Linux-Advocacy Digest #9, Volume #26 Fri, 7 Apr 00 15:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you? ("Leonard F. Agius")
Re: Rumors ... (Chris Lee)
Re: Windows 2000 has 63,000 bugs - Win2k.html [0/1] - Win2k.html [0/1]
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Penfield Jackson bitch-slaps Bill Gates (abraxas)
Re: Rumors ... (abraxas)
Re: Review: Corel Office 2000 (Dinnin)
Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic) ("miguel")
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
(Damien)
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Definition of "Programming" (was: Why Linux on the desktop?) ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Definition of "Programming" (was: Why Linux on the desktop?) (Jim Dabell)
Re: Stable-only distro? (Jim Dabell)
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS (Jim Dabell)
Re: About GNU kernels (Jim Dabell)
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
(Damien)
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters. ("Chad
Myers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Leonard F. Agius" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you?
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 17:12:55 GMT
CG wrote:
> This is very true, but it ignores the fact that most people don't
> install windows on their machines, it comes already installed. if
> they had to go out and buy windows installation cd's they'd be just as
> frustrated and confused as people who don't know what they are doing
> and try to install linux.
>
> frankly, while windows installations can go smoothly, often they do
> not, and when they don't, they are a whole hell of a lot harder to
> figure out then linux installations.
I've several Win98 installs, both the original version & Win98SE, plus several
Win95OSR2 installs. Never had a problem.
>
>
> if new computers came installed with linux booting right into the x
> windows environment, the average consumer wouldn't know the
> difference. I know because I've set up "idiot" linux installations
> and they work just fine.
>
> it is probably true that it's a little easier to add software willy
> nilly to a windows machine, but this is part of the curse as well,
> because nothing screws up a windows machine faster and more completely
> than adding every crap installation, trial demo, applet etc. that
> comes along. they can't be uninstalled half the time and eventually
> they bring down the whole o/s. can't happen in linux.
>
It is very true about being able to add software willy nilly to a Windows
machine, and it may be part of the curse as well. But given that there isn't
that much Linux software out there (comparitively speaking), can you make a
fair comparison?
>
> oh, and linux has no viruses.
>
Can't address this one. Don't know.
>
> On Thu, 06 Apr 2000 00:38:21 GMT, "Fred" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. Most people don't care how
> >it works. They just want to check email, and cruise the web. They don't
> >want to dwell on how large to make the /var partition.
> >
> >
> >> You know about partitions. I know about partitions. The typical
> >> Windows user knows C:\windows and that's it.
> >>Example of people not knowing what they are doing. They're $.10/dozen
> >>anymore thanks to Windows.
> >
> >>True, but it is the reality of the situation and a point the
> >>Linvocates fail to be able to grasp.
> >
> >
> >
--
Fight SPAM!!! Remove the _nospam from the above address to send e-mail.
The opinions expressed are my own.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Lee)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Rumors ...
Date: 7 Apr 2000 17:12:43 GMT
In article <ODmH4.854$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8ckab9$4nq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> ?????
>> Show me ONE place where Apple has strong armed a hardware vendor
>> (independant of Apple its self) into pre-loading to the exclution of
>> every one else the Mac OS. In deed, show me any vendor that Apple strong
>> armed into suppleing ONLY Apple products (you must PROVE that Apple
>> strong armed or threatened the company) Without doing so, you can NOT
>> claim Mac is being just as aggressive and draconian as MS.
>
>Apples Authorized Dealer program prevents an apple dealer from loading
>anything other than MacOS on machines for sale.
Make sense. Unlike Microsoft, and like Atari and Commodore, Apple has/offers
a warrenty on these machines....
>
>Also, Apple denied Be critical information it needed to continue to operate
>under Apples hardware, forcing them out of the market.
>
Since people have ported linux to Apple's hardware, that says something
about the skills of the BE crowd,doesn't it?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.redhat
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 has 63,000 bugs - Win2k.html [0/1] - Win2k.html [0/1]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 17:23:00 GMT
You have either a hardware problem or possibly Xfree 4.0 is not
feeling well. I've never used 4.0 so I can't comment. I'm not exactly
a Linux advocate, but Linux is extremely stable, and even with all of
my screwing around not knowing what I was doing most of the time, the
only time kill -9 didn't work for me was when Wine would lock up and
that's a real specialized case and not to be blamed on Linux at all.
Even Netscape, the king of lock up programs (even under Windows) could
be killed.
In any case I would suggest you try SuSE Linux or possibly Caldera in
lieu of RedHat.
Steve
On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 16:59:43 GMT, *[EMAIL PROTECTED]* (Mork) wrote:
>On 7 Apr 2000 14:55:40 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (J Bland)
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 14:29:44 GMT, Mork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> Wish I could go 2 years, let alone 2 days. I'm writing this in
>>>windows (forte free agent) because I got tired of rebooting linux
>>>every time a process hung, which refused being killed in any way.
>>>
>>>The differences in peoples mileages is amazing.
>>
>>I think in such cases it's either down to bad hardware or, perhaps, lack of
>>experience/understanding from the user (no offense).
>>
>
> Newbie for sure. I do expect it to improve as I learn more. Although
>I've had this distro (mandrake 6.0) installed before and don't
>remember having this much trouble. I'm getting suspicous of XFree86
>version 4 lately, hmmm...
>
>As for kill -9 pid, fegget about it. I have to reboot. Wish I could
>kill them.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Penfield Jackson bitch-slaps Bill Gates
Date: 7 Apr 2000 17:48:09 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Paul 'Z' Ewande? <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I can put either Linux (as I have done) or Solaris on my X86,
>> and have a good confidence that it will go for hundreds of times
>> longer than the POS Windoze 98 machine I have to use for work,
> Good for you. Unfortunately, your UberOSes apparently don't cut it for your
> boss.
And here it is: the problem with winvocacy at large:
The assumption that bosses are smarter than employees.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Rumors ...
Date: 7 Apr 2000 17:53:17 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Apple hasn't been tried yet, but assuming the same exact yardstick were to
> be applied to Apple, then Apple would also be convicted for things such as
> killing the Mac clone market and forcing Be out of the PPC market.
Apple is not capable of taking any action that would negatively impact the
*vast* majority of the PC market.
Your logic, like your education and your facts, is flawed.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dinnin)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Review: Corel Office 2000
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 17:59:26 GMT
<snip>
"I was quite disappointed: it didn't
make it through the demo without dying."
<snip>
I dont know where you were but I also went to a corel road show the
other night. Again, it was very nice in some portions of their
presentation but guess what... It crashed in a very similar manner
about half way through the paradox breifing.
Some of the features they speak of and showed were quite useful and
would be great to get my boss off his NTism's but in the same respect,
I have to agree that the stability is not what I would expect from a
well configured Linux box.
After spending a few hours in this roadshow, they started giving away
their prizes. Again, a pathetic display of corporate america who
think you can buy the attention of the audiences by giving away
"toys." Pathetic.
------------------------------
From: "miguel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic)
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 14:25:12 -0400
Monsieur,
J'ai installé sans trop de problème SUSE 6.1 +KDE (votre CD ne fonctionnant
pas : SUSE 6.3).
Après avoir monté mon lecteur CD, j'ai tenté d'installer (sur votre 2° CD)
STAROFFICE 5.1, tout ce passe bien jusqu'à l'archiveur (ARK). Après , je
n'arrive pas à lancer le setup.bin.
Pouvez-vous m'aider à résoudre mon problème. Mon but étant de faire
cohabiter les 2 systèmes quelques jours afin de bien maitriser Linux
(Bureautique, Internet, ...etc) puis de migrer définitivement vers Linux.
Merci d'avance
un Linuxien des Caraïbes.
Miguel
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
JEDIDIAH a écrit dans le message ...
>On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 23:38:07 -0500, Andrew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 20:34:56 -0500, Andrew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >I wasn't debating the fact that a 386 w. 4MB configuration was ideal
for running
>>> >a semi-modern GUI. It's not. My point is that X running on a box of
this nature
>>> >is bloated compared to the Microsoft product. The networking layers,
for
>>>
>>> NO IT ISN'T.
>>>
>>> Win 3.x is just as slow and bloated and nasty as X is.
>>
>>Slow? Yes. Nasty? For sure. Usable? Quite, in that exact configuration.
I've
>>known people that actually used such a machine actively (with a 100MB HD)
for 6
>>years. That probably says a lot about them, but it was very active as
their
>>"school paper writing" machine for all that time. I doubt you could say
the same
>>thing for Linux running X on the same system.
>
> This is simply hypocrisy. They are both the same kind of nasty.
>
>[deletia]
>--
>
> So long as Apple uses Quicktime to effectively |||
> make web based video 'Windows only' Club, / | \
> Apple is no less monopolistic than Microsoft.
>
> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 07 Apr 2000 18:23:33 GMT
On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 09:52:19 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
| news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
| > On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 08:53:10 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
| > fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > |
| > | "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
| > | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
| > | > On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 08:24:16 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
| > | > fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > | What innate rights do you think YOU have?
| >
| > Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. . . I think that about covers it.
| > Did I miss anything?
|
| Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are indeed innate rights. The
| pursuit of happiness includes the acquisition and ownership of PROPERTY.
| Clearly then, Clancy and the publisher innately own the work and all rights
| associated with it, including the right to copy it, which they do not extend
| to others on a casual basis.
Information is not property.
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 12:06:58 -0600
Matthias Warkus wrote:
>
> It was the Thu, 06 Apr 2000 11:13:05 -0600...
> ...and John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In the olden days, they had hardware called "patch boards" . . . can I
> > take it from your opposition that you don't consider modifying the
> > hardware settings on a computer to be programming?
>
> Of course that is not programming, not anymore that changing the
> content of a memory cell is programming.
Ok, now I know what you believe . . . but I still don't know why. Why
is modifying the contents of a memory cell not-programming?
> > It's the *ACT* of creating HTML that is programming.
>
> No. The act of creating HTML is creating HTML.
This statement explains nothing. *WHY* is the act of creating HTML
not-programming?
> HTML is not something
> that can be executed in a meaningful way, just parsed.
Ok, so my browser isn't executing HTML? So just exactly how did the
HTML cause a different set of bits to be displayed on my screen?
> > Ok, you are on the record: but you still haven't shown how writing HTML
> > is not programming. When I program a computer, I say: do this, and the
> > computer does what I tell it to do. When I tell the computer to record,
> > transmit, then execute an HTML program . . . what am I doing that is
> > different from what I do when I program?
>
> HTML isn't Turing complete.
You once again misunderstood my question: whether or not HTML is Turing
Complete is irrelevant, as the question was, how is the *ACT* of writing
an HTML document not-programming?
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Definition of "Programming" (was: Why Linux on the desktop?)
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 11:57:54 -0600
William Adderholdt wrote:
>
> So, to sum up, my definition of programming is now "the act of creating
> an algorithm in a machine-readable format that details a series of
> operations to be executed in a regular definite order." (Furrfu!
> I can tell this definition is going to get longer and longer as this
> discussion continues -- if it continues.)
Urmm . . . not quite.
The act of using a paint program fits your definition, as the button
clicks, mouse drags, etc. constitute "the act of creating an algorithm"
(the algorithm used, to be precise, to paint your picture), the
algorithm is presented in macine readable format (the button clicks,
mouse drags, etc. are of course all machine readable, or the machine
wouldn't have responded to your clicks, drags, etc.) and the operations
were definitely presented to the computer in a regular, definite order.
It seems that, so far, you definition doesn't work the way you seem to
want it to. I'd say that for the definition you seem to want to create
to work, you'd have to add in the requirement of storing the complete
set of instructions in a persistent store first.
> I guess the only difference between my view and John W. Stevens' view is
> whether or not a single computer operation counts as a program or not.
> I don't believe it does, as the notion of programming seems to require
> a series of operations, with some procedure to put those operations in
> the correct order. (If I've misunderstood, please correct me.)
Ok, but . . . how do you define "single computer operation?".
When you click a GUI button, the machine ends up performing tens of
thousands, if not millions of operations (instructions). The question
then becomes one of view point: does something stop being programming
when you start using sufficiently powerful sub programs, one that are
designed to use the currently set default values?
> Just one more example, for clarification. When we sets a VCR to tape
> a show while we are away, we say that we are "programming" it. When we
> just hit the play button, we say that we are "operating" it. So, in the
> case of the toaster with the MC6805 controller in it, if I just push the
> lever down, I am merely operating it. If it came with a set of controls
> that would let me have it make toast at 6:00AM automatically, so it's
> nice and cold by the time I eat it, then I would call that programming
> the toaster, not operating it.
Yup. Seems that the requirment for persistent store is what you are
looking for. Since pressing one-control-record on a VCR gives the same
information you give to it (minus stopping time) if you were programming
it to record a show, then it seems the only real difference is the
persistent store.
> I get the feeling from reading the other responses on this thread
> that probably no one agrees with me on any of this, but this is
> comp.os.linux.advocacy, after all. We're not supposed to agree on
> anything as a matter of principle! :-)
Oh, I'm not looking for agreement. . . I provoked the discussion in
order to find out what, if any, differences there were in peoples minds
between using a computer, and programming one. The next generation UI's
have to fix the problems introduced by the current generation's UI's.
So far, the only real difference in defintion seems to be the ability to
record the algorithm then present the entire set of instructions to the
system for execution, in a persistent store.
Strange, as this whole discussion seems to have boiled down to: running
a batch job is programming, running an interactive program is
not-programming. . . and even in the old days, programmers who witnessed
the transition from batch to interactive realized that the only real
difference between the two, was the speed of turn-around. ;-)
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Jim Dabell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Definition of "Programming" (was: Why Linux on the desktop?)
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 18:41:34 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
William Adderholdt wrote:
>
[snip]
> Specifically, when I use the word "program," I'm thinking of something
> that meets the following conditions:
>
> 1) It must be readable by a machine.
> 2) It must detail a series of operations to be executed in a regular
> definite order.
[snip]
> What bothers me is that this definition includes some things that one
> wouldn't normally think of as programs: a MIDI file, a DOOM demo, etc.
> Oh, well. It's the best I can do for now.
MIDI & Doom demo files are close to being programs, but general practice
doesn't involve hand-editing. Same goes for macros. It's close enough
to be a grey area IMHO.
[snip]
> I get the feeling from reading the other responses on this thread
> that probably no one agrees with me on any of this, but this is
> comp.os.linux.advocacy, after all. We're not supposed to agree on
> anything as a matter of principle! :-)
You definition seems alright to me. I just prefer to be a bit more
vague :)
Jim
------------------------------
From: Jim Dabell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Stable-only distro?
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 19:18:20 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ken Kinder wrote:
>
> In the recent RH: Stable?? thread, an idea came to me. Linux was being
> blamed because software shipped with Red Hat was unstable (probably
> gnumaric?). What if there were a distribution that only included stable
> software? Or, here's an idea... adding to Debian a stable flag, so you
> can configure dselect and apt to only list stable software.
>
> It would be a good way for newbies not to get burned by unstable
> software. Sure, the version number is telling, but if it came on your
> distro, most newbies will assume stability.
>
If it came with the distro, then I'd assume/demand stability, unless it
was marked as unstable/unsupported, and I'm no newbie. Just because
Redhat screws up, doesn't mean that other distributions have to change.
Most already are stable, AFAIK.
Jim
------------------------------
From: Jim Dabell <[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
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 19:25:37 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
fmc wrote:
>
> "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > So tell me, which innate rights of Tom Clancy do I violate when I
> > illegal distribute copies of his new novel?
>
> How about Clancy's rights to the royalties that he never got, as well as
> revenue that the publisher lost?
>
> fmc
FFS revenue is not a right.
Jim
------------------------------
From: Jim Dabell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: About GNU kernels
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 19:27:55 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pedro Ballester wrote:
>
> Hi everyone, I've been hearing about HURD to replace Linux kernel
> and have a little questions :
>
> 1) Can you uncompress and compile under GNU/Linux and then
> just replace Linux kernel hoping the whole system to work ?
Take a look here:
http://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/hurd-install
> 2) Which are the differences between Linux and HURD as GNU
> kernels ? I mean license and technical differences.
I think that Linus has stated a number of times that his interpretation
of the GPL allows binary-only modules. I doubt that this is the case
for the HURD. I'm not certain about either though. Clarification
anybody?
As for the tech. side of things, the HURD run's on top of a microkernel,
which allows for things like filesystems that are installable by normal
users, etc. The general idea is that a number of "servers" run on top
of the microkernel, giving things like UNIX compatibility, filesystems,
etc.
I think Linux is faster because it's a monolithic design, however the
HURD can have it's servers restarted without rebooting. I think that
the HURD is developed in C++ (or some kind of object oriented C) whereas
Linux is developed in C.
> 3) Who is developing it ? Does Linus, Cox, and such guys participate
> too ?
Dunno.
> 4) Why does not GNU abandon HURD once Linux exist ? Is it better
> in any matter ?
There's no need to abandon Linux, just like there's no need to abandon
BSD etc. Choice isn't bad. "Better" depends on your point of view and
the task at hand.
Take a look at the "official page" here:
http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd.html
Jim
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 07 Apr 2000 18:39:45 GMT
On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 09:36:05 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
| news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
| > On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 08:46:37 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
| > fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| That's easy. Ownership of property is fundamental to life, liberty, and the
| pursuit of happiness. It always has been, and always will be. Copyright is
| one of many ways of protecting ownership of property.
You can't own information. Here's a thought exercise. You have
informaion. I take it from you. What have you lost?
| > | > | If you
| > | > | invent a new device, but another company gets a patent after you did
| so,
| > | you
| > | > | can take them to court to contest their right to keep the patent.
| > | That's
| > | > | only possible because you have the innate right to the patent. You
| > | would
| > | > | not have a case though, if the government had "doled out" that
| patent
| > | right
| > | > | by fiat.
| > | >
| > | > That's faulty logic. You have the right to contest those patents on
| > | > the basis of the rules that the government has set in place to dole
| > | > out patents.
| > |
| > | "Having a case" means having an argument that stands a chance of
| winning in
| > | court. It does not refer to your ability to go to court. You can sue
| > | anyone for anything, whether you have a case or not. In this case,
| having
| > | an innate right to the invention makes it possible for you to win. If
| there
| > | is no innate right, then the case is won by whomever the patent was
| granted
| > | to. In fact, all patent suits would be won by the patent holder without
| > | exception, because the government had created the rights and bestowed
| them
| > | on the holder. The fact that someone can go into a courtroom and
| > | successfully challenge a patent disproves that theory and proves that
| innate
| > | rights exist.
| >
| > Having an argument that stands a chance to win in court means having
| > and argument supported by the rule of law. It is totally unrelated to
| > the concept of innate rights.
|
| If the law were different, in that the law created the rights to a device
| and not the original inventor, then the only argument that the rule of law
| would support would be as to who was granted the patent. The law does not
| work that way; rather, it recognizes that rights exist (innately) outside
| the sphere of the law.
No, the law states that it will grant certain people certain
privileges under certain conditions. Going to court is merely to
settle the dispute over who satisfied or didn't satisfy those conditions.
| > No, the law limits my rights. It is an infringement on my rights. It
| > limits my behavior, behavior that in no way infringes on the rights of
| > others. Can you comprehend that?
|
| The law in question does not infringe on your right to copy the software
| because you never acquired that right to begin with. If I'm wrong about
| that, tell me who gave you that right. If it wasn't the owner of the
| software then you have nothing.
I have an innate right to my property. I can manipulate my property
however I wish. And if one way I want to manipulate my property is to
place a sequence of ones and zeros on it that somehow resembles the
sequence of ones and zeros on another of my properties, then that is
fully within my rights. And if I then want to distribute that
sequence of ones and zeros, that is also completely within my rights.
I have an innate right to what I do with my property, why are you
trying to limit my innate rights?
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[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: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 13:43:02 -0500
"Jim Dabell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > So tell me, which innate rights of Tom Clancy do I violate when I
> > > illegal distribute copies of his new novel?
> >
> > How about Clancy's rights to the royalties that he never got, as well as
> > revenue that the publisher lost?
> FFS revenue is not a right.
However, copyright is. That is Clancy's intellectual property, he created it
and he alone should be the sole person to profit from it.
By making illegal copies of his books, you are in essence stealing from him
because those people might have otherwise bought the book.
I don't understand why you guys have a such a hard time with this.
Copyright laws, or the concept of intellectual property have been
common law for centuries.
-Chad
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
