Linux-Misc Digest #36, Volume #20 Mon, 3 May 99 07:13:10 EDT
Contents:
Re: lilo problem (Zdravko Balorda)
Re: Linux Modem Recommendation? (Andy Johnson)
Re: Mindcraft may be partly right about Apache ("d. martin")
Re: The Best Linux distribution? (was Re: FreeBSD vs. Linux) (Tom Christiansen)
Re: Mac-emulation on Linux? (Chris Johnson)
Re: The GNU Fragrance of Sharing vs. the Stench of Greed (was: GNU reeks of
Communism (really) (jik-)
Re: The GNU Fragrance of Sharing vs. the Stench of Greed (was: GNU reeks of
Communism (really) (Floyd Davidson)
Re: The GNU Fragrance of Sharing vs. the Stench of Greed (was: GNU reeks of
Communism (really) (Hayden)
Re: The GNU Fragrance of Sharing vs. the Stench of Greed (was: GNU reeks of
Communism (really) (Hayden)
Re: Can linux damage my hardware? ("D. Vrabel")
Re: Linux Modem Recommendation? (sooner)
Re: The GNU Fragrance of Sharing vs. the Stench of Greed (was: GNU reeks of
Communism (really) (Floyd Davidson)
viewing Linux Xserver Xfree86 on NT ? (Matt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Zdravko Balorda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: lilo problem
Date: 3 May 1999 09:07:24 GMT
Theodric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Sure... Lilo cannot address a partition that is in any part above the 1023rd
: cylinder of a hard drive.
: Since that's the 8Gb mark... that would put it about right in the middle of
: your linux partition.
is there a solution?
Zdravko.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 May 1999 19:32:33 -0500
From: Andy Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Modem Recommendation?
Mark Nielsen wrote:
> In article <7eu9e7$st9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I am going to be buying a new modem that will be used with Linux RH5.2 and
> >Win98, what is the most compatible yet most reliable 56k modem to get? Hayes?
> >Rockwell? USR? Any suggestions will be appreciated.
DON'T BUY A HAYES MODEM. You may be able to find really good deals on them, but
DON'T BUY ONE. Why? Hayes is _gone_, it went bankrupt again, and apparently this
time for good. If you buy one and it breaks, tough luck.
I like external modems; I rarely have problems with them; I almost always run into
something stupid with an internal modem, regardless of operating system.
As far as brands, I like U.S. Robotics. YMMV, though.
------------------------------
From: "d. martin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mindcraft may be partly right about Apache
Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 04:26:28 -0500
Consider a few items:
1, The test was blown of by most of us because the test environment did not
reflect real-world equipment or loads in use by over 99.99% current
installations.
2. The test was performed on a 4-processor XEON systems. In other-words the
test was setup to fail, by pitting Linux to NT in a system category it is
not optimized for. A hardware setup needed in very few installations.
3. The 100 (150+) connections is an Apache not a Linux limitation. Again
this is a known fact and one used very well by Microsoft in the tests. No
other Linux web servers were tried. The headlines were "NT beats Linux".
4. If you are one of the miniscule portion of companies with need for this
type of hardware and handle more than 150 simultaneous connections at a
single server - then give some credence to the Mindcraft test - and test
some other web servers on Linux.
All in all this test was carefully designed for Linux to fail. The selection
of hardware, software, and connections were carefully selected knowing the
Linux limitations in advance. Does this negate the fact that Linux running
Apache or other web server will out-perform NT on 99.99 percent of installed
systems using real-word requirements. Should the average corporate buyer be
scared off by this test. Absolutely not.
Dan Kegel wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>I'm a big fan of Linux and Apache, but I'm bothered
>by how people are blowing off the Mindcraft benchmark.
>Sure, it was biased, but some of the results agree with
>other, non-biased benchmarks.
>
>In particular, Apache may have trouble with > 100 simultaneous
>clients. If you don't believe me, check out
>http://www.kegel.com/mindcraft_redux.html
>and see why I say this.
>
>- Dan
------------------------------
From: Tom Christiansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: The Best Linux distribution? (was Re: FreeBSD vs. Linux)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Christiansen)
Date: 2 May 1999 04:58:45 -0700
[courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
In comp.os.linux.misc, Mikhail Kruk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
:> Take a look at those man pages. There isn't much that could be
:> taken out of the BSD pages if you want anything useable. I felt
:> the implication was that the Linux was very undocumented.
:>
:> The docs look identical to my printed 4.4BSD manuals from the
:> Usenix/OReilly work.
:
:can't agree more
:Linux never stops surprising me with its man pages
And not the kind of surprise that comes from opening a carefully wrapped
package to find it full of tasty chocolates, either. Rather, it seems
more that kind of surprise that comes from having stepped through an
open elevator door only to realize belatedly that no elevator awaits you.
--tom
--
"there is not enough floorspace for all the stuff I want to put on
it" -- Dean Roehrich's (only) complaint about his cubicle
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Johnson)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.powerpc
Subject: Re: Mac-emulation on Linux?
Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 15:44:04 -0400
In article <7gjd3s$cdo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "FM"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>2. Buy a Macintosh and dual boot with Linux/MacOS
>
>Well I think this is a nice compromise but I'm not sure how
>well Linux runs on Macintosh. I'm fairly sure that it will
>be an improvement over Windows/MacOS, but I'm not even sure
>if most Linux softwares are available for this setup (or if
>it's generally source-level compatible).
FWIW this will set you squarely in the 'hardcore Linux' camp. I've
found that most stuff just compiles- but this does mean you need to have
source and be able to do 'configure, make, make install'. However it is a
pleasure getting your hands dirty with this stuff, and it's also nice to
avoid bogotification of the linux userbase one installation at a time :)
running linuxppc means you _will_ be compiling programs from source, and
this is not a bad thing.
>I think my doubts stem mostly from my lack of knowledge
>about the Macintosh systems, which I've used before but
>never administered. Are these the only options I have
>considering that I want to use Linux and remain compatible
>with Mac at the same time? Any additional information
>would be apprecited. Thanks in advance.
>Dan.
Well, _I_ like my dualboot 9500. :)
It's more like 'mac being compatible with Linux', and in fact I think
you might be _better_ off coexisting with MacOS. You see, all Microsoft
OSes traditionally tend to helpfully erase partitions they don't
understand when installed. This can't happen with MacOS, because MacOS
_does_ understand what a linux partition is- sort of. Actually MacOS
thinks the Linux partitions are Unix_SVR2 or something (haven't looked in
a while)... in other words, A_UX, the old Apple 68K Unix. I still like
having a separate physical disk for all my linux partitions tho :)
There are programs both on MacOS (LinuxDisks, very clear and usable)
and Linux (hmount /dev/sda5, xhfs /dev/sda5, humount /dev/sda5 for my Boot
partition which is sda5) which can freely copy stuff back and forth- in
fact I'm using my Linux disk as free data storage for the GTOPO30 dataset,
and could do the opposite if I was spending all my time in Linux. The one
rule of thumb I use is 'that which writes should be native', and I never
break it- LinuxDisks IMHO is for _reading_ linux disks, and xhfs is for
_reading_ HFS, and I won't use either to write data to the non-native
filesystem. Some people have problems doing that- I have had no problems
at all.
Heck, just go PPC! The G3s are very nice but some older models have
other virtues, such as my 9500 (1st gen PCI, but with 12 DIMM slots and 6
PCI slots and 2 scsi busses all built in (2nd scsi bus is just for the
external port!)). As I see it, anything that's really proper linux can be
gotten to run on PPC too. As far as the tweeky stuff like Riva cards et
al- most of those don't run on Linux yet either, and you _can_ get 3dfx
cards for Macs- I have a Voodoo2 and am anxiously watching to see if they
get proper OpenGL support (though they already have improper Mesa support
;) )
Mac Linux boxes are, in a peculiar way, the best of both worlds (as
long as you don't pick a wrong one like Performas with puzzle box cases or
old Nubus ones- go for 604, 604e or G3 if you can). You get to run genuine
native Linux- only on an architecture with 32 registers instead of 4 picky
registers, with a spiffy bus that has a fast-updating mouse (assign fkeys
for extra buttons) and can handle Wacom tablets in linux by reading them
as mice :)
The 'lilo' for Macs (if I'm not mixing metaphors?) is terrific- a
little program called BootX that's just an easily installed control
panel/extension that launches Linux for you. It seems quite troublefree
and safe.
I'm still puzzling over some xmodmap details- Jamie Zawinski worked out
the ultimate Mac keyboard keymap for the MkLinux setup, but I haven't
figured out how to _use_ it- but all in all, even though I do find MacOS
quite useful in my single-user way, I don't even consider using my Linux
HD for extra scratch disks or something. I _like_ having it around because
of how nicely a lot of it works out. For basically a Mac guy, that's
pretty high praise, particularly because I don't _need_ it per se for
anything I do. I just _want_ it around. If some Mac-ism or political
machiavellianism sufficiently annoys me, I'll boot into Linux and spend a
little time poking around in a world that nobody can own or betray, and
feel much better :)
Chris Johnson
@airwindows.com
chrisj
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 00:57:45 -0700
From: jik- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
talk.politics.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.activism,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: The GNU Fragrance of Sharing vs. the Stench of Greed (was: GNU reeks of
Communism (really)
> : I'm completely aware. I don't like developing on software
> : that makes me release all of my code. If I want to, say, use an
> : IRC server that's GPLed, and add my proprietary extensions to it
> : for conferences amongst my coworkers, I can't do that, now, can
> : I?
Nope, it would be illegal
>
> Yes, you can. If you don't distribute it. What the GPL grant you
> is the right to modify the program and the obligation to grant the
> same right to the persons or organisations that you distribute the
> software to.
Distributing it to coworkers would be distributing it.
> It is tit for tat. The cost of not reinventing the wheel comes at
> the price that you can't denie your customers the right to modify
> the source that you had originaly. Is that fair? It certainly is
> IMHO.
This also causes problems for people working on free software.
>
> If you don't want anyone to see your code, well, start from scratch or
> use code that allow you to do so.
>
> E.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Floyd Davidson)
Crossposted-To:
talk.politics.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.activism,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: The GNU Fragrance of Sharing vs. the Stench of Greed (was: GNU reeks of
Communism (really)
Date: 3 May 1999 08:08:15 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chris Costello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I didn't get my point across right (and I noticed that from my
>post, not your response):
>
> Say I work for a company that wants to sell ClosedSQL, and
>ClosedSQL's sort code is so bloated that it's just not going to keep
>companies happy under heavy load, and FooSQL's sort code is so
>optimized that it simply can't be beat! Copying the code
>directly would clearly be a violation in license. Closed, Inc.
>is generally proprietary (much like BSD, Incorporated.) so it's
>wary to release the source code.
>
> See where I'm going?
>
No. :-) Closed Inc has a choice to make, thats all.
Take a similar example, and explain the difference.
Closed, Inc. also knows that Tightwad Corp has TightSQL which
also has a well optimized sort routine. Actually, they even
have a copy of the source, since they have an employee who once
worked at Tightwad Corp. They know they could use the code from
TightSQL just as well as the code from FooSQL because they have
seen the source code to both. What are their options?
In either case they have only one legal option, and that is to
make a deal with the owner of the source code they want, and pay
the price.
Of course neither Tightwad Corp nor the owner of FooSQL has any
requirement to make a deal with Closed, Inc. That seems to be
the ingredient you are missing in the original scenario because
it seems you think Closed Inc has some *right* to use FooSQL.
Closed Inc will just have to offer something that will entice
someone to deal with them.
It does happen that Tightwad Corp is owned by Gill Bates, the
greediest SOB west of Mount Rainier, so Closed Inc can probably
offer him money and expect a successful deal.
It also happens that Closed Inc knows full well that Stichard
M. Rallman and that group of communists who wrote FooSQL won't
touch money with a stick, but will give their programming
efforts to anyone in return for other code. So offering to
revamp ClosedSQL into a new program known as OpenedSQL would
clearly allow them to make a deal for the sort code in FooSQL.
They have a choice, one or the other. In either case there is
a price because Free Software doesn't mean a free lunch.
Floyd
--
Floyd L. Davidson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
North Slope images: <http://www.ptialaska.net/~floyd>
------------------------------
From: Hayden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
talk.politics.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.activism,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: The GNU Fragrance of Sharing vs. the Stench of Greed (was: GNU reeks of
Communism (really)
Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 08:43:14 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Costello) wrote:
> In article <7gjac1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Floyd Davidson wrote:
> > Chris Costello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >In article <7gj368$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Floyd Davidson wrote:
> > >> Chris Costello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> As does LGPL. It just doesn't make it quite as easy
> > >> >> to make minor modifications and then crassly declare
> > >> >> the result to be your property. This kind of
> > >> >> shenanigan is what inspired creation of the GPL to
> > >> >> begin with.
> > >> >
> > >> > As seen in the BSD license:
> > >> >
> > >> > * Copyright (c) [year] [your name]
> > >> > * All rights reserved.
> > >> > *
> > >> > * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> > >> > * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
> > >> > * are met:
> > >> > * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> > >> > * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> > >> > * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> > >> > * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
> > >> > the
> > >> > * documentation and/or other materials provided with the
> > >> > distribution.
> > >> >
> > >> > This prevents the same thing.
> > >>
> > >> It doesn't.
> > >
> > > Prove it.
> >
> > I can't "prove" anything if you can't read and comprehend the two
> > license agreements.
> >
> > The BSD license does not prevent a totally proprietary, closed,
> > use of code. GPL does.
>
> That's the down side.
>
> Unfortunately, you missed a vital part. "must reproduce the
> above copyright" and the "above copyright" happens to include
> "Copyright (c) [year] [your name]"
>
But unfortunatly it doesn't require you to release the source code. So
long as you have the copyright you don't have to give the end user
anything.
All the proof that is required is Mac OS X. It's one of their marketing
statements that it's based on the well tested and stable BSD kernel.
You may argue that you can get the source code to most of Apple's
extensions but that is because they wanted to use the resources of the
internet to make it better. Not because they had to or were being a
good citizen (I agree with RMS on the APSL). They could have just as
easily kept the source closed, like their GUI.
--
Hayden
"You need an IQ upgrade to use that piece of software."
-- Dogbert
------------------------------
From: Hayden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
talk.politics.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.activism,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: The GNU Fragrance of Sharing vs. the Stench of Greed (was: GNU reeks of
Communism (really)
Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 08:52:00 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Costello) wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 03 May 1999 02:11:32 GMT, Chris Costello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >wrote:
> > >> On Mon, 03 May 1999 01:14:44 GMT, Chris Costello
> > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> >In article
> > >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, D.
> > >> >Vrabel wrote:
> > >> >> On Sun, 2 May 1999, Chris Costello wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mark S. Bilk wrote:
> > >> >> > > >For each person, it depends on timescale or personal
> > >> >> > > >interest. Some systems elevate a "class" of individuals to take
> > >> >> > > >advantage of others ("practical communism" and GPL),
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > Amazing! Exactly what "class of individuals" is enabled
> > >> >> > > to "take advantage of others" by means of the GPL? All of
> > >> >> > > humanity minus Bill Gates?
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > The GPL is a crock. It forces openness. That's not freedom.
> > >> >> > You like walking outside sometimes, I would bet. Would you like
> > >> >> > being *FORCED* to walk outside all the time? That's the key
> > >> >> > problem with the GPL and many recognize it.
> > >> >
> > >> >> Alas, your argument is wrong because your not forced to use the GPL or
> > >> >> to use GPL software.
> > >> >
> > >> > I'm completely aware. I don't like developing on software
> > >> >that makes me release all of my code. If I want to, say, use an
> > >> >IRC server that's GPLed, and add my proprietary extensions to it
> > >> >for conferences amongst my coworkers, I can't do that, now, can
> > >> >I?
> > >>
> > >> Sure you can. You just can't try to sell the derivative work.
> > >
> > > Ok, I misunderstood that part. How about this hypothetical
> > >situation:
> > >
> > > I'm writing a closed-source database system, but I *really*
> > >like the sort code from FooSQL, the GPLed SQL server. So I have
> > >it working with my closed database system. Can I sell it
> > >legally?
> >
> > Sure. You just have to provide source. Distribution
> > requires disclosure of source regardless of what you
> > charge for it. Don't distribute it (just use it like
> > Walnut Creek) & you don't have to release your source.
>
> I didn't get my point across right (and I noticed that from my
> post, not your response):
>
> Say I work for a company that wants to sell ClosedSQL, and
> ClosedSQL's sort code is so bloated that it's just not going to keep
> companies happy under heavy load, and FooSQL's sort code is so
> optimized that it simply can't be beat! Copying the code
> directly would clearly be a violation in license. Closed, Inc.
> is generally proprietary (much like BSD, Incorporated.) so it's
> wary to release the source code.
>
> See where I'm going?
>
So you're saying that it's ok for you to use other code that someone
has written and gotten perfect and then was kind enough to _give_ away
and you want to use their time and effort so that you or your company
can make money. Rather than spending the time and money to make
ClosedSQL's sort code better you want to rip off FooSQL's code.
And if FooSQL was proprietary and you riped off their code? That would
be wrong and you would go to jail (unless you are Microsoft). Why is
Free code any different? The author(s) of the code have (has) said that
they want this code to be Free rather than making you pay for it. If
the code is better because it is Free then why should you have the
right to make it non-Free?
--
Hayden
"You need an IQ upgrade to use that piece of software."
-- Dogbert
------------------------------
From: "D. Vrabel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Can linux damage my hardware?
Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 10:54:34 +0100
On 3 May 1999, Carl Fink wrote:
> On Sun, 02 May 1999 22:03:49 +0200 Shaun Schembri
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Now here is my question. Was it a coincidence that both cards went
> >bonkers while using Linux?
>
> Yes.
>
> It is theoretically possible to ruin your video card with X . . . but
> I've never met anyone who actually did it. Certainly, if the same
> settings had worked for six months, they wouldn't abruptly damage your
> video card.
It's the monitor you can damage (by driving it at too high a frequency)
not the video card.
David
--
David Vrabel
Engineering Undergraduate at University of Cambridge, UK.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (sooner)
Subject: Re: Linux Modem Recommendation?
Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 09:07:43 GMT
You probably know this already, but perhaps there are some newbies out
there following this thread who don't:
Avoid so-called 'WinModems' at all cost! The prices are attractive, but they
will not work with any OS other than Windows.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Andy Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>
>Mark Nielsen wrote:
>
>> In article <7eu9e7$st9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >I am going to be buying a new modem that will be used with Linux RH5.2 and
>> >Win98, what is the most compatible yet most reliable 56k modem to get?
> Hayes?
>> >Rockwell? USR? Any suggestions will be appreciated.
>
>DON'T BUY A HAYES MODEM. You may be able to find really good deals on them,
> but
>DON'T BUY ONE. Why? Hayes is _gone_, it went bankrupt again, and apparently
> this
>time for good. If you buy one and it breaks, tough luck.
>
>I like external modems; I rarely have problems with them; I almost always run
> into
>something stupid with an internal modem, regardless of operating system.
>
>As far as brands, I like U.S. Robotics. YMMV, though.
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Floyd Davidson)
Crossposted-To:
talk.politics.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.activism,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: The GNU Fragrance of Sharing vs. the Stench of Greed (was: GNU reeks of
Communism (really)
Date: 3 May 1999 08:13:54 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chris Costello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <7gj3sh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Floyd Davidson wrote:
>> Chris Costello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, D.
>Vrabel wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 2 May 1999, Chris Costello wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mark S. Bilk wrote:
>> >> > > >For each person, it depends on timescale or personal
>> >> > > >interest. Some systems elevate a "class" of individuals to take
>> >> > > >advantage of others ("practical communism" and GPL),
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Amazing! Exactly what "class of individuals" is enabled
>> >> > > to "take advantage of others" by means of the GPL? All of
>> >> > > humanity minus Bill Gates?
>> >> >
>> >> > The GPL is a crock. It forces openness. That's not freedom.
>> >> > You like walking outside sometimes, I would bet. Would you like
>> >> > being *FORCED* to walk outside all the time? That's the key
>> >> > problem with the GPL and many recognize it.
>> >
>> >> Alas, your argument is wrong because your not forced to use the GPL or
>> >> to use GPL software.
>> >
>> > I'm completely aware. I don't like developing on software
>> >that makes me release all of my code. If I want to, say, use an
>> >IRC server that's GPLed, and add my proprietary extensions to it
>> >for conferences amongst my coworkers, I can't do that, now, can
>> >I?
>>
>> Actually, you can amongst a few coworkers. If "your" code is
>> owned by that group of coworkers, you can do as you please. Just
>> don't be giving a binary to your church's Sunday School and
>> taking a tax write off by calling it a donation!
>>
>> However, your logic is terribly flawed. You want the right to use
>> other's code with no restrictions placed on your use, but you insist
>> that you also be able to put severe restrictions on your code. To
>> justify that, you construct a dicotomy whereby any reference to "free"
>> has to mean you are totally free in every sense, or not at all.
>
> The freedom for the users to integrate its code into their
>proprietary code is certainly an important freedom.
You are looking for a free lunch, not free code. There is
a huge difference.
>> The GPL is about as free as it gets. Nothing that actually
>> works is better. You are free to do anything except use it in a
>> less free manner than it was provided to you.
>
> With the BSD license, you're free to--how shall I put it--join
>the military. With the GPL, you can only be a freelance
>architect. With the BSD license, you can be either a freelance
>architect or, say, design houses for a single company, and keep
>whatever practices you may use secret, or keep them availible for
>others in a book.
>
> This is a bit of a strange comparison, but it works for me.
I'm afraid you left out too much. It doesn't make a bit of sense.
>> Your complaint that it is not as free as your code is unfree is
>> not rational.
That is still what you are trying to do. You still say the "free"
in Free Software means you get something for free, and it just isn't
the case. The *software* is free, but that isn't the price you pay
for using it. It is not a free lunch.
Floyd
--
Floyd L. Davidson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
North Slope images: <http://www.ptialaska.net/~floyd>
------------------------------
From: Matt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: viewing Linux Xserver Xfree86 on NT ?
Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 00:45:07 +0100
Hi,
Is it possible to view Linux Xwindows on a NT box. using an equiv app
to Hummingbirds Exceed but for free. Maybe SuperX.
Linux box arch = Martox Mill G200 Video Card using SuSE.
NT box = Savage 3D Video Card.
Connection via DEC Ethernet card 10/100
Many thanks
Matt
------------------------------
** 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 (and comp.os.linux.misc) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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-Misc Digest
******************************
