Linux-Advocacy Digest #737, Volume #32 Sat, 10 Mar 01 04:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time ("Arthur H. Gold")
Re: What Linux MUST DO! - Comments anyone? (defeated)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (coding isn't programming) ("JD")
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time ("JD")
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time ("JD")
Re: Customising Wrap-Up Screen. (WAS: "It is now safe to shut off your (Mike
Martinet)
Re: Linux Joke (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: What Linux MUST DO! - Comments anyone? (Ian Pulsford)
Re: Macintosh as an alternative to Windows?? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: C# ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: C# ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Customising Wrap-Up Screen. (WAS: "It is now safe to shut off your computer")
("GreyCloud")
Re: Linus Torsvald's machine specification ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: C# (Donn Miller)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 23:51:58 -0600
From: "Arthur H. Gold" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Jay Maynard wrote:
>
> On 9 Mar 2001 20:46:29 GMT, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >So will you admit then that sometimes the total amount of freedom
> >can be increased BY placing certain limits on people? In this case,
> >the freedom of the populace is increased by limiting the freedom of
> >the government.
>
> Nice try, but I'm not falling into your trap.
>
> The freedom of the populace is *guaranteed* by limiting the *powers* of the
> government. Governments don't *have* freedoms. They only *take* them from
> their citizens.
>
> This is in no way analogous to the GPV's putative guarantees of freedom, as
> the freedoms the GPV claims to guarantee are already guaranteed by law. The
> additional restrictions in the GPV are designed for one purpose, and one
> purpose only: to infect as much software as possible in order to bring about
> RMS' communist utopia.
Ah yes. When in doubt, call 'em a commie!
(Hey, it worked for RMN -- _how_ many people died as a
result?)
--ag
--
Artie Gold, Austin, TX (finger the cs.utexas.edu account
for more info)
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Verbing weirds language.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (defeated)
Subject: Re: What Linux MUST DO! - Comments anyone?
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 05:58:04 GMT
On Fri, 09 Mar 2001 16:14:34 +0100, Renate Meijer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
spoke thusly:
>It looks as if the lady does not appreciate choice. In german "die qual
>der wahl" (the agony of choice) is well known. If she prefers a
>secretary to have a default installation, let someone provide her with a
>severely limited distro, but don't take away my choices. Besides, how
>would anyone force me into using software I don't want?
I find the whole rant baffling. Yeah, I ftp'ed Slackware in the early
days (386 with 4mb ram and 40mb harddrive and a 486 with 4mb ram and
whopping 253 mb harddrive) and it was a glorious bitch to install and
configure and a challenge to run, especially for a newbie without the
resources to run X. But when CD ROM drives became common enough for
even me to have one, I bought SuSE 6.3 on CD at a local computer store
and had Linux up and running complete with X in less than an hour. I
personally found it disappointingly easy; as a hobbyist, I like my OS
to throw up a few roadblocks that I have to think my way around.
Since then, I've installed from the same CD to several different PCs
with different hardware configurations and it's been a walk in the
park. And you're right, Renate, she doesn't want choice, as
evidenced by the paragraph:
" When I go to install Linux, I�m assaulted with a bevy of user
interface options. Should I choose GNOME or KDE? Should I, instead,
use good old X11R6 with FVWM-2? Should I install CSH, TSCH, Korn, or
Bash as my default shell? "
The suggestions listed in the article are completely contrary to the
whole idea and appeal of Linux. I find the idea of "a company or
consortium of companies" deciding the way my Linux box should "look
and feel" chilling.
~angela
So many people,
So few bullets
------------------------------
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 (coding isn't programming)
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 01:23:12 -0500
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:98bes2$f5a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> The main complaint of the anti-GPL crowd seems to be that they
> want free software to be a one-way street - they want to be
> parasites of free software rather than participants in it.
>
Of course not: I have probably written more free software than most GPL
writers... GPL isn't free.
The parasites are those who embrace and extend free licenses, like re-licensing
any other free software under the GPL.
Embrace and extend can only work if someone stops working on the software. Writing
code isn't such a big deal away, and seems to be what GPL people are all stuck up on.
The specs are where embrace and extend are so damaging. Little coders forget that the
design is the hard part... There is little innovative GPLed code, because most of it
is
re-implementation. Given that, it is easy to see where GPL advocates think that coding
is the end-all, be-all of programming...
Every time people bring up things like 'modifying TCP/IP' or changing 'Kerberos', it
is the
SPECIFICATION that is vulnerable.
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: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 01:28:38 -0500
"Arthur H. Gold" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jay Maynard wrote:
> >
> > This is in no way analogous to the GPV's putative guarantees of freedom, as
> > the freedoms the GPV claims to guarantee are already guaranteed by law. The
> > additional restrictions in the GPV are designed for one purpose, and one
> > purpose only: to infect as much software as possible in order to bring about
> > RMS' communist utopia.
> Ah yes. When in doubt, call 'em a commie!
> (Hey, it worked for RMN -- _how_ many people died as a
> result?)
>
I don't agree with Jay's extension of GPL into communism, but his claims are
essentially
true. GPL is unnecessary and secondly, the original claims that the license is somehow
'free' is misleading to the point to being dishonest or a lie. This makes the
predominant
advocates who claim that GPL is 'free', and know the limitations of GPL, LIARS.
One cannot get around the fact that the people who advocate GPL as 'free' redefine the
word, or use absurdly specific versions of the word without qualification. The deal is
that the usage is INTENTIONALLY misleading when the usage isn't immediately qualified.
The manifesto and other documents that carefully redefine the term 'free' might be
okay,
but there is no clarification that the usage as redefined in those documents is
'eccentric'
at best.
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: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 01:31:55 -0500
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:98bff5$f5a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jay Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : On 10 Mar 2001 01:25:03 +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :>religiously? i'm not surprised. anyway, could you explain to me why
> :>i see this recurring phrase "congreff shall make no law..." and hey,
> :>what about that bill of rights? they're phrased _negatively_, as
> :>restrictions on uhh, Freedom. it's looking to me that in order to
> :>establish good old-fashioned american-as-apple-pie freedom we have to
> :>have limits (gasp) unfreedom (swoons), at the very least, a limit on
> :>destroying the architecture of freedom. otherwise, as you say, it's a
> :>hollow shell.
>
> : Go back and read the Bill of Rights again, this time for comprehension. It
> : is entirely a set of limits placed on governments (originally, just the US
> : Congress, but later extended by the Fourteenth Amendment and related court
> : cases) to prohibit them from infringing on the rights and freedoms assumed
> : to be inherent in the status of being a free citizen.
>
> So will you admit then that sometimes the total amount of freedom
> can be increased BY placing certain limits on people? In this case,
> the freedom of the populace is increased by limiting the freedom of
> the government.
>
The freedom argument is a straw argument. Suffice it to understand (if those who
are blind will wake-up), that the usage of the term 'free' when describing the GPL
is eccentric AT BEST, and a lie in more typical applications. Those who understand
the GPL, and use the term 'free' in an unqualified manner, are simply perpetuating a
lie,
and their honesty isn't in question... Their lack of honesty is clear, and shows weak
ethics.
John
------------------------------
From: Mike Martinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Customising Wrap-Up Screen. (WAS: "It is now safe to shut off your
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 23:38:26 -0700
Bloody Viking wrote:
>
> I just got done customising the Windows 95 wrap-up screen, the "it's now safe
> to turn off your computer" screen. It now says:
>
> It's now safe to type "mode co80 and light off UNIX, the OS Bill Gates hates!
> GNU's Not UNIX!!!
>
> Thanks! That was after a few hours of quality coding time working on a pet
> snail billpay proggie in C on Linux. For what it's worth, Linux IS UNIX in my
> book, it's a GNU freeware UNIX.
>
> Ah, the pleasure of having the OS of Big Iron on a PC. UNIX is the OS of Big
> Iron computing, and while we may enjoy it on our boxes, it will always be THE
> OS of Big Iron. How could anyone pass up the chance to play with an OS like
> Linux, a PC freeware UNIX? Maybe some of us are hackers (in the good sense of
> the word) after all. (:
>
> --
> 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.
Oh man. You said it. I'm just a geek I guess, but I can't get over
watching Linux (rarely) boot. No pretty clouds while you sit and wonder
what's going on, instead, real ASCII text describing everything the OS
is doing as it comes to life. It means business. The real deal. I
still can't believe getting all this for almost nothing. I continue to
be amazed. I wish I'd found it earlier. I sound like a cult member.
"Big Iron OS on a PC" That about sums it up.
My W95 shutdown screen, ever since I figured out what LOGOS.SYS was:
I'm down,
I'm really down.
MjM
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux Joke
Date: 10 Mar 2001 07:01:04 GMT
On Sat, 10 Mar 2001 04:58:38 GMT, J Sloan wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>> It seems that the purpose of Redhat's major releases is to sabotage
>> compatibility with the previous release.
>
>Well, that's an interesting point of view.
Well, it's not an entirely meritless claim. Every major release of theirs
is incompatible with the others, and in the case of 7.0, there's no
good reason to release an incompatible version, since the lastest
production releases of glibc/g++ are compatible with RH 6.x
>So what's new?
>
>gcc 2.7.x C++ is not binary compatible with gcc 2.8.x.
>gcc 2.8.x C++ is not binary compatible with egcs 1.0.x.
>egcs 1.0.x C++ is not binary compatible with egcs 1.1.x.
>egcs 1.1.x C++ is not binary compatible with gcc 2.95.
>gcc 2.95 C++ will not be binary compatible with gcc 3.0.
Yes, but these are all production releases. The difference here
is that Redhat have released something straight out of CVS which
is not compatible with any release of the product.
To be compatible with Redhat, you need to ship alpha versions of
critical components.
>However, 2.96 is almost fully ISO C99 and ISO C++ 98
>compliant, unlike any previous version of gcc.
g++ 2.95 seems pretty close to me, though there are a few major annoyances:
g++ 2.95 which the new release seems to fix -- the standard library is not
under namespace std, and <sstream> is not included. The latter is a minor
problem (you can just download the header), the former is very annoying.
>Yes, some have indeed blown the whole thing all out of
>proportion.
I don't think it's being blown out of proportion at all. Doing real work
with alpha software is madness. In particular, developing software with
alpha versions of development tools is not something I'm interested in
doing.
When I'm gaming or something like that, I don't mind being on the bleeding
edge, but when I'm doing real work, I'm not going to do it using alpha
software. And I think a lot of developers feel the same way.
> I don't use any Red Hat 7 boxes as C++
>development platforms, I mainly use them as servers
I use my machines primarily for development, though some are servers. And
I'm not going to use an alpha compiler for serious development work.
>and technical workstations (and gaming boxes) so I have
>not seen the "problem".
>
>Once everybody gets on gcc 3.0, it all comes together.
Yes, the sooner the better.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 02:01:27 -0600
"Peter K�hlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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.
> >
>
> Eric, he actually did that. You do not have any idea what you�re talking
> about, absolutely.
You didn't read my full response. My response was specifically talking
about Win32 API, and not MFC or any other framework. The fact that you're
bringing this up tells me you didn't read my response, and thus you have no
basis to make the claim you are making.
> He talked about the nightmare of the win-API, and he�s right.
> As long as you�re inside MFC or OWL, no problem. The problem starts
> as soon as you have to go outside that cozy stuff because you need
> something not really special, but not MFC / OWL - provided function.
> Just to search for it is a nightmare. Those win-API-Names are not at all
> logically named, for starters. In OS/2, IBM (and at the beginning MS)
named
> the functions logically, you could find something quite fast. In win, that
> is simply impossible. You know that a function should be there, but to
find
> it can take hours if you�re unlucky.
[longer sig than Kulkis snipped... read usenet guidelines]
------------------------------
From: Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Linux MUST DO! - Comments anyone?
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 18:12:48 +1000
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> http://www.netslaves.com/comments/983976069.shtml
>
> Charlie
I think Linux is way more popular with CS university students than it
was even a few years ago. These people are the future of great chunks
of the IT industry and they love free *NIXs way more than M$.
Personally I wouldn't mind if M$ was just an apps company; they should
just get out of the OS amd server game.
IanP
--
"Dear someone you've never heard of,
how is so-and-so. Blah blah.
Yours truly, some bozo." - Homer Simpson
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Macintosh as an alternative to Windows??
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 02:14:41 -0600
"Peter K�hlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> As much as I hated Apple for the look-and-feel - stuff they did years ago,
> they DID have decent hardware and a quite capable OS. Better than anything
> MS could bring forward, that is.
Apparently you never programmed Macs in the early days. It was enough to
pull your hair out. People say the Windows API is ugly, but the MacOS API
was much worse. The MacOS was originally written in Pascal, and much of the
C/C++ functionality had to emulate Pascal. In addition, since the Mac
didn't have virtual memory, they had to have some way to move memory around
with the app going bezerk, so they created something called "Handles" (only
slightly similar to descriptors) in which they were pointers to pointers.
Any memory you allocated had to be derefenced twice to access, since the
MacOS kept track of the handles and could move the memory anywhere it wanted
to.
In addition, most major revisions of the OS up until about MacOS 7 caused
significant backwards compatiblity issues. Apple broke API's at their whim
(not by accident either, they did it on purpose). It's a shame that they
couldn't carry over their ferocious defense of the single menu bar into
standards for programming the OS.
Don't you think 2001 and is a little late to finally be coming out with
Pre-emptive multitasking, Memory protection, and full virtual memory?
Cripes, Apple worked on their Next Generation OS (Copeland) for close to 10
years before finally giving up and admitting defeat that their programmers
just couldn't "fix" the MacOS. They needed to start over from scratch.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: C#
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 02:26:43 -0600
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "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?
>
> A Java virtual machine with JIT compiling.
And a yugo with a JATO unit is still a yugo, designed to be a yugo, and
grossly inefficient as high speed vehicle.
The language was not designed with JIT in mind.
> Why do you think Microsoft wants to copy this cool technology?
Uhh.. JITing has been around since the 70's. Ever heard of a language
called SmallTalk? That's the way .NET works, rather than the way Java (even
with JIT) works.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: C#
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 02:29:17 -0600
"Aaron Kulkis" <[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.
>
> Java *CAN* be interpreted
> Java *CAN* be compiled
If it's compiled, it's not Java anymore.
> The thing that distinguishes Java is that it was DESIGNED specifically
> with the thought of interpretation as a viable option.
No, Java was designed with interpretation as the *ONLY* option (or rather,
they didn't consider other options when they designed it), JITing was added
years after Java was designed.
------------------------------
From: "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Customising Wrap-Up Screen. (WAS: "It is now safe to shut off your
computer")
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 00:31:52 -0800
"Mike Martinet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Bloody Viking wrote:
> >
> > I just got done customising the Windows 95 wrap-up screen, the "it's now
safe
> > to turn off your computer" screen. It now says:
> >
> > It's now safe to type "mode co80 and light off UNIX, the OS Bill Gates
hates!
> > GNU's Not UNIX!!!
> >
> > Thanks! That was after a few hours of quality coding time working on a
pet
> > snail billpay proggie in C on Linux. For what it's worth, Linux IS UNIX
in my
> > book, it's a GNU freeware UNIX.
> >
> > Ah, the pleasure of having the OS of Big Iron on a PC. UNIX is the OS of
Big
> > Iron computing, and while we may enjoy it on our boxes, it will always
be THE
> > OS of Big Iron. How could anyone pass up the chance to play with an OS
like
> > Linux, a PC freeware UNIX? Maybe some of us are hackers (in the good
sense of
> > the word) after all. (:
> >
> > --
> > 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.
>
>
> Oh man. You said it. I'm just a geek I guess, but I can't get over
> watching Linux (rarely) boot. No pretty clouds while you sit and wonder
> what's going on, instead, real ASCII text describing everything the OS
> is doing as it comes to life. It means business. The real deal. I
> still can't believe getting all this for almost nothing. I continue to
> be amazed. I wish I'd found it earlier. I sound like a cult member.
>
> "Big Iron OS on a PC" That about sums it up.
>
> My W95 shutdown screen, ever since I figured out what LOGOS.SYS was:
>
> I'm down,
> I'm really down.
>
>
> MjM
Now if you can re-program the BSOD to say "Help! I've fallen and I can't get
up!"
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linus Torsvald's machine specification
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 21:37:46 +1300
lol, na, out of all honesty, a while back Compaq gave some pretty sweet
Alpha hardware to some major linux developers, I think Linus may have been
included in this "give away"
Matthew Gardiner
"Ray Chason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >2. Last I heard he [Linus] had some pretty sweet hardware.
>
> Only his wife knows for sure.
>
>
> --
> --------------===============<[ Ray
Chason ]>===============--------------
> PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
> Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 03:49:29 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: C#
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> No, Java was designed with interpretation as the *ONLY* option (or rather,
> they didn't consider other options when they designed it), JITing was added
> years after Java was designed.
It's not interpreted in the strict sense. The java source files are
*compiled* into bytecodes (class files) that a virtual machine then
executes. Java is interpreted in the sense that a VM is required to
execute the bytecodes, but the java programming text must be compiled
first. Hence, it's not an interpreted language in the pedantic sense.
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
