Linux-Advocacy Digest #169, Volume #33 Wed, 28 Mar 01 23:13:03 EST
Contents:
Windows, Linux and evolutionary models (Larry Cosner Jr.)
Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing? (mlw)
Re: New worm infests Linux machines/Exposes root backdoor ("Gary Hallock")
Re: New worm infests Linux machines/Exposes root backdoor (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Communism (Craig Kelley)
Re: I regretfully conclude that Linux is a piece of CRAP. (Terry Porter)
Re: Suse vs RH/Mandrake ? (or what's so great about 7.2) (Darin Johnson)
Re: My take on GPLed code as free software (was: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and
lies about free software) ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Communism ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Jeffrey Siegal)
Re: Microsoft abandoning USB? ("Michael Allen")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Cosner Jr.)
Subject: Windows, Linux and evolutionary models
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 17:23:09 -0800
Being a chronic lurker, I wasn't sure if I should just add this to the
thread that sparked the idea for me; however, as it was somewhat OT, I
started a new thread. Hope this fits the expectations regarding behavior
'round these parts.
Recently there was a discussion of Darwinian evolution, including ideas
revolving around natural selection; this was discussed particularly as it
applied to the Linux/Windows confrontation (conflagration?). The
discussion got me to thinking about a concept known as 'frozen accidents'
in evolutionary biology. I'm not sure how widely known this term is
outside bio-geeks, so I'll give a minimalist definition below; sorry if it
is superfluous.
In terrestrial evolution (other kinds being difficult to study), the
following has been observed: when some 'problem' is solved in a new and
significantly better way, that solution rapidly displaces all previous
mechanisms for addressing this problem. This is regardless of whether the
new 'solution' is optimal or not. Put slightly differently, if the new
solution is enough better than any of the old solutions (as opposed to an
incremental improvement), it rapidly comes to dominate.
In such instances--assuming that this new solution is 'better', but not
necessarily 'optimal'--truly optimal solutions have a much more difficult
job displacing an entrenched, system-wide 'solution', even if they are
provably better.
The common example, in biology, is that of oxidative-phosphorolation/
electron-transport (OxPhos/ET) as a means of obtaining energy. Prior to
the evolution of this mechanism for extracting energy from chemicals,
there were many competing mechanisms amongst the microorganism that
floated around our planet. When that showed up: BLAM! Pretty much
you--as a cell--either adopted that mechanism or you could forget any job
advancement, especially in better (multi-cellular) corporations. I'm led
to believe, by seemingly competent people, that it can be proven that
OxPhos/ET is definitely not the "best" way to extract energy from glucose;
however, it was so much better than any previous solution that we now have
a planet full of life which uses it, with little hope of adoption of any
(marginally) better solutions.
Now this worries me, as it smacks a bit of our current market situation
with Linux and Windows. That is, was Windows such a step-change--at least
in the eyes of most lusers--when compared to text-based OSs that it will
be difficult to de-entrench by _any_ other OS, even if that OS is provably
better?
Note that I'm NOT trying to defend Windows here. In fact, my fondest
memories are of the days when I had a PDP2 at home (home built), a PDP3 at
work, ran RT11 on both, and could use PIP for anything!! But I gotta tell
you: I say that to any of our 200 users at the hospital where I manage the
IS dept, or even to my younger, Windows-only employees, and I get nothing
but blank looks and/or pitying stares. To them, GUI is everything. More,
in fact. GUI _that_looks_ and_behaves_just_like_Windows_ is everything!!
Now, there are clearly some potentials for hope. For one thing, it is
easy to argue that the step change of a STABLE, DECENT OS [Linux] over an
unstable, indecent OS [Windows] could result in another 'takeover'. It
has not yet happened, however. Similarly, one could argue that the domain
of computer OSs is not random and unguided (like biologic evolution), but
is instead guided and controlled. I suppose it depends on whether the
'evolution' of computers and their OSs is mostly market (which often looks
like unguided, stupid, blind biology to me), or has at least some
cognitive component (which I hope for, though on some days dispair of).
Finally, there is the whole issue of time. It is easy to forget how
_long_ real evolution--even just individual
natural-selection-events--take. Perhaps our time-constants for the
removal of an eggregious OS are simply wrong. It won't happen in a few
months, but will in a few years. Still, this doesn't give me as much hope
as it would. If it is gonna take years to displace Windows, that's alotta
BSODs I still have to look forward to.
I'd be interested in your thoughts.
...Larry.
BTW: Yes, I run Linux on a couple of our servers. But, in vertical
markets like hospital IS, vendor mandates are _VERY_ powerful. We're
still running NT4.0 and W95 (!!) because that's what the vendor says we
run, else we get no (applications) support. So I hide--and try to slowly
multiply--the Linux servers, and wait for an opening to try one out on
some desktop... ...L.
==================================================================
| ~ ~ ~ ~ |
| Morning Routine: |-( <- { c[] + c[] + c[] + c[] } => :-)) |
==================================================================
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing?
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 21:08:21 -0500
Wilbert Kruithof wrote:
>
> Hello!
[snipped]
I can only offer my own opinion. Take it as anything you like.
Raw communism destroys.
Raw capitalism destroys.
Open source represents a way for people who love what they do, to do what they
do, perhaps, even, very well.
People may assign what ever political / economic viewpoint they wish. When I
release Open Source software it is because I think it is kind of cool, and
might be useful to people that need it.
Maybe people don't understand, hell, I don't know, but for many people that
work with computers, we *like* to write software. I write algorithms for fun.
Some of the stuff I write may never be useful to anyone else, but I make bits
and pieces available for people because it is fun.
Currently my title is "chief architect," it is all compromises. Open Source
allows me to release something when it is still bloody and also allows me the
time I want to make it right.
I think open source is typically better because it is either more innovative or
better refined. When there is no marketing department pulling the strings,
things are available for their technical merit.
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New worm infests Linux machines/Exposes root backdoor
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 21:26:19 +0500
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thats what I thought. I had an older distro on my box but an app in X
> froze up, so I alt-F1 to get a virtual terminal, logged in as root, did
> a ps -ax and found the ID of that process and killed it. Logged out of
> root, did an alt-F(?) (forgot) and back in to my original X gui and
> everything was back again. Its one of the best features I've found and
> not in any other O/S that I know of.
>
AIX 3.2 had the same function. I've forgotten the exact key sequence
but you could hop on over to another virtual terminal and either log in
directly or start up another copy of Xwindows, just like Linux. I was
quite upset when AIX 4.1 removed this feature and pleasantly surprised
when I started using Linux.
Gary
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New worm infests Linux machines/Exposes root backdoor
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 02:43:14 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> Are you completely devoid of intellectual thought?
>
> Apparently so.
>
> *PL0NK*
> -c
Chad's world just gets smaller and smaller.
<sigh>
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: 28 Mar 2001 19:45:27 -0700
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Said Craig Kelley in alt.destroy.microsoft on 28 Mar 2001 08:22:12
> >Barry Manilow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [...]
> >Have you ever spoken with a Cuban? I speak fluent spanish and I have
> >spoken with *many* and they all pretty much:
> >
> > 1) Love Cuba
> >
> > and
> >
> > 2) Despise the government
>
> Sounds like a generic definition of "patriotism" to me. I'm sure Aaron
> Kulkis would agree. So do Cubans of your acquaintance despise the
> government more or less than Aaron Kulkis does? And on what basis do
> you presume this would be different, were Cuba "capitalist" instead of
> "communist".
But Cuba was claimed as a model of good communisim. I am merely
debunking the assertation. There are many capitalistic countries that
aren't perfect, including the United States; although I'd rather live
in our less-than-perfect country than most others.
> >Why do you think they kill themselves to come *here*?
>
> Because they believe the Coca Cola ads. Wouldn't *you*?
:) I like Pepsi, myself...
> >> Will the US even commit to this? No. Actually, lack of proper
> >> medical care murders 250,000 Americans every year, in one of the
> >> world's richest countries! Most of these are good, hard-working
> >> folks. Why did they have to die? So a relative few could make some
> >> extra bucks. How could anyone defend such a system?
> >
> >Huh? I've lived in cities from the size of millions to a small town
> >the size of 4000 and have never seen these people. I supported myself
> >by working at McDonald's and managed to pay for school at the same
> >time. I didn't manage to pay for the nicest place to live, but I had
> >enough money to buy a PlayStation and way too many games.
> >
> >Death never entered the equation.
>
> Nor does it in Cuba, only they don't have PlayStations. Nor will you
> ever see these people. It is in their lack that the harm is done; the
> benefits of society accrue, according to the capitalists, only to those
> who are already benefiting the most.
You're the one that said they didn't have PlayStations. That counts
as a harm in my book.
> >> I suppose the idea would be to come up with an economic system that
> >> did not systematically kill so many human beings. Capitalism can be
> >> reformed to the point where hardly kills at all (well-regulated
> >> capitalism, probably the best system so far) but capitalists never
> >> seem to want to do this because by saving lives, they would end up
> >> making less money. Any system with that kind of ideology seems pretty
> >> immoral to me.
> >
> >You are crazy.
> >
> >Go to Miami and visit with a few refugees before you spout off again.
>
> You really do seem to put a lot of weight into hearsay evidence rather
> than reason. The 'refugees' are hardly the most impartial of observers.
I believe what I experience, not (generally) what people tell me.
> On the political matter of Cuba, by the way, I'm entirely agnostic. I
> just like to see more straight-forward debate, whatever the topic. I'd
> just as soon it not be discussed on adm, but things are slow.
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: I regretfully conclude that Linux is a piece of CRAP.
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 29 Mar 2001 02:49:29 GMT
On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 04:48:15 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Terry Porter wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 02:08:16 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> http://www.geda.seul.org
>>
>
>Thanks...I've been looking for EXACTLY this kind of thing for some time.
>
Welcome, btw, if you also use pcb
http://bach.ece.jhu.edu/~haceaton/pcb/
to layout your schematics, you can import a netlist from gEDA into pcb
,then layout your tracks following the cool rubber bands the netlist provides.
I have found these two apps work perfectly together, they blow away Windows
apps for the same purpose I've yet seen.
>Aaron R. Kulkis
>Unix Systems Engineer
Terry
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Suse vs RH/Mandrake ? (or what's so great about 7.2)
From: Darin Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 03:10:38 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hong) writes:
> Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >Whats wrong with paying for SuSE Linux? Geeze, what are you? a cheap skate?
>
> There is nothing wrong with paying for SuSE. I'm simply stating
> that if one is already familiar with Red Hat/Mandrake than you might not
> find the investment worth it since it is still just Linux anyways.
I assume SuSE will make 7.1 available on the web in the future?
(it was only $19.99, which is a convenient fee to have actual CD's
instead of network installs or trying to find a cdwriter around that
you can get working after hours)
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: My take on GPLed code as free software (was: Richard Stallman what a
tosser, and lies about free software)
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 03:29:48 GMT
"Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>I'm talking about the copy you're
> >>using. So it is my understanding that the Windows 2000 TCP/IP stack is
> >>based on the BSD TCP/IP code. If some grave bug surfaces in that part of
> >>the code and I would use W2K, I'm still at the mercy of Microsoft even
> >>if the original source code is out in the open.
> >
> >Yes, you are. If this bugs you, don't do it.
>
> I don't.
>
> >You'd be just as at their mercy
> >if it were a reimplementation, and it would have more bugs.
>
> The first part is correct but irrelevant, the second part is an
> emotional statement without merit.
No, the second part is a historical fact. Why do you think they
would replace their own code from earlier windows versions
if not to fix the long-standing bugs that everyone has had to
live with until now?
>The fact of the matter remains that
> the bug is part of the code that was free software once, not part of the
> "value added" code. So even though other versions of the code can be
> patched, this one cannot, at least not by me, the user.
Yet, also historically, closed-source vendors using the bsd stack
have not only fixed bugs before selling their product so their
users don't have to deal with them, but they have contributed the
fixes back to the open source maintainers.
> >Secondly, every copy of any GPL'd
> >program comes with encumberances which are strange and unusual. With
>
> That's your personal opinion. Nobody can deny you that opinion.
Please name another code license that prohibits distribution along with
any other code which the recipient may legally use if you want to
support the claim that the GPL is not strange and unusual.
> >any other license in the world, if I can get permission to distribute
code
> >under that license, I am allowed to distribute it with whatever else I
> >want.
>
> Either you are talking about other licenses for "free software" which
> would have to be correctly defined, or I can name quite a few counter
> examples, or you have various meanings for "distribute it with".
What counter examples?
> Tell me, am I *legally* allowed to distribute BSDLed code without
> retaining the non-liability clause in the last paragraph of the BSD
> license as stated in points 1 and 2 of that same license? If not, is
> that a restriction wrt the distribution of the software?
>
> If you did not answer "No, Yes" respectively, I see no reason to
> continue the debate because, lets say, our mindset is too far apart.
If you answer 'yes' to the second part, can you support it with an
example of how you have been restricted from distributing the
software in question? I have never heard anyone claim that
they were unable to meet the BSD requirements before, where
the GPL absolutely prohibits redistributing a near-infinite number
of code combinations.
> If you say that such restriction is within the scope of copyright law, I
> hereby challenge you to show me the section of US Code Title 17 where
> such is written.
Licenses and copyright law are opposites. The point of the license is
that it gives you rights that copyright law would otherwise remove.
> If you say that such restriction is reasonable and has
> nothing to do with the code, I'd agree wholeheartly with you, but I
> would conclude that since you allow legal distribution restrictions on
> free code, that you quantify the allowable restrictions for the code to
> be called free and such quantification is subjective. My subjective
> measures might differ from yours.
Code distribution isn't a subjective matter. Give examples of how
the BSDL has prevented a user from obtaining a working program.
> I don't recall ever to quantify the "freeness" of the software. I don't
> think you can objectively compare the GPL and BSDL in their being either
> more or less free.
Of course you can. Count the real examples where the respective licenses
have prevented actual programs from being distributed and used.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
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: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 03:32:18 GMT
"Jeffrey Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Les Mikesell wrote:
> > If your intent is to ensure job security for lawyers by making sure
> > that no one else will understand the meaning of the laws, that
> > is a reasonable thing to do. If you want to avoid deceiving
> > people who already understand a different meaning of the word
> > then it is unreasonable.
>
> The intent is neither. In general, conversational languages are not
> precise or consistent enough to be used to write laws, contracts, etc.
> without clearly defining domain-specific terms. There is no objective
> conversaional definition of, say, "free software", as the endless flame
> wars on the topic here clearly demonstrate.
>
> As long as the definitions are clear and well written (which is entirely
> the case in terms of the FSF's "free software") it does not take a law
> degree to understand them, nor should anyone be confused simply because
> they are unwilling to take a few minutes to read what the definitions
> are in a given context.
There is nothing at all clear in the GPL regarding the relationship
of shared libraries to each other and the linking program, or the
case where a kit is provided containing all parts except the
GPL'd code which the user obtains for himself.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 22:33:01 -0500
Anonymous wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett) eeped:
> > On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 01:59:15 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >Barry Manilow wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Craig Kelley wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Barry Manilow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >> >
> > >> > > GreyCloud wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > I have freedom to make as much money as I know how.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > The problem with this freedom is that this right ends up killing a lot
> > >> > > of hard-working, decent human beings. That is why capitalism is a
> > >> > > murdering system. It kills millions of people every year in the
> > >> > > world.
> > >> >
> > >> > As opposed to *what*, exactly.
> > >> >
> > >> > Cuba, North Korea and China are not paragons of virtue.
> > >>
> > >> China is practically a capitalist country right now.
> > >>
> > >
> > >Yes, they are beginning to see the light.
> > >
> > >However, the brutal ways of their Communist Revolution and
> > >subsequent Cultural Revolution are still with them.
> > >
> >
> > comp.os.linux.advocacy.and.debate.on.communism.vs.capitalism
>
> yay capitalism!
> speaking of which, microsoft has done rather well under the free market
> system don't you think?
Actually, Microsoft has practiced a deliberate campaign of subverting
the free market.
That's why their always in court.
> jackie 'anakin' tokeman
>
> tee hee!
>
> p.s. why are so many linux users fat ugly beardos?
>
> jest axin
>
> men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
> more even than death
> - bertrand russell
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 22:34:19 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 28 Mar 2001
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> [...]
> >> More fodder for those who like to point out you've obviously never been
> >> in combat. Nor have I, but I'm bright enough to know that, were I one
> >> of those blobs, I'd be the shadowiest, most camouflaged fucker in a
> >> hundred miles, if at all possible. Believe me, its for camouflage.
> >
> >Those of us who've actually done it know otherwise.
>
> Look, I don't know what kind of psycho rush it might give you to paint
> your face. But your presumption at authority is very disturbing. Don't
> forget about how badly you've already been spanked by the real soldiers.
As if a year in a war doesn't count....
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: Jeffrey Siegal <[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: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 19:42:00 -0800
Les Mikesell wrote:
> > As long as the definitions are clear and well written (which is entirely
> > the case in terms of the FSF's "free software") it does not take a law
> > degree to understand them, nor should anyone be confused simply because
> > they are unwilling to take a few minutes to read what the definitions
> > are in a given context.
>
> There is nothing at all clear in the GPL regarding the relationship
> of shared libraries to each other and the linking program
This has nothing to do with the FSF's definition of free software. Free
software is not the same as GPLed software.
------------------------------
From: "Michael Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft abandoning USB?
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 03:48:51 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said HIM in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 28 Mar 2001 12:51:40 -0500;
> >
> >"Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
> >> Looks like MS is betting the farm on content protection. Good. The
> >> more they bet, the more they lose. :-)
> >
> >MS never bet the farm on anything. And probably never will.
>
> Other than the monopoly, we presume you mean. Watch what happens when
> the stock hits $30.
>
> >And as far as
> >content protection goes they could care less.Why would they?
>
> Because Bill Gates has always dreamed of being able to charge people for
> using intellectual property.
It is not a dream, it happens every day across multiple industries. Books,
movies, music, software, etc. etc. The owner of intellectual property has
every right, supported by existing law on the books today, to charge people
for the use of their property. I've always been amazed by people (such as
some Napster users) who don't believe the IP owner has the right to charge
for his own property. Max, do you believe people have the right to download
music (IP) they have not paid for without the artist's (owner's) approval?
I'd like to know where you stand on this.
> He's described it clearly and directly, if
> you've been paying attention. (Start with "The Road Ahead", if you're
> catching up. A painful read, but with some very interesting parts.)
> "Content protection" is just like "software piracy"; a rubric with which
> IP use becomes IP licensing, and thus IP rental.
>
Regarding IP rental, it will work in any industry with any product if it is
convienient for users and provides value. If it doesn't, it will die. Look
at DIVX (per use, rental charge for DVDs) for example. It wasn't convenient
for users, was confusing in it's implementation, didn't provide value (i.e.
was too expensive) and thus, it died a natural death in the marketplace.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
