.
: That which is not strictly prohibited is allowed.
Unqualified statements by default take the largest possible scope.
When you say "You can write your own printf" without qualifiers
as to on which compiler it will work and forget to mention that it
will fail on some others, even though they are perfectly legit
compilers, you are at best, telling a half truth. That's a bit like
saying "You are allowed to drive as fast as you feel like in the US",
without mentioning the qualifier "In Montana, during the daylight."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: Time for a Windows reinstall!
Date: 5 Mar 2001 05:35:55 GMT
Aaron Ginn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Well, I've finally run into a problem with Windows that I can't
: solve. Yesterday, I was copying a CD on Windows using Nero. During
: the copy, I saved the ripped image to disk and then copied to my new
: CD. Nero was supposed to delete the CD image after the write but it
: didn't. Yesterday, my C: drive filled up because the CD image was not
: deleted. Now I'm having all kinds of problems with Windows, the most
: annoying of which is that my scanning software does not see my scanner
: anymore. I used the scanner before the CD write and it worked fine.
: Now I can't get the software to even find it. I tried reinstalling
: the drivers, changing the BIOS settings on the parallel port, and
: changing the cable connection to every possible configuration.
: Nothing worked.
Yep, it's time for a reinstall. Or just install Linux and forget Windows.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: Ian Pulsford <[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: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 15:43:40 +1000
mlw wrote:
>
> Pat McCann wrote:
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard) writes:
> >
> > > That is why calling the GPV free is a baldfaced lie.
> [snip]
>
> One man's freedom is another mans prison. Perspective has a very important role
> in the definition of freedom. Should southern plantation owners have had the
> freedom to run their farms as they see fit, or was slavery infringing on
> another's freedom?
>
> A viable freedom requires rules which ensure that one mans freedom does not
> steal another's. For freedom to remain viable, it must not dissolve into
> anarchy. Freedom without some discipline and control is anarchy.
>
> The BSD license is anarchy. A person can contribute code to the world. Someone
> else can build upon this work, and not contribute. This means that someone is
> gaining an advantage from something they do not own.
So what's wrong with that? This is what seems to rankle the noses of
GPL people - that something may be freely given without strings
attached. In the best tradition of giving a gift, 'advantage' does not
concern you.
> In the GPL world, a person can share code with the world. Anyone can come along
> and use and improve this code. To do so, however, they must agree to share in
> the same spirit as the authors who created the code they wish to use. If you
> ask me, this is not unreasonable, nor does it infringe on any freedoms. One
> need not use GNU software at all. if you want to keep it to yourself, you are
> 100% free not to use something with a GPL license.
GPL people seem to think that open-source software needs a clause in the
license to protect it. What of the BSDs, Apache, X11, Mozilla, Perl,
Python? Despite being able to make a closed binary/not needing to
release source, the BSDs (and other non-GPLed open-source projects)
still flourish. People *want* to contribute to open-source, just as
mums want to help out at school. If the idea behind the GPL is to make
software 'free', then it is redundant.
The best part about not using the GPL is that I might make some money
from sales of software and I can then release the code after I have
recouped my expenses and paid for lunch. Another thing that bothers GPL
folk - that money can be made from the sale of software.
The spirit of the BSD license is to give away freely. Someone makes a
proprietary version. Boo Hoo! The original source is still there and
being improved on. It hasn't been 'stolen' as I have heard from a few
postings recently, no need to cry.
The spirit of the GPL OTOH is "we can't trust you to keep this software
open-source".
IanP
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows...
Date: 5 Mar 2001 05:30:48 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: With Linux I can feel the restraints of too many toolkits and the
: ugliness of multiple window managers all straining to get their fingers
: on me.
Too many choices are restraining!
Freedom is slavery!
Oceana is at war with Eurasia. Oceana has always been at war with Eurasia!
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
