Linux-Advocacy Digest #180, Volume #34 Fri, 4 May 01 06:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: The Text of Craig Mundie's Speech ("Mikkel Elmholdt")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Steve Marcus)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Steve Marcus)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Steve Marcus)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Steve Marcus)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Steve Marcus)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Steve Marcus)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Steve Marcus)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Steve Marcus)
Re: WinTrolls and advocates are the ones who are geeks! ("Mikkel Elmholdt")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Steve Marcus)
Re: Just how commercially viable is OSS?... (Was Re: Interesting MS speech on
OSS/GPL ( /. hates it so it's good)) ("Mikkel Elmholdt")
Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux (Ian Davey)
Re: Students Offering Free Web Site Design... (Phill)
Re: Students Offering Free Web Site Design... (pip)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Mikkel Elmholdt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Text of Craig Mundie's Speech
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 11:07:42 +0200
"Interconnect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9ctgi2$7fa$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<snip>
> That article made me sick! How greedy and rapacious can a company be.
This kind of attitude never stops to amaze me. Why is it that some people
(you included) obviously regard making (lots of) money as close to a
cardinal sin? Microsoft is not doing anything that their competitors would
not love to do, if they had been just as good at producing marketing bull.
But then every religion needs a Satan, and MS is obviously filling that role
in the Church of the Holy Penguin ....
> Don't you just love the statement "this viral aspect". Like MS just wants
to
> Grab as much as they can for FREE have all the benefits and NOT allow
anyone
> else access to their code. If GPL has so many *significant* drawbacks
(they
> go on to equate OSS with the recent .com bubble) why in the hell is MS
even
> worrying about it.
If MS is so destined to fail in the face of OSS/GPL as you assume, then why
i.t.h. are you bothering to comment on whatever Mundie's saying? And the
"viral GPL" remark is actually a term used by the OSS community, and is thus
not a MS FUD invention.
> Unhealthy forking? Well how about letting the community decide. The
biggest
> problem that MS has is that users are forking AWAY from Windows.
That's not really what's meant by "forking". But you probably don't care (or
know the difference) ....
Mikkel
------------------------------
From: Steve Marcus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 05:10:28 -0700
Could you find it in your heart to trim your headers? This crap
has nothing to do with misc.int-property and hasn't for several
months now.
Followups set.
Steve
--
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
should not be construed as either. This posting does not
represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
view.
T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
> Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 3 May 2001
> >On Thu, 3 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> >> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 2 May 2001 18:57:47
> >> [...]
> >>>> Until, for some reason, they need to understand why their application is
> >>>> not working as expected. Right?
> >>> Removing that need is the whole point of the API.
> >> Yes, just like removing the need to come up with an original plot-line
> >> is the whole point of many derivative movies.
> >
> >No, a better analogy for derivative movies is a comparison with your
> >so-called thought process. If I want to program a billing system, one
> >of the many things that I will need is a way of comparing dates and
> >doing date math. I will use a library that does these things rather
> >than write one myself, because I don't have time to write one myself.
>
> Sort of like when you need an identifying characteristic for your hero,
> and you give him an accent like Schwartzenegger, because you know that
> works. Thus, your character is derivative of Ahnold.
>
> Not having time to write one yourself means you don't have any right to
> expect to make money on your efforts, unless you're willing to pay the
> person who did write one himself for every copy you generate or cause to
> exist. Using other's intellectual property without their permission is,
> after all, what copyright infringement is all about. It has nothing to
> do with the integrity of any metaphysical substances like 'software'.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Steve Marcus <[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: Fri, 04 May 2001 05:12:28 -0700
Trim your headers and stop spamming misc.int-property with this
crap.
Followups set.
Steve
--
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
should not be construed as either. This posting does not
represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
view.
T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 3 May 2001 15:11:10
> >On Thu, 03 May 2001 15:02:56 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 2 May 2001 18:57:47
> >> [...]
> >>>>Until, for some reason, they need to understand why their application is
> >>>>not working as expected. Right?
> >>>
> >>>Removing that need is the whole point of the API.
> >>
> >>Yes, just like removing the need to come up with an original plot-line
> >>is the whole point of many derivative movies.
> >>
> >>>The API defines how the library must behave. If it doesn't, then
> >>>there is a bug and the library is not an implementation of the API.
> >>
> >>The API has metaphysical Truth, is that what you're saying?
> >
> >The API has existence. You can print it in a piece of paper.
> >
> >If a library doesn't do what the APi says, it is not an
> >implementation of such API. By definition of "implementation".
>
> Is it possible for there to be a mistake in the API, or would you
> metaphysically insist that it must be a mistake in either the
> documentation (what's printed on the piece of paper) or the
> implementation (the library)? Why is the 'implementation' of an API on
> a piece of paper not an implementation, just like the code? If the API
> isn't code, how do you print it on a piece of paper?
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Steve Marcus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 05:14:14 -0700
Please. Trim your headers and stop spamming misc.int-property
with this crap.
Followups set.
Steve
--
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
should not be construed as either. This posting does not
represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
view.
Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >>
> > >>In the real world, an application program ROUTINELY needs to know more
> > >>about a function than the API documentation itself can provide.
> > >
> > >You know this because of your extensive programming eperience, right?
> >
> > No, I know it because people who have extensive programming experience,
> > who's opinions I trust, and who understand my point correctly, say it is
> > so.
>
> Don't hire them to do any programming for you. Real programmers
> consider the published interface to be a contract between the things
> on either side and everything else is allowed to change - and almost
> certainly will over time.
>
> > >Ok: I *do* have an extensive programming experience, and if such a need
> > >arised, the API needs to be fixed, not the implementation.
> >
> > Whichever. I've already told you that you can switch the terms
> > "program" and "library" in the phrase "a program is derivative of the
> > library".
>
> The GPL does not allow for any non-GPL'd part, making no distinction
> about between component types.
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Steve Marcus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 05:16:49 -0700
Trim your headers and stop sending this crap to
misc.int-property.
Followups set.
Steve
--
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
should not be construed as either. This posting does not
represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
view.
T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
> Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 3 May 2001
> 12:28:48 -0400;
> >On Thu, 3 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> >> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 2 May 2001 18:59:37
> >>> Ok: I *do* have an extensive programming experience, and if such a need
> >>> arised, the API needs to be fixed, not the implementation.
> >> Whichever. I've already told you that you can switch the terms
> >> "program" and "library" in the phrase "a program is derivative of the
> >> library".
> >
> >Neither statement is necessarily true.
>
> Nothing is necessarily anything; a library is not necessarily a library
> (it could be an application with an API), and a program is not
> necessarily a program (it could be a 'plug in').
>
> But after you get over that and start figuring out how to use language
> correctly, you'll find that this doesn't prevent anything from actually
> being true.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Steve Marcus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 05:19:07 -0700
Trim your headers and stop sending this spam to
misc.int-property.
Steve
--
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
should not be construed as either. This posting does not
represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
view.
T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 3 May 2001 15:09:38
> >On Thu, 03 May 2001 15:02:55 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 2 May 2001 18:59:37
> >>>On Sun, 29 Apr 2001 18:27:42 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>>>>> This mean that I can implement this as a C array, linked list, binary tree,
> >>>>>>> hell, I could implement it as a database object, and anyone using this
> >>>>>>> wouldn't have a clue how I do it.
> >>>>>> Until, for some reason, they need to understand why their application is
> >>>>>> not working as expected. Right?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Wrong. An API defines access to a service -- and if that service isn't
> >>>>>working right, then you go to the provider of that service to get it
> >>>>>fixed. The details of implementation aren't important to the user of
> >>>>>the API. (In general; there are cases when the implementation may be
> >>>>>discussed between supplier and customer, but this has more to do with
> >>>>>performance requirements than anything else.)
> >>>>
> >>>>In the real world, an application program ROUTINELY needs to know more
> >>>>about a function than the API documentation itself can provide.
> >>>
> >>>You know this because of your extensive programming eperience, right?
> >>
> >>No, I know it because people who have extensive programming experience,
> >>who's opinions I trust, and who understand my point correctly, say it is
> >>so.
> >
> >Let's see, we should agree we are wrong because you say other say we are
> >wrong?
>
> No, you should recognize you are mistaken because I can provide an
> comprehensible and reasonable explanation of your error. But you're
> just too insecure and defensive; it scares you so much you won't even
> try, and so are forced to insist I am 'clueless' and not making sense,
> even though my reasoning is consistent with the current unrefuted legal
> position of the FSF.
>
> >>>Ok: I *do* have an extensive programming experience, and if such a need
> >>>arised, the API needs to be fixed, not the implementation.
> >>
> >>Whichever. I've already told you that you can switch the terms
> >>"program" and "library" in the phrase "a program is derivative of the
> >>library".
> >
> >No, I can not, because it makes no sense.
>
> Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
--
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
should not be construed as either. This posting does not
represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
view.
------------------------------
From: Steve Marcus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 05:20:40 -0700
Trim your headers. This has nothing to do with misc.int-propery.
Followups set.
Steve
--
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
should not be construed as either. This posting does not
represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
view.
T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
> Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 3 May 2001
> >On Thu, 3 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> >> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 2 May 2001 21:08:02
> >>> It has been done, IN PRACTICE. That you, who has never exercised the
> >>> craft claim that what has already been done is impossible, is quite
> >>> irritating.
> >> I'm sure. No, it has not been done in practice; it is impossible in
> >> practice to write a program which requires a library that doesn't yet
> >> exist in any way.
> >
> >For the nth time, this is false.
>
> For the nth+1 time, your contention is flawed.
>
> >The program may not be *functional*,
> >but you can definitely write such a program. [...]
>
> Find a non-programmer who calls a random bunch of characters that do not
> perform function "a program". Why would you even bother writing a
> program that is not functional? Just trying to 'cheat' copyright law,
> without actually getting into any trouble?
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Steve Marcus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 05:22:09 -0700
Followups set.
This crap has nothing to do with misc.int-property. Trim your
headers.
Steve
--
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
should not be construed as either. This posting does not
represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
view.
T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 3 May 2001 15:08:24
> >On Thu, 03 May 2001 15:02:48 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> >>I'm sure. No, it has not been done in practice; it is impossible in
> >>practice to write a program which requires a library that doesn't yet
> >>exist in any way.
> >
> >What can I say? It *is* possible, and I can prove it by example.
>
> What commercial grade product have you produced using this insane
> method, then?
>
> >>>I have written programs that work in OSs I never saw, linked to
> >>>libraries I have never seen. Because those libraries implement
> >>>the same APIs as others I use.
> >>
> >>That is not in dispute.
> >
> >Max, I wrote to the API. Those OSs later implemented the API and voil�,
> >my apps work with that implementation. because the API is not
> >the implementation.
>
> Because that API is implemented by many implementations, and thus is a
> proven and standardized API. You did not even approach the point of
> testing the issue, which is whether you can do this with an API that
> hasn't already been implemented to begin with, AT ALL. It ain't so
> easy, I think you must agree. Your point would only *mean* anything in
> this argument if it meant your software was not derivative of those
> libraries. It is, but of course there are multiple library
> implementations, so the real world, me, and the FSF agree that it does
> not test the issue, and no infringement has occurred.
>
> Now, if you have the balls and are so sure you're right, violate the GPL
> the way we've been discussing, market a commercial product with the
> results, and see if the court agrees with you. That's the only
> 'example' that's going to prove your claim, I'm afraid.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Steve Marcus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 05:23:32 -0700
Followups directed away from misc.int-property.
Steve
--
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
should not be construed as either. This posting does not
represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
view.
T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 3 May 2001 15:14:08
> >On Thu, 03 May 2001 15:02:57 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 2 May 2001 19:41:07
> >>>On Sat, 28 Apr 2001 22:14:29 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>>>>I may be ruled by them. However this one is not one of them.
> >>>>
> >>>>Sorry, I am forced to declare that statement to be incomprehensible.
> >>>>How could you possibly know in which instances you are or are not ruled
> >>>>by the concepts in your mind, if you can be ruled by them at all?
> >>>
> >>>I am ruled by the concepts in my mind. This was not a concept in my mind.
> >>
> >>I'm afraid it is, Roberto.
> >
> >It is a concept in your mind.
>
> I am forced to insist it is more than that, because it is, instead, a
> scientific fact which you cannot refute through mere rhetoric.
>
> >I only have a concept of my interpretation of
> >your expression of that concept. And the concept in my mind can be expressed
> >thus: "Max sure has a very wrong concept there".
>
> This is your error: the most max can have is a mistaken concept.
>
> >So, no, I am not subject to this particular concept. I am subject to
> >another concept, that says that concept is crap.
>
> I never said anything about which particular concepts, Roberto; you're
> just desperately trying to come out on top, no matter how much you have
> to misunderstand the exchange to produce that result. You are ruled,
> utterly and completely, by the concepts in your mind, and nothing else,
> as is every other monkey with a brain. That's the point of having the
> brain, you see. But if you'd rather just be a monkey....
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Mikkel Elmholdt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: WinTrolls and advocates are the ones who are geeks!
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 11:21:23 +0200
"Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> You've gotta love the crap you read in here, how we're all supposed to
> be "Linux geeks". You hear that repeated many times in here by the
> Wintrolls. In fact, the Wintrolls are the ones who are geeks. Did you
> ever see how geeky Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer are? Damn, but if those
> two aren't the biggest geeks I've ever seen! Linus Torvalds is much
> cooler by comparison.
He ain't cool, he's just Finnish! Finns are not cool people, they are
INCREDIBLY boring, moody and prone to drink hard (moonshine) liquor - here
in Scandinavia we know that the world's shortest book is a collection of
Finnish jokes, and that the most boring TV programme is a 3-hour Finnish
docu-drama about a steelworker's day at the mill (I'm from Denmark, and no,
we don't like Swedes either).
> Windows lovers are the ones who are geeks. For some reason, I feel a
> lot more geeky when I'm running Windows. I just can't put my finger on
> it.
I think that you are experiencing something different than geekiness. It's
that errie feeling you get when you do something you know you really should
not do, but do it anyway because it's forbidden and thrilling (like visiting
a prostitute while being married).
Mikkel
(a certified Windows geek)
------------------------------
From: Steve Marcus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 05:24:56 -0700
Followups set away from misc.int-property.
Steve
--
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
should not be construed as either. This posting does not
represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
view.
T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 3 May 2001 15:12:41
> GMT;
> >On Thu, 03 May 2001 15:02:56 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 2 May 2001 18:55:54
> >> [...]
> >>>There is no "correct" way to implement an API, there are MANY different
> >>>ways to do it.
> >>
> >>Let's just say that some of those ways MAY work, and some of them WILL
> >>work.
> >
> >If it's an implementation of the API, it will work as the API says.
>
> Nice tautology. I guess you never realized its unfalsifiable, did you?
> Unfalsifiable tautologies are worse than useless in this kind of
> context.
>
> >Working
> >is part of being an implementation of the API.
>
> But somehow it is not a part of being a program? Why is that?
>
> >If it doesn't work as the API requires, it is at best a partial
> >implementation.
>
> Would that cast doubt on the existence of the API, or merely its
> metaphysical integrity?
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Mikkel Elmholdt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just how commercially viable is OSS?... (Was Re: Interesting MS speech on
OSS/GPL ( /. hates it so it's good))
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 11:32:32 +0200
"Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > Maybe because they
saw that the future belongs to OSS?
<snip>
> >The sad fact is, that free software was never meant to be
commercialized...
> >it was meant to be shared. Companies basing their existence on a free
product,
> >in the hopes that they will draw revenue from support contracts simply
> >doesn't work in the long run. That is what I and others said a while ago.
That is
> >what we are seeing now. I have a feeling that there are going to be a
lot more
> >dusty has-been cubicles being repossessed/liquidated in the next year or
> >two.
>
> Fortunately the future of the OSS movement doesn't depend on the
> survival of those companies.
Well, that really depends on the intended end-users. Up till now the
products of the *real* OSS movement (i.e. non-commercial development) has
not really been intended for the typical Windows user (i.e.
not-too-technical people). Some of the major advances in Linux
user-friendliness has come as a result of companies trying to found a
commercial business on OSS (examples are Eazel, RedHat, Caldera, etc.). I
would say that OSS *needs* a viable commercial model in order to win the
rest of the world over, and not just capture the hearts and minds of the
geeks.
Mikkel
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey)
Subject: Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 09:37:00 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>Please explain how I'm wrong? I load word, I start typing. I then print
>>it. I don't even need to name it.
>
>Why not just say "I just do it." Do I really need to explain to you why
>your instructions are sort of worthless, and thus your argument is ad
>absurdum?
I'm surprised he'd type out something important enough to print in Word
without saving it. Unless you're a glutton for punishment and enjoy retyping
stuff from memory, pressing "save" before "print" is pretty essential with
Word.
ian.
\ /
(@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
/(&)\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
| |
------------------------------
From: Phill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Students Offering Free Web Site Design...
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 10:40:26 +0100
Tyrone Williams wrote:
>
> My students have learned the basic skills and are now looking for "real
> life" projects. In a bid to gain practical experience, they are offering to
> build web sites for free. What they are asking in return is a "Letter of
> Recommendation" upon successful completion of the site. Most of these
> projects will be completed over the Internet, using e-mail as the medium of
> communication. I believe that this kind of cyber-internship will open doors
> for these kids when they graduate from school.
This sounds like a great idea! Well done. If I find any clients that
need this I'll pass on their details.
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Students Offering Free Web Site Design...
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 10:41:59 +0100
Tyrone Williams wrote:
>
> My students have learned the basic skills and are now looking for "real
> life" projects. In a bid to gain practical experience, they are offering to
> build web sites for free. What they are asking in return is a "Letter of
> Recommendation" upon successful completion of the site. Most of these
> projects will be completed over the Internet, using e-mail as the medium of
> communication. I believe that this kind of cyber-internship will open doors
> for these kids when they graduate from school.
This sounds like a great idea! Well done. If I find any clients that
need this I'll pass on their details.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
