Linux-Advocacy Digest #715, Volume #32 Fri, 9 Mar 01 03:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: What does IQ measure? (Brock Hannibal)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (WJP)
Re: What does IQ measure? (.)
Re: What does IQ measure? (Brock Hannibal)
Re: GPL Like patents. ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Harddisk for Linux (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Zilla=A9?=)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time ("John S. Dyson")
Re: Sun Blade 100 (Donn Miller)
Re: What Linux MUST DO! - Comments anyone? (Ray Chason)
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: C# ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: C# ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: MS Security ("Bryant Charleston, MCSE")
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time ("JD")
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time ("JD")
Re: GPL, an open mind, options? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time ("JD")
Re: Lotus Notes Client for Linux (Jarmo Ahonen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 20:50:41 -0800
From: Brock Hannibal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> In article <Z9Op6.28092$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike wrote:
> >
> >You're right about the Einstein part: I was being sarcastic. But my score
> >was high enough to put me well into the 99th percentile.
> >
> >-- Mike --
> >
>
> This makes me just poopie.
>
> Charlie
Be sure to wipe, then.
--
Brock
"Put a $20 gold piece on my watch chain so the boys'll know I died
standin' pat"
------------------------------
From: WJP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 22:58:30 -0600
On Thu, 08 Mar 2001 22:03:28 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott
Gardner) wrote:
>On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 11:40:46 +1300, . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>I actually don't know what you're talking about here... in all my recent
>>installations, I've never had to 'fuck with hardware' to get it running.
>>When I had an OOOOOLD version of Linux, things were definitely pretty
>>bad. I was new to it, and all my hardware was new, including a matrox
>>video card. I had so much trouble with it that, yes, I gave up and went
>>back to windows. But since those dark days, I've never had a major
>>problem I couldn't solve with five minutes checking on the net.
>
>You've been luckier than I have. I installed RH 7.0, and here's the
>list of stuff that wouldn't work:
>
//snipped for brevity//
> For current Windows
>users that knew nothing of linux when they bought their computers,
>this would not be the case, so their attempts to install even a recent
>distribution of linux will likely be fraught with no small amount of
>peril.
>
>Scott Gardner
>LT US Navy
Scott,
Your remarks are similar to what I was trying to "put across" in another
thread - but you said it with much more clarity. Thank you!
Bill Powell
USAF/USA Management Systems Analyst (Retired)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(remove the "nospam" to replay)
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 17:57:59 +1300
> > The point I was trying
> > to make is that there is often more than one solution to a problem,
>
> Well, duh.
*yawn* good point.
> Yes that's true enough, but why would the lower IQ score person be
> more or less likely than the higher IQ score person to pick the
> better, but slower and non-obvious way? Or are you constructing a
> mythical scenario that's pretty damned unlikely?
I'm not constructing any scenario. My goal is not to prove that IQ tests
do or don't work. Basically I believe that sort of thing can't be proven
currently... it's entirely possible that in the next ten years someone
will step forward with some observation that completely disproves
everything we have ever thought was fact about intelligence.
MY point is that the smarter person will consider more than one possible
solution before choosing a course of action (where applicable, of
course).
> OK, let's make it a word problem that requires the solution of a
> differential equation then. What then? Is it likely the lower IQ
> person will come up with the "better" solution? Or once again are
> you just constructing a fantasy story to try to refute the validity
> of IQ tests?
Picking questions with only one correct answer doesn't even start to deal
with the point I was making. Why don't you stretch your mind a little
further and think beyond questions that have one single definitive
answer? Someone else posted a story about a ball stuck in the rafters
and a pile of bricks. There's a nice simple starting point.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 21:02:58 -0800
From: Brock Hannibal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
"." wrote:
>
> > > The point I was trying
> > > to make is that there is often more than one solution to a problem,
> >
> > Well, duh.
>
> *yawn* good point.
>
> > Yes that's true enough, but why would the lower IQ score person be
> > more or less likely than the higher IQ score person to pick the
> > better, but slower and non-obvious way? Or are you constructing a
> > mythical scenario that's pretty damned unlikely?
>
> I'm not constructing any scenario. My goal is not to prove that IQ tests
> do or don't work. Basically I believe that sort of thing can't be proven
> currently... it's entirely possible that in the next ten years someone
> will step forward with some observation that completely disproves
> everything we have ever thought was fact about intelligence.
>
> MY point is that the smarter person will consider more than one possible
> solution before choosing a course of action (where applicable, of
> course).
>
> > OK, let's make it a word problem that requires the solution of a
> > differential equation then. What then? Is it likely the lower IQ
> > person will come up with the "better" solution? Or once again are
> > you just constructing a fantasy story to try to refute the validity
> > of IQ tests?
>
> Picking questions with only one correct answer doesn't even start to deal
> with the point I was making.
Oh, so your dealing with problems that don't have a best solution
then. I see. Well if they don't have a best solution what makes you
think you can determine which of several solutions is a "better"
solution?
> Why don't you stretch your mind a little
> further and think beyond questions that have one single definitive
> answer?
See above.
> Someone else posted a story about a ball stuck in the rafters
> and a pile of bricks. There's a nice simple starting point.
Whatever. Sounds to me like you haven't thought through the
consequences of your off the cuff statements.
--
Brock
"Put a $20 gold piece on my watch chain so the boys'll know I died
standin' pat"
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 05:07:13 GMT
"Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> IANAL, but upon reading section 0 I get the clear impression that both
> static and dynamic linking do taint. Upon describing a "derivative work"
> there is no timeframe specified when the "derivative work" should
> contain (a portion of) the Program, so you should consider the worst
> possible case, i.e. in any moment, even only during runtime.
> I don't need addendums or mailing lists to come to that conclusion. This
> distinction is not as clear IMHO when you consider a program that runs
> on distributed systems and interfaces via some protocol (e.g. CORBA
> objects). I would tend to consider such parts as distinct code, not part
> of each other. Some clarification about this part is very due IMHO.
I don't understand why the communication method between two components
should determine whether they become 'derived' from each other or
not. Would using a java method directly be different than using
the same via RMI? Is there a difference between using a .dll in
process or running it in another process? What about dynamic
linking via dlopen() where the code in question decides at runtime
to link in another library - often ones that didn't even exist when
the calling code was written? How can something be 'derived' from
other code written in the future?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Zilla=A9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux.mandrake,alt.os.linux.slackware,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: Harddisk for Linux
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 00:17:05 -0500
> Jerry Wong wrote:
> I want to buy a 30G Harddisk to install Linux (Red Hat 7.0). I heard
> that Lilo has problem for the harddisk over 1024 cylinder. Has this
> problem be overcome?
Please lose the HTML posting... But you will probably have less problems
with the size of the drive, than the potential problems you might have
if you're using an ATA-100 drive & controller...
------------------------------
From: "John S. Dyson" <[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: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 00:48:16 -0500
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message =
news:987i5a$f1i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy JD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>=20
> : "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message =
news:986hs3$br6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> :>
> :> Here's a free clue: Freedom is optimized when *some* reasonable
> :> limits exist. Laissez-faire approaches do not optimize freedom.
> :> Anarchy does not lead to the greatest freedom, it simply leads to
> :> whatever bullies have power becoming the ones in charge.
> :>
> : Of course, your claim about 'Anarchy' has nothing to do with the
> : GPL not being free. That is a perfect example of reducing the
> : argument to the absurd... A free license doesn't cause anarchy.
>=20
> : Misleading claims like: "The GPL is a license of free software" =
isn't
> : anarchy, communism or capitalistic... That statement about the GPL
> : being free is a lie.
>=20
> Only in the same sense that NOTHING ELSE is that 'free' either.
> you are setting the bar so high that everyrhing possible will
> fail.
>
It is a fact that GPL software is much less free than other software =
that
doesn't even make an issue of being free or not: e.g. BSD licensed =
software.
By calling the GPLed software 'free', it only confuses the issue.
One very reasonable indicator for software being free is if you have a =
binary
only executable, or source code, and you can distribute the binary or =
source
code with no additional restrictions or considerations. Free software =
doesn't
require reviewing conditions for redistribution, because it is naturally =
redistributable
in part or as a whole.
GPLed software just isn't free, by a VERY MINIMAL definition as outlined
above.
So, I don't agree that, for example, that it is resonable to consider =
the old
or new BSD license a non-free license. It is even less reasonable to =
call
the new BSD license a non-free license.
Open-source is a consideration for free software, but only ONE =
consideration.
John=20
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 01:33:41 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sun Blade 100
J Sloan wrote:
> Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>
> > DOn't waste your time running crap on a Sparc, use Solaris for
> > christsake!
>
> There are a number of satisfied sparc-linux users who
> would take issue with your statements.
Don't forget about NetBSD as well. You'd think that NetBSD or Linux
would be a great thing to run on an older SPARC. For example, would you
run the lastest version of Solaris on an old IPX? I think not! That
thing would crawl. You'd want NetBSD or Linux on there if possible,
because: 1.) both Linux and NBSD are lighter than Solaris 2.) a box
that old doesn't require Sun vendor support.
====== 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: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Linux MUST DO! - Comments anyone?
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 06:44:51 -0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert) wrote:
>http://www.netslaves.com/comments/983976069.shtml
My biggest gripe was her description of the installation procedure
she went through all those years ago. First, Slackware has never
been accused of being the most newbie-ready distro around. Second,
even Slackware installs nowadays by booting from CDROM.
This part was at best disingenuous, and at worst outright slander.
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 00:58:25 -0600
"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Did you ever look into those API's? Well, I did. I was used to special
> > > purpose real-time OS's, but customers wanted nice GUI's, so I
considered
> > > trying to use Windows environment, and I started looking into Windows
> > > not by a casual user point of view, but by a developer's point of
view.
> > > After that I had no other idea than to find an alternative solution.
> > > I've never seen such a mess of inconsistent idiotic things, with no
> > > plan, no design philosophy, no logic behind. Lots of different API's
to
> > > do the same thing, just because the first one takes some parameters
from
> > > global data (forgetting the multitasking environment), the second one
> > > just provides a flag to tell apart two different cases out of 50
> > > possibilities, then 48 more to cope with the other possibilities, and
so
> > > on.
> >
> > I have no idea what you're talking about here.
>
> I had no doubt about that. But it's your problem, not mine.
>
> [snipped the rest because writer has no idea of what he's answering
> about]
Fuck off Giuliano, this is about as disengenuos as you can get, and highly
dishonest.
Come back when you can actually contribute to a discussion.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: C#
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 01:04:32 -0600
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:988rdj$t8m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > The Java bytecode was designed for the limitations of interpretation.
Why
>
> Indeed. One must wonder why the same limitations are in C#, when it is
> not interpreted.
No, IL is optimized for compiling, not interpreting.
> Oh yeah, its because microsoft pays their programmers 40K per year and
> requires 55 hour workweeks.
C# and much of the IL was designed by Anders Hejlsberg, the key architect of
Borland's Delphi.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: C#
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 01:06:11 -0600
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Java isn't interpreted.
> >
> > Java is interpreted, it can be compiled, but the language is designed
and
> > implemented as an interpreted language.
>
> No, it isn't interpreted. I can say I've never used a Java
> interpretor, and I've done a lot of Java development.
>
> Just because something doesn't compile into ia32 doesn't mean it's
> interpreted.
What are you using to execute your java applications?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 01:10:40 -0600
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:988tq6$i1e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> BSD socket code was put into Windows, a non-free (in both senses of
> the word) product. Originally it had been giving credit to BSD
> in some verbiage, but it dropped that now that the newer BSD liceses
> no longer require mentioning where you got your code from. This is
> an example of making some BSD licensed code non-free. It's true
> to say that the GPL goes too far by requiring all derivative code to
> be released, but the BSD doesn't go far enough, because it doesn't
> even require that its own code be released, even if unmodified.
And completely false. The Winsock headers still contain the BSD copyrights.
------------------------------
From: "Bryant Charleston, MCSE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS Security
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 07:19:19 GMT
Now THIS is scary!
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Charlie Ebert wrote:
> >
> >http://www.sans.org/newlook/alerts/NTE-bank.htm
> >
> >
> >Charlie
> >
>
>
> http://www.techrepublic.com/article.jhtml?id=r00220010308bot01.htm
>
> Charlie
>
------------------------------
From: "JD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 02:24:38 -0500
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9897sd$ln6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> If they can achieve their
> goal of dominating both the server and client market, then they won't
> have any reason to 'play nice' with the original TCP protocol.
>
It would likely be a bad idea to use the BSD TCP/IP stack for any purpose than
TCP/IP. Note that rewriting it would likely be wise given a big change in
protocol.
One purpose of FREE software (not the non-free GPL) is for reference implementations
that can be used directly for implementation, upgraded implementation, or just
design guidlines. As such, with FREE software, there is little risk of taint that
could cause redistribution encumberances. With non-Free software like GPL, there
are issues of taint that might cause some difficulties for those who don't want
encumberances (or inconvieniences) against their add-on work.
John
------------------------------
From: "JD" <[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: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 02:27:31 -0500
"Pat McCann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard) writes:
>
> > On 7 Mar 2001 23:56:51 GMT, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > >The key debatable point here is whether or not the GPL's rules are of
> > >the type that lead to greater freedom. I don't think they are,
> > >but I also dislike this line of argument that claims the only
> > >way for a license to be free is for it to have absolutely no rules
> > >attached at all.
>
> Steve,
>
> Your point is not worth debating until we define "greater freedom".
> First, greater than what? Then, what is freedom? Good luck.
>
> (The GNU "free software" freedom is explained as the freedom of users
> to redistribute it , run it, view it, and publish modifications of it.
>
Note that the GPL freedom of redistribution is limited by enumerated
constraints in the license. Free software doesn't need those sorts of
constraints, since they are inconsistant with it (the software) being
free :-).
You'll often hear about the encumberances being immediate deemed
'unimportant' due to some sort of moral judgement, but they still exist.
One is free to judge the GPL as a somehow 'superior' license for one reason
or another, but it isn't a license of free software.
John
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL, an open mind, options?
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 01:27:55 -0600
"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> mlw wrote:
>
> > RMS seems to have made it clear that, by his interpretation of the terms
of the
> > GPL, that an unbiased, pure, interpretation of the GPL is not what he
intends,
> > but more over, that his interpretation (which I do not feel the text of
the GPL
> > 2.0 supports) makes it an all encompassing document.
> >
> > If one reads the GPL, in a vacuum of RMS comments, it seems pretty
reasonable
> > and fair. It is when you apply his definitions of the various terms and
> > comments that the effect is chilling.
>
> Most likely a court would rule on the basis of what the contract *says*,
not on
> the basis of the spin that one party or the other would like to put on it.
In a vacuum, yes. However, the fact that RMS has been saying EXACTLY what
his intent in creating the GPL is for many years and makes the intent
abundantly available, with dated records going back many years, the court
would probably see that as sufficient cause to go by the intent rather than
the wording.
An example i've given before. In the Sun v MS case, the judge agreed with
Sun over the intent rather than the wording of a paragraph which inteded to
prevent the licensee from modifying the functions, but the paragraph
actually read that they weren't allowed to modify or extend the NAMES.
------------------------------
From: "JD" <[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: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 02:45:11 -0500
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:989a88$6ra$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Agreed, we should keep the GPL license to file formats & protocols, not to
> code itself. (Yes, I know that GPL is only for code, so change it.)
> If you had to reveal your file formats & protocols, a lot of problems would
> go away.
>
I might not fully agree with you, but I agree with the essense of what you say... It
seems like the GPL crowd over emphasizes the act of coding as being the product
of a developer. It is the innovation that makes a good, special developer.
Interoperable standards are much more important for mutual benefit... ( Standards
are much more important for the 'greater good' of society than silly source code.
Of course, GPL doesn't guarantee 'source code' or binaries, or global sharing to
anyone anyway :-)).
By trying to cheapen 'programming', the GPL tends to weaken the already weak position
of programmers in the marketplace, and tries to guarantee the access to code by the
marketeers. There is only room for a few of the 'GPL consulting companies', and having
been involved in Silicon valley, I have some stories to tell about the rather
non-software
quality based competition methodologies used. Such strategies make those 'support
organizations' actually have no better behavior than they so-called great satan of
software :-).
John
------------------------------
From: Jarmo Ahonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.groupware.lotus-notes.misc
Subject: Re: Lotus Notes Client for Linux
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 09:50:05 +0200
Marten Kemp wrote:
> Jarmo Ahonen wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > If you out there would like to buy a Linux version
> > of Lotus Notes Client, please go and fill the
> > Notes Client Platform survey at
> > www.notes.net
> >
> > Let IBM/Lotus/Iris know that you want a
> > native Linux client. (At least my employer
> > would like to buy quite a few.)
> >
> > Best regards
> > Jarmo Ahonen
>
> Is there a Notes server, or do I have to use Domino?
> -- Marten Kemp
Hi,
Notes server = Domino. Naming coventions, you know. :-)
Best regards
Jarmo Ahonen
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
