Linux-Advocacy Digest #347, Volume #34 Tue, 8 May 01 23:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Windows makes good coasters (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows makes good coasters (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows makes good coasters (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows makes good coasters (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows makes good coasters (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows makes good coasters (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows makes good coasters (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Linux disgusts me ("Electric Ninja")
Re: Windows NT: lost in space? ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Steve Sheldon")
Re: Windows makes good coasters (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Linux disgusts me ("Electric Ninja")
Re: Windows makes good coasters ("Steve Sheldon")
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Windows makes good coasters ("Steve Sheldon")
Re: Article: Want Media Player 8? Buy Windows XP (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (GreyCloud)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 02:52:57 GMT
Said Steve Sheldon in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 7 May 2001 23:54:28
>"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:N5JJ6.7338$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:njIJ6.15446$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> No embellishment. I at first suspected DMA problems, especially with the
>> older P166 box. The newer PIII (ASUS MB), seemed to be nearly as bad. Some
>> of the problems improved after applying BIOS patches and drivers for the
>> PCI-Bridge. Still, it doesn't perform at all well under Windows. I have
>yet
>> to try it under 2K as I removed it for reasons I mentioned previously. The
>> OS in use here, when I say Windows, is either 98SE or NT4 (Sp5).
>
>Out of curiousity what is the point in having a debate with you if you are
>not going to spend the time to keep up with recent releases? SP5 has been
>out for well over 2 years now.
Well, things get dicey when the updates have such a well-deserved
reputation for trashing systems. Nobody with any brains, for instance,
runs SP6 at all, and many refuse to move beyond SP4, because SP5 screws
things up in their installations. Linux, of course, doesn't have this
problem.
>Should all discussion regarding why Linux sucks be relegated to the version
>1.3 kernel? That 1.3 kernel really has crappy SMP, and it sure doesn't
>handle large network loads well at all.
I'm just guessing, but the 1.3 kernel was, what, FIVE years ago? And it
had good SMP, and handled large network loads very well. It's just that
the current kernel is much better at both. :-)
[...]
>> I'll grant you that 2K appears to handle heavy utilization much better
>than
>> NT4 did. That's one of the first things I noticed while using it.
>
>I highly doubt you know what heavy utilization is.
We're well aware that Microsoft doesn't understand the concept at all.
[...]
>I don't know, the ability to lie and make stuff up seems to be endemic of
>the Linux advocate. It has some psychological basis in wanting to justify
>to one self that you made a good decision, even though you have severe
>doubts.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha! When in doubt, lie, huh? Just like Microsoft, and all
its advocates.
>I know, I used to be one, along with an OS/2 advocate and an Amiga zealot.
Funny, I used to be a Windows advocate, but I wasn't a liar then, and
I'm not a liar now. Perhaps I just have more integrity and a healthier
personality than you do.
[...]
>Well new users appreciate that kind of help. Other than that it is
>identical to the older version except it seems to be quite a bit more
>stable.
No, new users find it as frustrating as experienced users. But when
there's no documentation at all, you're forced to try to use the stupid
thing. At least they made it easier to turn the clipshit off in the
newer version, from what I heard. Got a standing ovation when they
announced that feature, I hear. There's customer demand, for you.
>> I've used Windows since 1.0 was released. (Actually didn't use it MUCH until
>> 3.0)
>
>Nobody did.
>
>I didn't start using Windows until 3.1 was released, and even then hated it
>until Win95 was released then I found it tolerable. I've been Linux free
>since 1996, and Win9x free since 1997.
Win 3.0 was a drastic improvement, of course, over the previous full
version, Windows 2.0, but was only a minor improvement over the actual
previous version, Windows 386. This was where Windows as we know it
really started. Win 3.1 was the last version that was an overall
improvement over the previous one; they've gone rapidly down-hill since
then. Sure, they're "more stable", but that's a measure of how utterly
bug-ridden the previous code was, not something that could be called an
improvement in the product itself. Win3.1 was definitely better than
3.0 in both features and functions, but most of the changes after that
were just bolting different or more applications into the platform, not
an improvement either in interface or in the operating system.
Ironic that you would admit to being "Linux free" for more than four
years, considering your earlier comments about referencing NT SP6.
Guffaw!
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 02:53:11 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 8 May 2001 12:17:49
[...]
>I went to 2000 because it has all the benefits of 9x combined with non of
>the minuses.
As long as you get it for free, maybe. Doh!
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 02:53:15 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 08 May 2001 01:54:12
[...]
>Yes, Win9x suck for everything. I couldn't imagine trying to do
>anything like CD burning in Win9x, let alone try to get any decent
>amount of work done.
>
>Win9x just suck.
So why is MS still demanding the same price for it that they did when it
was the only thing available? Guffaw.
>This is a common problem. I find many MS bashers like to bash
>MS and all Windows because of the poor experience they've had with
>Win9x.
...and DOS, and Office, and IE, and Outlook, and VB, and NT, and W2K....
>They seem to feel that Win2K is the same thing somehow. They've
>obviously never used it and so they can't talk about it.
Microsoft claims its the same thing somehow. Those who have tried it
point out its the same thing, mostly, with a few more features and few
more bugs and a bit less performance and a bit more built to handle
being a piece of crapware that crashes routinely...
>You really should try Win2K. Microsoft got it right this time.
That's what the wintrolls said about DOS 2, and everything thereafter,
Chad. Not very compelling, unless you're pretty ignorant of Microsoft's
track record.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 02:53:15 GMT
Said Nik Simpson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 7 May 2001 13:24:22
[...]
>But that still doesn't address the fact that many of using Windows (W2K in
>my case) don't see problems with CD burning. [...]
That doesn't address the fact that some do, and the problems are
factually because of Windows. Not that this is something W2K
specifically is notoriously bad with, but that doesn't make it an
attractive platform, all by itself.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 02:53:19 GMT
Said Steve Sheldon in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 7 May 2001 23:46:23
>"Peter K�hlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Jan Johanson wrote:
>>
>> > It continues to amaze me that the ONLY people having these sorts of
>> > absolute failures under Windows are linux users.
>> >
>> > Are linux users that univerally inadept at running Windows?
>>
>> Jan at his best, dumb and without any clue whatsoever.
>
>I'm not sure why you would call Jan dumb, I found his statement to be very
>close to the truth.
Well Duh! Perhaps you should get a clue, you know what I mean?
>> Did you ever think that the overwhelmng majority of these linux-users did
>> use windows before they switched or are still using it today in addition
>> to linux?
>
>You know, I once considered this. But then wouldn't these people actually
>have some knowledge of the product?
Which people, what product, what knowledge do you find so crucial they'd
be unable to purchase it and install it but be unable to use it?
>> There your whole argument falls apart. But that was clear from the
>> beginning - you are simply a wintroll (saying by itself that you�re about
>> as dumb as a pile of horseshit)
>
>Wow, name calling. How vogue that must be.
Things need labels and categories. A wintroll is a wintroll; it's not
our fault they have to be dumb as a pile of horseshit to advocate
Windows.
>Jan is right, you are wrong. I think maybe you should learn to deal with
>that. Or better yet, crack the books open and start learning something so
>you can argue from an informed point of view.
How is Jan right? Are you honestly pretending to say that there are no
people who have problems with Windows, except for Linux users?
Bwah-ha-ha-ha and guffaw, Steve. Get a clue and stop acting dumb.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 02:53:21 GMT
Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 07 May 2001 23:49:35
>Steve Sheldon wrote:
>>
>> "Peter K�hlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Jan Johanson wrote:
>> >
>> > > It continues to amaze me that the ONLY people having these sorts of
>> > > absolute failures under Windows are linux users.
>> > >
>> > > Are linux users that univerally inadept at running Windows?
>> >
>> > Jan at his best, dumb and without any clue whatsoever.
>>
>> I'm not sure why you would call Jan dumb, I found his statement to be very
>> close to the truth.
>>
>> > Did you ever think that the overwhelmng majority of these linux-users did
>> > use windows before they switched or are still using it today in addition
>> > to linux?
>>
>> You know, I once considered this. But then wouldn't these people actually
>> have some knowledge of the product?
>>
>> > There your whole argument falls apart. But that was clear from the
>> > beginning - you are simply a wintroll (saying by itself that you�re about
>> > as dumb as a pile of horseshit)
>>
>> Wow, name calling. How vogue that must be.
>>
>> Jan is right, you are wrong. I think maybe you should learn to deal with
>> that. Or better yet, crack the books open and start learning something so
>> you can argue from an informed point of view.
>
>What I do know is that some CD burners don't work too well under windows
>and then others do. One I know of my neighbor bought from Costco. The
>burner software provided had a Y2K problem in it. I told him to take it
>back and get an HP CD burner. That one worked fine for his needs.
As briefly mentioned earlier, you really have to get a Plextor burner if
you want to have a hope of burning CDs on Windows. Its a hardware
function, then, and is pretty bullet-proof. If you don't have their
technology, though, then you're taking your chances; even Linux can make
a toaster on a bog-standard burner.
>As far as Jans comments that ONLY linux users have this problem... he's
>cruising for the Darwin of the year award.
I know about "the Darwin Awards", but this 'Darwin of the year', thing,
V, I don't know about that. Jan's just... a sock puppet.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 02:53:46 GMT
Steve Sheldon wrote:
>
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Dave Martel wrote:
> > > >You really should try Win2K. Microsoft got it right this time.
> >
> > Not quite, but they're making progress.
>
> Really? In your educated opinion what yet do they need to improve?
Do not let an application manage its own window (except for
drawing the interior).
Implement X-Windows; get the graphics out of kernel space.
Make the kernel more modular.
Provide options to customize the kernel.
Fix Kerberos support.
Fix IE and IIS.
Make Windows 2000 portable to more machines.
Bring the window manager up to the configurability and
quality of Gnome, for example.
Ditch the registration codes.
Also...
Test the OS more thoroughly.
Be more conservative with changes to the OS.
Finally, don't ever think that anyone "got it right" this time.
At best, it's an asymptote.
> > > Sorry, 18 years of dealing with Microsoft has left a bad taste in my
> > > mouth. And my butt hurts.
> >
> > And Win2K still has some problems holding over from its legacy
> > application control model. It is still possible for one
> > app to lock up the system, although at least Win2K will eventually
> > respond enough to let you kill the offending app.
>
> And a similar case is true with Linux/Unix.
Very true. But I've found it much more difficult to do under
Linux. And going to a virtual console is very easy.
Chris
--
Free the Software!
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 02:57:42 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Tom Wilson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 07 May 2001 05:03:25
> >"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:9d4a9e$dlo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:XIeJ6.7026$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >>
> >>
> >> > > Define "like other DOS programs".
> >> >
> >> > Programs that use DOS services to do their
> >> > thing. You know, programs written to *DOS's*
> >> > API.
> >>
> >> DOS didn't have API.
> >
> >The int 21h calls were an "API" of sorts, I guess.
>
> Yes, BIOS is "like an OS", and interrupts are "like API calls". Only it
> isn't, and they're not. Get it?
10h was BIOS. 21h is where the core of MS-DOS resided and those routines
were what any program wishing to interface to the "OS" had to access.
Particularly if you were screwing with the un- or - almost documented
functions like "Reload Transient" and the "List-Of-Lists". Technically,
those calls constituted an API as applications definitely had to utilize
those interrupt to access DOS's functionality (or lack thereof).
Get it?
------------------------------
From: "Electric Ninja" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux disgusts me
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 02:53:23 GMT
> I haven't got antialiased fonts, and I have to say that I don't miss them
> a bit.
> -Ed
Why? They seem to make all the difference with webpages.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows NT: lost in space?
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 02:58:24 GMT
"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 08 May 2001 07:45:48 GMT, Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> > Yes...they are a nation of chess-players, compared to the US, which
> >> > is a nation of poker-players.
> >> >
> >> > when it comes to this sort of algorithm development, the
chess-player's
> >> > mind will always be the best for the task
> >> >
> >> Mind you, wouldn't you play chess if you lived in Siberia, from
negative
> >> 50 degrees celcius during the winter to a max of 35-40 degrees celcius
> >> during the summer.
> >
> >Explains the massive amounts of Vodka guzzled, too.
> >
>
> and when the vodka runs out, they switch to polyethelyne glycol.
A lot of frozen engine blocks over there, huh?
------------------------------
From: "Steve Sheldon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 22:03:03 -0500
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Steve Sheldon wrote:
> >
> > Macintosh also benefits in that they have a locked in market.
> >
> > The only people who buy Macs are people who are upgrading. They don't
have
> > to win these people over because they are locked into this upgrade cycle
by
> > their own fanaticism.
>
> YOu may now explain why so many people that buy iMacs are first time
> computer buyers.
Not sure why I would have to do that considering most iMac buyers are not.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 03:01:05 GMT
Steve Sheldon wrote:
>
> > Then you don't know much about it.
>
> Oh I think you'd be surprised. I was quite the Linux advocate at the time
> it was new and cool. Was even involved in the early stages of the Linux
> Documentation Project.
>
> I simply do not find it to be a very appealing operating system and find it
> disappointing that uneducated people are going around advocating it be used
> over technically superior solutions such as Windows 2000, Solaris, etc.
Again, it sounds like your experience is too old to apply today.
I will agree that some facets of Windows 2000 and Solaris are superior
to some facets of Linux. On the other hand, Linux is about as powerful,
and unencumbered by corporate goals. It is very open to study.
It works well. Unlike you, I find it appealing, so obviously we look for
different things.
I actually kind of like Windows 2000, but then, I also liked NT 4
when it first came out. Then came the service packs....
Even now, Win 2000 exhibits some of the same irritating traits
as its predecessors. However, since I work on a Win 2000 project,
I'll have to master those problems somehow. Luckily I don't
pay for the Win tools and Win books.
Solaris, I know little about. I'd like to try it some day.
Chris
--
Free the Software!
------------------------------
From: "Electric Ninja" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux disgusts me
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 02:57:15 GMT
> It only took KDE about 4 years to get where it is now.
If only because all the existing desktop paradigms were already evolved and
in use and waiting to be copied by others. Even the KDE writers take time
to note how much Windows inspired its design.
------------------------------
From: "Steve Sheldon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 22:05:24 -0500
"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> You might as well complain about the inadequate amount of storage
> capacity on a hard drive cause the last time you used one was
> 1996. Notice where 1996 is in the following:
>
> Linux kernel history:
> ---------------------
> Pre-1.0: 1991 - 1994
> version 1.x.xx: 1994 - 1996*
> version 2.0.xx - 2.1.xx: 1996 - 1999
> version 2.2.xx: 1999 - present
> version 2.4.0 - January 4, 2001
> version 2.4.1 - January 29, 2001
> version 2.4.2 - February 21, 2001
> version 2.4.3 - March 29, 2001
> version 2.4.4 - April 27, 2001
Yes, and notice how little has really changed... Version numbers don't tell
the whole story.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 03:03:57 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Tom Wilson in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 08 May 2001 02:12:38
> [...]
> >Anything that makes you remember assembler wistfully,
> >is a "Bad Thing".
>
> LOL! I can imagine. :-D
There are those times when one feels perverse, though, and throws obscure
assembly-based crap into a project code base just to screw with a few heads.
(Not that *I* ever do such things....)
------------------------------
From: "Steve Sheldon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 22:09:58 -0500
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Steve Sheldon wrote:
> >
> >
> > Really? In your educated opinion what yet do they need to improve?
>
> Do not let an application manage its own window (except for
> drawing the interior).
That's pretty much already the case, and rather useful.
> Implement X-Windows; get the graphics out of kernel space.
Implementing X-windows would be a signifigant step backwards in evolution.
> Make the kernel more modular.
Already is modular.
> Provide options to customize the kernel.
There already are.
> Fix Kerberos support.
Kerberos works fine.
> Fix IE and IIS.
IE and IIS work fine.
> Make Windows 2000 portable to more machines.
If the market isn't there, where is the incentive?
> Bring the window manager up to the configurability and
> quality of Gnome, for example.
It's already far beyond the quality of Gnome.
> Ditch the registration codes.
Now this we can agree with. I dislike this new activation scheme.
> Also...
>
> Test the OS more thoroughly.
Hmm, pretty much there.
> Be more conservative with changes to the OS.
Well that'd be boring.
> Finally, don't ever think that anyone "got it right" this time.
> At best, it's an asymptote.
Nothing is ever perfect.
But it is looking like you really don't have any particularly valid
complaints wrt Win2k. That's good, i was worried there for a second.
> > > And Win2K still has some problems holding over from its legacy
> > > application control model. It is still possible for one
> > > app to lock up the system, although at least Win2K will eventually
> > > respond enough to let you kill the offending app.
> >
> > And a similar case is true with Linux/Unix.
>
> Very true. But I've found it much more difficult to do under
> Linux. And going to a virtual console is very easy.
Yes, crashing out of X-Windows back to a console is pretty routine.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Article: Want Media Player 8? Buy Windows XP
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 20:07:02 -0700
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > >
> > > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > >
> > >
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > >
> > > > > > Nah! FUD!
> > > > >
> > > > > You qouted the whole articles for *two* words?
> > > > > And what was FUD about it?
> > > >
> > > > GPL is a viral thing... totally untrue.
> > >
> > > Really? Show me how I can incorporate GPL code with any other code
> without
> > > turning the whole thing to GPL?
> > > Where is the GPLed browser using Gecko?
> > > Where is non-GPL KDE application?
> > >
> > > http://www.openave.net/community/features/inoc.shtml
> > >
> http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:www.technocrat.net/964911538/index_html
> > > +konqueror+license&hl=en
> >
> > I think a lot of people get mired down in the details without realizing
> > the whole forest in front of them. I got most of my software thru Sun
> > which has GPL code in it. Sun had libraries that mix with GPL code and
> > still sells it. In the code however, is a mention of GPL. Maybe Sun
> > pays a small royalty to the programers?? I don't know, its what I see
> > that I have on hand that tells me GPL isn't a problem. Most of the GPL
> > software that shipped with Sun OS was on a separate CD. Sun does not
> > support that software as they didn't write it and you have to read the
> > docs that came with it. Also, look at IBM.
> > The thing I sense of the spirit of GPL is to prevent MS from taking it
> > and owning it and charging a high price for it. As long as companies
> > give it away or give credit and pay royalties for it thru special
> > agreements I see no problem. The best thing to do for a lone-wolf
> > programmer to do is see his lawyer if in doubt.
> > Why do I see so many Linux distros that have some good programs provided
> > written with GPL code for sale?
>
> Because people are nice.
> I could *demand* you to give me your GPL code, both as binary & source, and
> you would have no choice but to comply, and the only thing you could charge
> me for is S&H.
> My problem with GPL, again, is not that it prevents embracing & extending
> the code, that I consider as a good thing. I don't like the fact that you
> can't *use* it with any other code.
Yes, people are nice and should be. Its a good business practice that
brings back repeat customers. Its reality.... Sun does use GPLed code
with their own as well.
What maybe is that the reverse could also be true that GPLed code can be
mixed with Suns code as well. I feel that Sun is embracing Linux and
the GPL more and more. At one time I participated in a survey with Sun
in regards to StarOffice... they asked if I would just pay a monthly
rental for StarOffice. I responded that I can get StarOffice for free.
I think that brought Sun down to the stark realities of where the market
is going and also opened up their eyes to GPL. For the developer, it
would be best to get a professional legal opinion of GPL. From what
I've seen so far is that MS can't own it, so they dislike it.
Of course, if you mix your code with GPLed code and just sold the
binaries who is going to know the difference?
This question is an open one as I'm not sure if anyone has ever been
caught doing this yet.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 20:08:36 -0700
Dave Martel wrote:
>
> On Tue, 08 May 2001 20:42:23 GMT, Pete Goodwin
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Terry Porter wrote:
> >
> >> Why ?
> >>
> >> One is not a hypocrit for using Windows and advocating Linux imho.
> >
> >But in the same breathe trashes Windows, yet they're using it to post?
> >Puh-lease!
>
> Haven't you ever known someone who drove a Yugo, but had nothing good
> to say about them?
HEHEHE... I bought a Ford a while back and never had a kind word about
it either.
:-)
--
V
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
