Linux-Advocacy Digest #978, Volume #25 Wed, 5 Apr 00 23:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters. ("fmc")
Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you? (Bob Lyday)
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS (Bob Lyday)
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters. (Terry
Porter)
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS (Bob Lyday)
Re: Guilty, 'til proven guilty ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Guilty, 'til proven guilty ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters. ("fmc")
Re: NYC LOCAL: Tuesday 4 April 2000 LXNY General Meeting: Copyright and the Right to
Choose Operating Systems (G. Asch)
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters. ("fmc")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "fmc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 02:16:55 GMT
"2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> > Linux advocates talk about stability. How stable is a program
supported by
> > a single person, when that person goes off to do something else? That's
why
> > user support is a team effort.
>
> If someone stops working on a project, it won't instantly crash... and
someone
> else may well take it up.
>
>
> > Stallman is a master of double think. He considers violations of
copyright
> > like software piracy no more than ``sharing information with your
> > neighbor'', and then he uses those same copyright laws to set up GPL,
where
> > it states, "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the
Program
> > except as expressly provided under this License", and "These actions are
> > prohibited by law if you do not accept this License ".
>
> That's out of neccessity. If it didn't have those terms, people could
legally
> use the code and NOT pass on the source, which is not what Free Software
is
> about. The license is needed to keep the free software free. I, personally
like
> that.
>
How does that justify equating software piracy to ``sharing information
with your neighbor''?
>
> > BTW, he gets pissed when you say Linux. You're supposed to call it
> > GNU/Linux, in deference to him, I suppose. He's definitely out
standing in
> > his field.
>
> C'mon! There is a HUGE amount of GNU stuff in a GNU/Linux distro. Over
half, and
> most of it was there fisrt. Don't you think that GNU deserve some credit?
>
Sure, but I didn't print up those boxes at Best Buy. And in case you
haven't noticed, no one uses the term GNU/Linux on this NG, which just
happens to be called COLA, not COGLA.
> > I don't use StarOffice too much, so Office would be a waste of money.
The
> > WP is OK, but I could get along just fine with MSWorks (I got it for
FREE
> > when I bought my desktop). I use DB2 Universal Database (FREE for
personal
> > use), so I don't need Access, and the StarOffice spreadsheet will work
with
> > DB2.
>
> StarOffice is passable. I quite like, actually, esp. because the browser
is much
> more stable than Netscape.
>
> -Ed
>
> --
> Did you know that the oldest known rock is the famous Hackenthorpe rock,
which
> is over three trillion years old?
> -The Hackenthorpe Book of Lies
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 19:19:09 -0700
From: Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you?
Fred wrote:
>
> The goal should be to make the computer easy to use. People just want to
> turn it on, and use it to get their work done.
And this is why Windows sucks.
--
Bob
"There are no significant bugs in our released software that any
significant number of users want fixed," Bill Gates, in an
interview with Focus magazine, Oct 23, 1995.
Remove ".diespammersdie" to reply.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 19:22:11 -0700
From: Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS
2:1 wrote:
>
> > Don't make me laugh. My $69.00 Canon scanner came with enough "free"
> > software to blow the doors off anything Linux has, including Gimp.
> > Not to mention it worked perfectly out of the box.
> > The wizards did everything from configuring to prompting me through
> > making my first scan.
> >
> > Worked like a charm right out of the box and no overpriced SCSI
> > needed.
> >
> >Yeah, Windows plug and pray really works...not on my box....not on most people's.
--
Bob
"There are no significant bugs in our released software that any
significant number of users want fixed," Bill Gates, in an
interview with Focus magazine, Oct 23, 1995.
Remove ".diespammersdie" to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 6 Apr 2000 10:31:11 +0800
On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 18:29:25 GMT, fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 17:13:36 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
>> fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> | Linux advocates talk about stability. How stable is a program
>supported by
>> | a single person, when that person goes off to do something else? That's
>why
>> | user support is a team effort.
>>
>> The same thing can happen with propritary programs. The only
>> difference is that with Open Source software development can continue
>> when the original authors abandon it.
>
>That leaves a lot to chance. If I'm betting my livelihood on a program, I
>want some assurance that the program will be maintained by the developer.
>In some cases (Apache comes to mind) there are enough interested parties to
>keep the project alive, but that's not always possible. Sometimes you have
>a single developer, and when he loses interest the program could be
>orphaned.
>
Then you dont really understand the GPL do you, the GPL means that the version
of software your using now will *always* be available, including the *source*.
Now if a commercial entity dies your screwed, well and truly.
In fact your argument above is really about commercial software, NOT
GPL'D software.
>If he believes that his intellectual property is meant to be shared, that's
>his business, and he can copyright the GPL to do just that. In fact, the
>word "copyright" is used no less than 16 times in the GPL sample text at
>http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/gpl.txt
He needs to, some people still don't get it.
>Nobody cares. BestBuy had 3 or 4 versions of Linux on their shelves
>yesterday, and not a single one said GNU/Linux on the box. Maybe that's
>because without the Linux kernel, there wouldn't be a single GNU product on
>those shelves.
The reverse is also true.
For the same matter FreeBsd is compiled under Gcc.
>
>fmc
>
>
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 3 days 15 hours 38 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 19:32:39 -0700
From: Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I don't care if you have choice.
Of course not. You are a Bill Gates fan. You don't mind the
whole world being forced to use crap at gunpoint.
>
> I have plenty of choice.
Yeah. You can run M$ SW on Windows, or run competing SW and
watch Windows try to shoot it down all day. When you use
Windows, you also have the pleasure of having other M$ programs
shoved down your throat all day.
I can walk into CompUSA and pick up just> about any piece of
hardware or software and it will work.
Life under a monopoly is fun! Grab a picnic basket!
Under> Windows/Mac that is.
>
> Linux need not apply.....
Bill Gates has seen to that. I see: you tie a man up in the
corner, then make fun of him cuz he can't move! Boy, you're a
charmer!
>
> Stevie-Weevie
>
> On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 23:07:18 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SomeOne Else)
> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 22:15:59 +0100, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> You're choice (and aren't you glad that you do have a choice)?
> >>
> >No. They're WInvocates. People who have wet dreams over the thought of
> >Bill Gates. They don't want a choice.
Boy, they were born too late, huh? They would have loved Mao's
China!
They don't want us to have a
> >choice.
We don't deserve one! We are fools! We know nothing! The
almighty Gates has decided what we want, and he knows what is
good for us! We are sheep, cattle, worms!
Now the courts say they have to give it to us, and they are
> >are coming here to whine.
Be nice now. Some of these boys are very depressed. Their
boyfriend just got his ass kicked the other day.
--
Bob
"There are no significant bugs in our released software that any
significant number of users want fixed," Bill Gates, in an
interview with Focus magazine, Oct 23, 1995.
Remove ".diespammersdie" to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: uk.comp.os.linux,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Guilty, 'til proven guilty
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 02:27:38 GMT
In article <Rtj*[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >port its entire portfolio of software, and it _still_ wouldn't make
the
> >other software vendors port their software to the other platforms.
They
>
> What, you mean like Corel's Word Perfect?
Please read what I wrote. I said it wouldn't _make_ the other software
vendors port their software. In other words, the other vendors will not
be forced to port their software. They will port it if they want to. I
contend that most will not want to. I guess we'll see who's right.
And please tell me what you meant in bringing up Wordperfect. Are you
giving it as an example of portable software?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: uk.comp.os.linux,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Guilty, 'til proven guilty
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 02:31:20 GMT
In article <EBj*[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Their increasing support for the MacOS (even though this directly
> impacts sales of Windows) says they disagree.
Way bad analogy. Microsoft was one of the first vendors to ship product
for Macintosh. They've been in that market since there was a market.
And have you noticed what subset of MS apps are available for MacOS?
Office, IE and what else?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "fmc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 02:42:15 GMT
"Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 18:29:25 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> |
> | "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> | > On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 17:13:36 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> | > fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | >
> | > | Linux advocates talk about stability. How stable is a program
> | supported by
> | > | a single person, when that person goes off to do something else?
That's
> | why
> | > | user support is a team effort.
> | >
> | > The same thing can happen with propritary programs. The only
> | > difference is that with Open Source software development can continue
> | > when the original authors abandon it.
> |
> | That leaves a lot to chance. If I'm betting my livelihood on a program,
I
> | want some assurance that the program will be maintained by the
developer.
> | In some cases (Apache comes to mind) there are enough interested parties
to
> | keep the project alive, but that's not always possible. Sometimes you
have
> | a single developer, and when he loses interest the program could be
> | orphaned.
>
> You get no such assurance with proprietary programs. With Open Source
> the worst case senerio is that you'll have to pay for continued
> development yourself. With proprietary software, you are just stuck
> with the last version they made before they went into the spreadsheet
> business.
>
> | > | Stallman is a master of double think. He considers violations of
> | copyright
> | > | like software piracy no more than ``sharing information with your
> | > | neighbor'', and then he uses those same copyright laws to set up
GPL,
> | where
> | > | it states, "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the
> | Program
> | > | except as expressly provided under this License", and "These actions
are
> | > | prohibited by law if you do not accept this License ".
> | >
> | > The purpose of the GPL is to allow people to share information, and
> | > enforce it actually.
> |
> | If he believes that his intellectual property is meant to be shared,
that's
> | his business, and he can copyright the GPL to do just that. In fact,
the
> | word "copyright" is used no less than 16 times in the GPL sample text at
> | http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/gpl.txt
> |
> | The hypocrisy starts when he makes excuses for piracy that violates the
> | intellectual property of other people. Just because HIS license
requires
> | the user to share the covered software doesn't mean that MY copyrighted
> | property is OK to share with others. Yet he approves of just that when
he
> | says that software piracy no more than ``sharing information with your
> | neighbor''.
>
> Yet that's exactly what it is. You have no innate right to control
> other people's property. That right is given by the government in
> order to foster progress. But in the case of the software industry,
> there is good reason to believe these laws are stifling progress.
You've been reading that RS manifesto, haven't you? What a waste of time.
You see, my rights are not doled out by the government. I also happen to
own MY intellectual property. I'm not interested in controlling anyone
else's, and no one else has the right to copy what belongs to me without my
permission. RS may think otherwise, but he's wrong.
>
> | > | BTW, he gets pissed when you say Linux. You're supposed to call it
> | > | GNU/Linux, in deference to him, I suppose.
> | >
> | > It's understandable. The GNU project created and entire operating
> | > system, minus a kernel. Linus creates a kernel, and get credit for
> | > the whole shabang. Plus, the GNU name makes it easier to spread the
> | > word about freedom, which is what the GNU project is all about.
> |
> | Nobody cares. BestBuy had 3 or 4 versions of Linux on their shelves
> | yesterday, and not a single one said GNU/Linux on the box. Maybe that's
> | because without the Linux kernel, there wouldn't be a single GNU product
on
> | those shelves.
>
> Similarly, without the GNU project Linux would not be on any shelves.
> It probably never would have been created.
Then change the name of this NG from COLA to COGLA.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: NYC LOCAL: Tuesday 4 April 2000 LXNY General Meeting: Copyright and the
Right to Choose Operating Systems
Reply-To: G. Asch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: G. Asch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 05 Apr 2000 14:10:51 -0400
Could you perhaps post these announcements with a wee bit more
than a 12 hours advance?
These last minute publishing of schedule really makes these private.
Thanks
secretary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
s> LXNY will have a general meeting Tuesday 4 April 2000. This
s> meeting is free and open to the public.
s> The meeting runs from 6:30 pm to 9:00 pm. After the meeting full
s> and precise instructions on how to get to our traditional place of
s> refreshment will be given in clear.
s> Thanks to support of the IBM Corporation, the meeting is at their
s> building at 590 Madison Avenue at East 57th Street on the Island of
s> Manhattan. Enter the building at the corner of Madison and 57th
s> and ask at the desk for the floor and room number.
s> This meeting will be a general discussion meeting.
s> A brief report will be made on Refund Day activities in New York
s> City.
s> Students and teachers and workers at institutions of learning, in
s> particular, students, faculty, and staff at Columbia University,
s> are invited to come to this meeting to discuss Columbia's proposed
s> new policy on copyright of software written by students, faculty,
s> and staff.
s> http://moglen.law.columbia.edu/ip/policy-comment.html
s> <blockquote from="Michael Smith, Acting Managing Director LXNY"
s> edit-level="light">
s> DOES THE UNIVERSITY OWN YOUR IDEAS?
s> Columbia University is presently considering a new ``Intellectual
s> Property'' Policy that will determine how much of the work you
s> create is controlled by you, and how much is controlled by the
s> University. If passed in its present form, its provisions will be
s> binding on all students, employees, and faculty of Columbia,
s> whether one has signed anything agreeing to its terms or not. A
s> Standing Committee appointed by the Provost will rule on all
s> disputes between the creator and the University: the creator may
s> appeal its decisions only to the President, and the President's
s> decision will be considered final.
s> The Draft Proposal has a clause about software (section
s> I.C.4. Software), stating that anyone associated with Columbia who
s> writes software that could conceivably have commercial potential
s> must disclose this software to the University.* As presently
s> written and presently interpreted by the Committee that drafted the
s> Proposal, this would apply even to software conceived and developed
s> on your own time with your own computer in your own home.
s> Apparently, the University has threatened to bypass the normal
s> legislative process and simply impose this new policy by
s> administrative fiat. Only a demonstration of widespread concern
s> will block such a course of action. If you have written software,
s> hope to write software, or just wish to preserve your right to keep
s> your own thoughts to yourself, your input to this process is needed
s> now!
s> The document in its entirety can be seen at
s> http://moglen.law.columbia.edu/ip/policy-comment.html or at
s> https://www1.columbia.edu/sec/cu/provost/docs/copyright/cover.html
s> or at the University Senate page. You can make your views and
s> suggestions known 1)by sending e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
s> 2)by using the links on the web pages containing this draft
s> document, or 3)by participating in the `town meeting' being held by
s> the University in 207 Low Library on Tuesday, April 4th at 2:00 pm.
s> *<ga>`Because the analysis underlying the University's decision as
s> to whether it will assert rights to any software may be more
s> complex than the analysis with respect to other works, software is
s> subject to special disclosure requirements. Specifically, if the
s> faculty member or other creator believes the software has
s> commercial potential or wishes to license or otherwise
s> commercialize the software developed, whether or not the creator
s> believes the University would assert rights to it, he or she must
s> disclose the software to the University pursuant to the disclosure
s> procedures described in Section II of this Policy. As set forth in
s> those disclosure procedures, any disputes between the creator and
s> the University with regard to the University's decision whether to
s> assert rights shall be resolved by the Copyright Policy Standing
s> Committee.'
s> -Michael E. Smith, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
s> </blockquote>
s> Jay Sulzberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Corresponding Secretary LXNY
s> LXNY is New York's Free Computing Organization.
s> http://www.lxny.org
--
_________________________________________________________
Gabriel Asch
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
!!! Note: to foil spammers,
if you reply by email, your message must either contain a
proper Reference header or you must quote !this line!
"in a sense, you are already dead"
J. L. Borges
________________________________________________________
------------------------------
From: "fmc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 03:05:34 GMT
"Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 18:29:25 GMT, fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 17:13:36 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> >> fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> | Linux advocates talk about stability. How stable is a program
> >supported by
> >> | a single person, when that person goes off to do something else?
That's
> >why
> >> | user support is a team effort.
> >>
> >> The same thing can happen with propritary programs. The only
> >> difference is that with Open Source software development can continue
> >> when the original authors abandon it.
> >
> >That leaves a lot to chance. If I'm betting my livelihood on a program,
I
> >want some assurance that the program will be maintained by the developer.
> >In some cases (Apache comes to mind) there are enough interested parties
to
> >keep the project alive, but that's not always possible. Sometimes you
have
> >a single developer, and when he loses interest the program could be
> >orphaned.
> >
> Then you dont really understand the GPL do you, the GPL means that the
version
> of software your using now will *always* be available, including the
*source*.
This assumes that there's an open source version of the software I need, and
as I showed with regard to tax preparation, that's not always the case. It
also assumes that I'd want to muck around in someone else's code, that I'm
an experienced programmer, and that I'm familiar with the application area
in question. Count the number of people who can meet those qualifications
and you have a fair idea of the maximum potential size of the Linux market.
>
> Now if a commercial entity dies your screwed, well and truly.
I'll just switch to a competing product. That usually solves the problem.
If it doesn't, I'll take the day off and go fishing.
>
> In fact your argument above is really about commercial software, NOT
> GPL'D software.
>
> >If he believes that his intellectual property is meant to be shared,
that's
> >his business, and he can copyright the GPL to do just that. In fact, the
> >word "copyright" is used no less than 16 times in the GPL sample text at
> >http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/gpl.txt
> He needs to, some people still don't get it.
It's hypocitical for Stallman to claim protection under copyright, and then
declare that software piracy, itself a violation of copyright, is no more
than ``sharing information with your neighbor''.
> >Nobody cares. BestBuy had 3 or 4 versions of Linux on their shelves
> >yesterday, and not a single one said GNU/Linux on the box. Maybe that's
> >because without the Linux kernel, there wouldn't be a single GNU product
on
> >those shelves.
> The reverse is also true.
>
> For the same matter FreeBsd is compiled under Gcc.
>
> >
> >fmc
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Kind Regards
> Terry
> --
> **** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
> My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
> up 3 days 15 hours 38 minutes
> ** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
** 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.advocacy) 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-Advocacy Digest
******************************
