Linux-Advocacy Digest #88, Volume #26 Wed, 12 Apr 00 06:13:09 EDT
Contents:
Re: BSD & Linux (david parsons)
Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine! (Bob Lyday)
Re: BSD & Linux (Theo de Raadt)
Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine! (Stephen Rifkin)
Re: BSD & Linux ("Thomas M. Sommers")
Re: Now well OT Communism v Marxism (was: Introduction to Linux article (Graham N
Hays)
Re: InstallShield coming to Linux (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: Linux for a web developer (Salvador Peralta)
Re: Linux for a web developer ("Rich Cloutier")
Re: Now well OT Communism v Marxism (was: Introduction to Linux article for
commentary) (Richard Watson)
Re: We need a new subject was (Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do
you?) ("doc rogers")
Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you? ("doc rogers")
Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you? ("doc rogers")
Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you? ("doc rogers")
Re: BSD & Linux (Donal K. Fellows)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (david parsons)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
Date: 11 Apr 2000 22:13:27 -0700
In article <8d0i3u$2ifh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Timothy Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>jd hendrex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>[revisionism]
>I'm surprised at the way Minix has been written out of history.
I'm not. There's a large contingent out there that is
trying their damnest to edit history so that RMS is the
alpha and omega of free(1) software, and editing out
Minix is a pretty important part of this revisionism.
____
david parsons \bi/ After all, Microsoft is a pretty big
\/ pair of boots to fill.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 23:21:16 -0700
From: Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine!
Bloody Viking wrote:
>
> In alt.destroy.microsoft Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : a) No, Adobe never bought it. They *created* it. The definitive books
> : on PS are produced by Adobe. The specs are produced by Adobe.
>
> Damn. I guess we're stuck with .HTML as a file format, since we need an
> open format. Whatever the format we're stuck with, any word processor will
> have to read it, convert to an internal format, and write to files
> whatever format we're stuck with.
>
> And Adobe is guilty of the lame old game of extending Postcript to force
> lock-in with .PDF format. Apparently, history shows that format lock-in is
> an inevitable result of commercial software. We see it with Microsoft
> (about their only innovation), Adobe with .PDF, and Netscrape with the
> .HTML.
>
The only way SW companies know how to compete is to break each
other's products. I am not sure what to do about file format
madness. I think perhaps the open-source crowd should produce a
great Office package and give it away. Maybe that will stop
it. Anyway, the government could then require that any major
commercial Office package out there must include the option to
save (well) in the open-source format. If the SW makers do not
go along, perhaps they could be forbidden to sell the product in
the U.S. until they comply, or, less drastically, they could not
sell to the federal government until they comply. I think some
good regulation is what this industry needs. The free market
model has almost ruined computing. Look what it begat -- the
Microsoft Monster...oh, boy!
>--
Bob
"We blew it -- too big, too slow..." - Bill Gates talking about
Windows NT during a meeting with Steven McGeady of Intel.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
From: Theo de Raadt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 12 Apr 2000 00:44:22 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (david parsons) writes:
> In article <8d0i3u$2ifh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Timothy Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >jd hendrex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >[revisionism]
>
> >I'm surprised at the way Minix has been written out of history.
>
> I'm not. There's a large contingent out there that is
> trying their damnest to edit history so that RMS is the
> alpha and omega of free(1) software, and editing out
> Minix is a pretty important part of this revisionism.
Ah.... Minix....
Back in the old days, when I was young, a couple of friends and I
ported Minix to the sun 3/50. Then I ported it to my Amiga (before
some other people did).
Then the disk died ;-)
Minix was absolutely horrible. Message passing like that is just wrong.
--
This space not left unintentionally unblank. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Open Source means some restrictions apply, limits are placed, often quite
severe. Free Software has _no_ serious restrictions. OpenBSD is Free Software.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen Rifkin)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine!
Date: 11 Apr 2000 16:36:31 GMT
Look at the Open Source Writers Group @ http://www.oswg.org:8080/oswg there
are a number of tools described there - using the DocBook format.
------------------------------
From: "Thomas M. Sommers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 05:38:12 GMT
Timothy Murphy wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Warnock) writes:
>
> >But if you were a commercial site, a Unix source license [the only kind
> >there was until ~1980] was (IIRC) $25k *per CPU*!!!
>
> I don't recall there being a commercial version of Unix in 1980.
> It was my understanding that AT&T were not allowed to enter the software market
> at that time (and IBM was not allowed to enter the telephone market).
> Am I mistaken?
According to Salus's book, AT&T's legal department decided that the
consent decree required them to license Unix, just as it required AT&T
to license all of its patents.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 08:20:55 +0100
From: Graham N Hays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Now well OT Communism v Marxism (was: Introduction to Linux article
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 22:02:42 GMT, John Hasler wrote:
>
> >> The countries that come closest to getting what Marx wanted are leftist
> >> democracies, and the changes were evolutionary ( as opposed to
> >> revolutionary ) and invariably came about by way of a democratic process.
> >
> >"Democratic government" is as much of an oxymoron as "communist country".
>
> How so ? Choose your favourite definition of "democracy" or "democratic",
> and explain your viewpoint.
>
> --
> Donovan
BUT ... please do it somewhere more appropriate I see no connection
whatsoever between this and Linux
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Subject: Re: InstallShield coming to Linux
Date: 12 Apr 2000 06:20:18 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Joe Kiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Gary Hallock wrote:
[ about an ongoing port of Installshield to Linux ]
>
>And us poor *BSD users are once again left out.
>Oh well, we have the ports system, which beats hell out of any 'binary
>packaging' format.
Just curious, how can I tell which "package" /path/to/foo belongs to?
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP 0x07606049 GPG 0xD61A655D
"The Maastricht treaty ... has been dealt, at least temporarily,
a fatal blow."
-- Des O'Malley, Irish minister
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux for a web developer
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 00:59:30 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OOrkis wrote:
>
> I'm a begining web developer; what are the benefits (if any) for a web
> developer to switch from WIN98 to Linux (which distribution would u recomend
> ?) ?
> Thanks
If you don't intend to do the actual hosting, but are just doing
development, why not just get a shell account? You should be able to
get a virtual domain account on a decent machine with T1 or better for
$100 per year or less.
I have no complaints with win32, but there are some strong arguments for
having your development environment on linux. For one thing, learning
linux will help you more quickly familiarize yourself with a whole suite
of tools that are not freely available or well-supported on windows.
I'd stay away from Mandrake 7.0, but for a nice customizable system with
a stable desktop and a good out of the box gui, Mandrake 6.1 has been
very good to me.
Who else thinks these first gen gui installers are lame? Give me a good
tui over a bad gui any day.
--
Salvador Peralta
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
From: "Rich Cloutier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux for a web developer
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 02:40:24 -0400
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 18:26:37 -0400, Rich Cloutier wrote:
> >"OOrkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> >If you can swing it, I would recommend two computers:
> >
> >One Linux box to host your sites and to test using the Linux versions of
> >various web browsers; and,
> >
> >One Windows box to test with what most people will see your sites with:
> >namely, Internet Explorer.
>
> Option two: one box + VmWare. Run Windows in the VMWare sandbox and visit
> your site.
Not a true representation of what people will use to view the site, but a
good compromise if two boxes are cost prohibitive. This is hardly a problem
any more, as most people who are "into" computers at any level, and have
been so for a few years, have an old 486 or slow Pentium around they can use
for a server. Myself, I have 5 PCs total, and I'm no millionaire.
>
> >Contrary to what some here will undoubtedly say, you CAN use a graphical
> >tool such as FrontPage or PageMill to design content.
>
> Wrong. You don't "design" content.
"Content" is the mix of text, graphics, and, in some cases, programming,
that is used to convey your message. You most certainly DO design it.
>
> This is exactly why these "WYSIWYG" tools are bad news -- they make it
> all too easy to confuse presentation and content.
Presentation is a part of content. It is how your site looks, how it loads,
and how it works. All of these things contribute to the user's overall
experience of your site. WYSIWYG tools are great at rapid design of a good
looking site (if you know what a good looking site is.) They are bad because
they can produce shitty code, or a site that is too graphics-intensive to
load quickly and present a positive experience.
[sigsnip]
-- Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Now well OT Communism v Marxism (was: Introduction to Linux article for
commentary)
From: Richard Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 12 Apr 2000 09:34:54 +0100
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Donovan writes:
> > IMO, where Marx really screwed up was with the idea that a "class war" <
> > was necessary or even desirable.
>
> "Class war" is just a euphemism for "kill the rich and take their money",
> an idea that's been around for millennia. It's only a good idea for those
> few who are clever, murderous, and lucky enough to end up in the new ruling
> class. It's a negative sum game that always makes the poor poorer.
I think Marx felt that "Class war" was the only available option to
acheiving his ends. I think it's important to remember that Marx was
in the ruling classes and had servants in his house. He was a
theorist in every sense of the word.
> > The countries that come closest to getting what Marx wanted are leftist
> > democracies, and the changes were evolutionary ( as opposed to
> > revolutionary ) and invariably came about by way of a democratic process.
>
> "Democratic government" is as much of an oxymoron as "communist country".
What is so hard to acheive, democracy or government?
I disagree certainly with the second part of your statement. There are
communities based on principles similar to communism which are arrived
at by people opting in (often to the mutual benefit of all). It would
certainly be a challenge to apply this to a country but certainly not
impossible (particularly not for a small country).
--
Richard Watson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pentagon Web Design Ltd
------------------------------
From: "doc rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: We need a new subject was (Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get
it, do you?)
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 05:38:17 -0400
Damien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> | Damien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> | > You can't own information.
> | Well, ownership is just a concept, right? So it depends on how we look
at
> | the concept, whether we're talking about ownership of a stereo, a cat,
or
> | creative constructions.
> Well I usually take it as rightful possesion and / or control.
> Information exists in people's minds (and other physical belongings).
> So in order to control information you need to keep it secrete or
> control other peoples minds and belongings.
I know we're repeating ourselves, but a copyright owner is owning, as the
word implies, the right to copy the _arrangement_ or stuff outside your
personal use. They aren't owning the knowledge of the arrangement inside
your mind.
--doc
------------------------------
From: "doc rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you?
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 05:40:43 -0400
Norman D. Megill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8csra3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>> In another post you wrote:
> >> >I have the same model gateway (well, the equivalent, its only about a
> >> >year old) with all the fixins sitting at home on top of my stereo
> >> >serving up MP3s
> >I didn't write that. But okay, let's proceed :-)
> Sorry, it wasn't you, it was [EMAIL PROTECTED] I stand corrected.
> As for the rest of your comments, I'll let them speak for themselves.
> To me they seem to have a vague inconsistency along the lines of "I want
> liquor to be prohibited as long as I can obtain it myself."
That's another instance of the ubiquitous "inconsistent/contradictory"
charge without an explanation of what specifically was inconsistent or
contradictory. Maybe you're reading more into my statements that what I
actually said?
--doc
------------------------------
From: "doc rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you?
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 05:45:32 -0400
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>What a load of Horse Pucky. If I express an IDEA and you take the IDEA
and
> >>do something with it, more power to you. BUT if I take that Idea and
> >>produce something of value with it , whether it is a book or a computer
> >>program, a song or an algorithm, then that something is mine...
> What makes you think you own that IDEA lock-stock-and-barrel?
You own the right to copy a particular instantiation of stuff--code, notes,
paint, words, etc. not the idea, per se.
> In all likelihood you used someone elses property or some
> common property to come up with that IDEA.
There's no escaping influence, that's for sure. But there is escaping
plagiarism. That's the concern here.
> So, the end result
> is that you are essentially stealing/borrowing from others and
> then claiming the end result as your exclusive property.
As long as you don't steal/borrow my arrangements of stuff verbatim or close
to it, I have no claim against you.
--doc
------------------------------
From: "doc rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you?
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 05:57:41 -0400
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Where did I suggest that I own an Idea?
> The notion that you own it's derivative.
If you're trying to imply that it logically follows, that isn't the case.
> Copyright as a natural right is tantamount to claiming that
> you can strip mine public lands and then claim the result
> as your own little private property.
I don't believe there is such a thing as "natural rights." All rights are
simply concepts/ethical opinions.
>It doesn't matter if it's
>an idea or an expression of one.
The distinction is between the exact arrangement of stuff and any ideas that
fueled that arrangement.
For example, I own the copyright on my comments in this post. That means I
own the right to copy and propagate the combination of words I am using. I
don't own the ideas they express.
So, if you wanted to print, "The distinction is between the exact
arrangement of stuff and any ideas that fueled that arrangement . . . " in a
publication, you couldn't without threat of a copyright infringement suit
(you'd actually have to lift a bigger chunk of my post than that), but if
you wanted to print, "The difference when it comes to ideas and expressions
of ideas when it comes to copyright ownership is that the expressions are
just arrangements of stuff, and the ideas that fueled those arrangements
cannot be owned . . ." then I couldn't sue you for copyright infringement.
In other words, you can express exactly the same thoughts--I don't own
those. You can't use exactly the same arrangment of stuff that I used to
express the thoughts. I own the right to copy the arrangement of
stuff--that's it.
--doc
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
Date: 12 Apr 2000 09:55:50 GMT
In article <Tl7I4.4746$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What Linus did was not only create a new OS, but a new ideology, the
> ideology of GNU freeware. It's the ideology of hacking (not cracking)
> mentality put to use to benefit others.
He didn't create it. He merely popularised it through his actions.
Not that this is in any way insignificant, but Linux would not have
happened without the "networking" (in the old, pre-computer sense)
made possible by the Internet because you simply could not organise
the distribution of so much code and discussion to so many people
efficiently.
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- The small advantage of not having California being part of my country would
be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel on our
borders. -- David Parsons <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
