Linux-Advocacy Digest #605, Volume #26 Fri, 19 May 00 20:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Here is the solution ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (Marty)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Victor Wagner)
Re: a great job ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Is the PC era over? (Terry Sikes)
Re: Is the PC era over? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Your office and Linux. ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 23:04:30 GMT
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8g2j3a$1jlq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <O5%U4.17019$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Well, I have provided a URL to the security support provider
> >documentation. My research suggests that you also need
> >to provide a 'creditial manager'. This is because
> >the SSP module isn't informed of the users username and
> >password; it is supposed to Just Know who you are and
> >provide appropriate creditials based on that.
>
> Yes, it does look like there have been a couple of
> implimentations of this. I'd still prefer to have
> a client that interoperates with no modifications.
You've a right to your own preferences, but MS is
not obliged to make you an OS. Use Linux or something.
[snip]
> >Without active directory, I need some *other* directory
> >services. Expect MS so somehow magically provide
> >directory services without using MS's directory software
> >is, well dubious.
>
> I guess that was ambiguous. By 'directory replication'
> I meant the files within a directory not a directory
> service itself. Win2k offers to do file replication
> and will let you do it manually without active directory
> running. Why does it insist on having AD to let you
> automate it?
Hmm? Windows 2000s file synchronization feature
works fine without AD. Active Directories 'shares
that don't live in just one place' feature requires
Active Directory and is implemented by it.
I suspect I'm not understand what feature you mean.
> >Alternately if I had *lots* of time on my hand, I could
> >write my own directory services and a client module
> >to use them.
>
> You don't need to write a directory server. LDAP has
> been around for ages.
Without a directory server to talk to, LDAP is not so useful.
I can buy a directory server, like say Active Directory,
or write my own. My own can use LDAP to communicate
if I so please.
> >You are, in my view, mistaken. IBMs problem wasn't that they
> >couldn't *do* it, it was that they couldn't do it anything like
> >fast enough. IBM has notoriously slow development
> >processes.
>
> When you are up to your ears in lawyers, things do tend to
> slow down, and you don't even consider anything controversial
> that needs legal approval. I still contend that was the problem
> rather than any lack of programming talent.
IBM was drowning in *management*, not lawyers. They were
like this before they sparred with the DOJ.
> >They therefore decided to built a stopgap computer
> >with, insofar as possible, already existing components.
> >That's why they used ISA instead of something that
> >doesn't suck. That's also why they tried to get CP/M.
>
> Even Radio Shack managed to come up with several versions
> of DOS as fast as they built machines. And that was
> a company whose main business was little leather craft kits.
Perhaps I am mistaken, but I was under the impression
that the TRS-80 series and the Color Computers had
no more of a 'DOS' than the Apple ][ series did.
> >I'm sure you know what happened next.
>
> The greatest time drain known to man? Did you ever wonder
> where computing would be today if the millions of
> man-hours that went into tweaking high memory managers
> for DOS so applications could actually load had been
> used productively?
I figure I'll find out soon enough. :D
But I'm not inclined to hate Microsoft for not overcoming
this problem quicker; they seem to have tried to do it
as fast as they could.
[snip]
> >It got the features people needed at school.
> >That's a fine thing, but it still has major deficiencies as
> >a desktop OS.
>
> It was well ahead of any other contenders in the 80's through
> early 90's, just overpriced to a point that it did not have
> the numbers of users to drive application development.
It was ahead of *DOS*, but that's no challenge. It was not
ahead of the MacOS.
There's a reason why MS slavishly copied Apple, not AT&T:
MacOS solved many of the problems plaguing DOS,
and Unix just plain didn't.
[snip]
> >Oh, I don't know. Early Unixes were very fragile, and for essentially
> >the same reason: the hardware wasn't able to support better.
>
> No really. A mid-80's 3B2 where I used to work is still running.
> I had a year of uptime on one of them before I left. Some
> of the later models had a bad reputation but the first ones
> were nearly bulletproof.
The *early* Unix versions ran on PDPs which didn't support
frills like memory protection.
Sort of like the early Windows versions.
Both got a lot more popular when then outgrew
their respective hardware limitations.
> >> Clients are disposable - the server has to keep working.
> >
> >I don't think that's a very good attitude. Leads to products
> >like Windows 95 if you aren't careful. :D
>
> Speaking of Win95, how the heck did MS get away with claiming
> that it was exempt from IBM's license to use future windows
> source code in OS/2 and making them pay over again? It
> is pretty clear now that it still sits on top of DOS and
> is basically win3.x with win32s stuck in and a slightly
> different user interface. How can that be interpreted
> as anything but another version of what they had licensed?
Musta had good lawyers. But where are the good lawyers
now, when MS needs them?
*That* is a puzzlement. :D
> >In MSDN. Need I provide *another* URL? Are you, like,
> >alerigic to Microsofts websites?
>
> They do go out of their way to be sure the pages look
> bad if you aren't using their fonts. Heh - and they
> probably don't even know it - it is just a side effect
> of using the tools that were designed to cause that.
:D
> >So are you complaining that MS didn't drop FoxPro?
[snip- MS bought FoxPro and hung it out to dry]
> >They seem to have put FoxPro on ice, basically.
>
> I think that was the plan from the beginning. They
> were beating access in every test. Can't have that.
Well, I don't take taht sort of blanket claim seriously-
but I do think MS fell down on this one; they usually
buy technology and incorporate it in their own products;
that does not seem to have happened here.
And that is not good.
> >I don't see this as one of their, um, more visionary
> >moments.
>
> I don't think it was unusual at all. Dozens, probably
> hundreds of other companies have been removed from
> the competition in much the same manner. I just didn't
> follow the details as closely as this one - but we
> all saw the rumors in the trade magazines.
There are always rumors; some of us don't believe them
all.
MS sometimes buys companies out so they can incorporate
their technologies in existing or new MS products. I don't think
this distasteful FoxPro business is as common as you do.
[snip]
> >Speculative. I know, with you, if Microsoft could be guilty,
> >they are guilty.
>
> Do you happen to know when Dell signed that agreement?
To judge by your post, you don't know that.
> >Or perhaps they are also desparately trying to twist
> >everything MS does into some kind of weird plot. :P
>
> It is surprisingly easy, and I don't have much of
> an imagination.
Oh, you underestimate yourself! :D
> >You are, I presume, one again seeing conspiracies. MS
> >knew Win3 would succeed because MS is all-knowing
> >and all-powerful and so if they backed OS/2 it *must* be
> >some kind of plot.
>
> Have there been any internal documents uncovered in the
> investigations that pinpoint when MS knew it was not
> going to complete OS/2?
Aren't we presuming that MS has a monolithic opinion
on this?
I bet the feelings of the Windows development team
turned anti-OS/2 way earlier than those of, say, the
Word team...
> >> Server 'features' shouldn't depend on brands.
> >
> >Nonsense. The software industry is *not* in the business
> >of selling commodities. It's highly innovative; new features
> >are the stuff of life!
>
> New features do not have to require differences in client
> server protocols, and even if they do, they can negotiate
> version capabilities.
Yes, they can. And they do. Funny that.
But you seem to arguing that MS should not implement
features their competitors don't have. IE, if standard
Kerberos can't support NT domain security, MS should
not try to produce a Kerberos than can, even if they
sacrifice no compatibility in the attempt!
> >It's extremely silly to say that no-one is allowed to produce
> >a server produce with a feature its competitors (and its
> >previous versison) do not have.
>
> OK. It is also silly to say that no one else can make
> a server that can interoperate with your clients. That's
> like saying I can't use my telephone with a different
> company's service.
Aren't you glad MS isn't *doing* that? You *can* drive
MS clients on non-MS servers.
You can even do it with standard Kerberos; you just
won't get the extra features MS implemented in their
Kerberos.
> >> I can replace
> >> a networked printer with a different brand,
> >
> >But apparently it can't be a *color* printer, because
> >they you could print in color on it, but not on any other
> >printer.
>
> If you send it postscript it will do something reasonable
> regardless, but there are different brands of printers
> that perform both equivalent and different operations.
> I can plug them on the network and keep going. If I
> couldn't - well I wouldn't use that kind.
Well, fine, you are at liberty to be that picky. But IMHO
MS is right to use a driver based approach. It allows
them to support some very popular printers very well,
even though those printers are not PostScript printers.
> >> I can replace
> >> a unix box acting as an NFS server with a NetApp.
> >
> >What's a NetApp?
>
> It is a highly tuned 'appliance' file server that has
> some nifty features like timed snapshot backups that
> are magically kept on line in hidden read-only directories.
> When your email virus decides to delete some files you
> can still retrieve a copy from an hour ago or last
> night. They also serve CIFS to windows boxes, but
> (unsurprisingly) don't act as a domain controller.
> In other words, it is a server with extra features
> that doesn't need changes to the protocol.
So, you are saying MS should implement only features
that do not require new or changed protocols?
[snip]
> >Beats me; Microsoft's servers do not behave like that. You can
> >put non-MS clients on the other end. Macs, Unix boxes, whatever.
>
> The clients are fine, I'm talking about using a different server.
> How do MS clients work with someone else's server?
Swell. Obviously they don't gain the benefit of features
that these serves don't implement, but they work fine.
For instance, you can plug an Windows 2000 client into a
non-MS Kerberos server. You map Kerberos user-ids to
NT identities manually, that's all.
> Outlook
> does pop and imap, but its LDAP is really half-hearted (which
> actually turned out to be a good thing for us, because the
> ILOVEYOU bug only found the address entries that people had
> copied locally, not the full one like it would if LDAP were
> handled correctly).
Hey, aren't you glad MS is doing something about the email
viruses. :D
Seriously, I don't know much about Outlook, but at a guess
I'd expect that you can upgrade its directory access code if
you find it inadequate. That would be typical of MS.
> >> Indeed, we disagree. How were the many years where DOS maintained
> >> it's 640K/32M limits positive for anyone? How was DOS 4.0 good
> >> for anyone? How did DOS 5.0's new features happen to show up
> >> immediately after a competing product had them?
> >
> >It did take Microsoft quite a while to get Windows to the point
> >where it was usable. But better late the never; Microsoft took
> >on the hard problem of making commodity PC hardware
> >civilized; nobody else managed it, and few even tried.
>
> You are re-inventing history here.
No, really.
> What really happened
> was that hardware vendors tried to provide better versions
> on several fronts, expecting the OS device abstractions
> to make it work correctly. They died trying, because
> the Microsoft supplied OS did not abstract well enough
> to be usable.
That was, of course, a big part of what was wrong with
DOS. Trying to solve this problem by expeciting DOS
to not have it is rather unhelpful.
It's very easy to just blame Microsoft and then give up.
But it doesn't *help*. And those who did try to solve
it ran into the same problems Microsoft did- the damn
8086 was just not *up* to handling the kind of
abstraction that was needed. Even the 80286 was
borderline.
> So, we ended up with standard (and horrible)
> hardware for many years and are just now starting to
> see a little innovation again.
We've been seeing much improvement in the years
since Win3, largely because Microsofts new OSes
provide enough hardware abstraction to let you use
new hardware technology.
> Remember how MS not only
> did not participate in developing a way to add extra
> usable memory to a PC, but they went out of their way
> to break the scheme after someone else did it.
In the days of LIM memory, MS did not have the leverage
to break a technology; they just weren't that important yet.
Once expanded memory came around, such workarounds
were academic. Expanded memory made it possible for
Windows to not suck as horribly as it had; the rest
was history.
> >Microsoft does *good* things as well as bad, but a lot of
> >people- like, say, you :D - insists on turning everything
> >MS does into some kind of villainy.
>
> By pointing out that good things were being done by others
> and might have been much better, given a chance.
Blaming Microsoft because others didn't do better than
MS did, or do it sooner than MS did it, is dubious. It is
*not* obvious that just because MS succeeds, they should
be blamed for those who did not.
> >> I'm concerned with bad as in keeping other people from
> >> doing better things. Bad as in keeping hardware companies
> >> from offering better choices.
> >
> >The thing that keeps hardware companies form offering better
> >choices is that there *aren't* any right now; Windows is
> >far and away the best in its market niche.
>
> Windows has a couple of nice points in font handling and in
> integrating the screen and printer graphics abstractions.
Windows goes way beyond that. Windows abstracts
modems, scanners, 3d accellerators, game controllers
and much much more.
> Other than that, it is all application level stuff
Is that bad?
> and that exists only because of the raw numbers driving the
> development.
Can't deny this. But so what?
> It can and will all show up for Linux soon.
Well, if you say so.
> >Microsofts occasional misdeeds are academic next
> >to that.
>
> I just don't see how anyone can trust them. Maybe for the
> disposable client side, but do you want them to control
> your passwords knowing their penchant for putting other
> companies out of business?
If you look at Microsoft in isolation and try hard enough to
put everything they do in the bad light, you can convince
yourself they are not to be trusted.
But they are pretty good compared to their competitors.
They are agressive about backwards compatibility
and interoperability, and they are very responsive to
their customers needs and demands.
They do have a penchant for putting other companies out of
business, but that's hardly such an awful thing from
a *Microsoft* user's point of view.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot.
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 23:16:18 GMT
Brian Lewis wrote:
>
> "Marty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Brian Lewis wrote:
> > >
> > > "Marty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Jumping into discussions again, Brian? How typical.
> > >
> > > What alleged "discussion"?
> >
> > Non sequitur, as a particular "discussion" was not singled out by me.
> > Having reading comprehension problems?
>
> Taking posting lessons from Tholen again?
Who?
> Typical.
Your indecipherable reference to an individual was quite typical of you.
> I see you fail to answer my question.
I see you have failed to locate my response to your question.
> > > > Brian Lewis wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "tholenbot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty
> > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudotholen again):
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In article <8fk3j9$8g4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Stephen S.
> > > > > > > > Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If anyone on USENET ever wishes to emulate Templeton, as
> > > > > > > > > some seem take great pride and joy in emulating Dave Tholen
> > > > > > > > > (whom I know nothing of, outside of the opinions of others),
> > > > > > > > > just simply follow these steps:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Illogical. The true home of the tholenbot is
> > > > > > > > comp.os.os2.advocacy.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Incorrect. How typical.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Evidence, please.
> > > > >
> > > > > $19.95 please
> > > >
> > > > How $19.95 is "$19.95", Brian?
> > >
> > > Incorrect use of variable of type "float."
> >
> > On what basis do you make this ridiculous claim?
>
> Ask your mentor grasshopper.
Impossible. I have no "mentor grasshopper". Why not just answer the question
yourself?
> > > Cannot assign the string value "$19.95."
> >
> > What you "cannot assign" is irrelevant. What you can prove is relevant.
>
> Balderdash.
Are you claiming that what you can prove is not relevant?
> An integer variable cannot be assigned any value but an integer.
What "cannot be assigned" is irrelevant. What you can prove is relevant.
> Your point is blunt and ineffective.
Illogical and incorrect.
> > > > > (shipping and handling fees.)
> > > >
> > > > How ironic.
> > >
> > > Incorrect.
> >
> > Evidence, please.
>
> Please provide $19.95
Illogical. Why should I pay $19.95 for you to substantiate your claim?
Tholenbot charges less than half of that.
> for shipping and handling.
How ironic, coming from someone who has been shipped and handled throughout
this entire discussion.
> > > > > > > Tholenbot always picks the right newsgroup for the
> > > > > > > job. Sometimes that is COOA.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The right "newsgroup"? How rich!
> > > > >
> > > > > On what basis do you claim that the "newsgroup" is "rich"?
> > > >
> > > > Don't you know?
> > >
> > > You fail to answer the question.
> >
> > On the contrary, you have simply failed to locate my response.
>
> Have I?
Yes. Why else would I have said so, Brian?
> > > Typical.
> >
> > How ironic, coming from the person who just failed to answer my question:
> >
> > M> How $19.95 is "$19.95", Brian?
>
> Illogical.
Typical unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, laced with failure to answer the
question.
> > > > > > > At least you made no attempt to conceal your own misinformation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What alleged "misinformation"?
> > > > >
> > > > > Why, don't you know?
> > > >
> > > > See what I mean?
> > >
> > > You fail to answer the question.
> >
> > On the contrary, you have simply failed to locate my response.
>
> How ironic.
Not at all, Brian. I have located your response and found it to be inadequate
and inappropriate.
> > > Typical.
> >
> > How ironic, coming from the person who just failed to answer my question:
> >
> > M> How $19.95 is "$19.95", Brian?
>
> Illogical.
Typical unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, laced with failure to answer the
question.
> > > > > > > > On what basis do you claim that the lunatic is "on the grass"?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ask your grasshopper
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The grasshopper is in my head.
> > > > >
> > > > > What alleged "head"?
> > > >
> > > > Reading comprehension problems?
> > >
> > > What alleged "comprehension"?
> >
> > Don't you know? It's your comprehension.
>
> On what basis do you claim that it's my "comprehension"?
Don't you know? It's your comprehension.
> > > > > > On what basis do you claim that the lunatic is "on the grass"?
> > > > >
> > > > > Illogical.
> > > >
> > > > On what basis do you make this claim?
> > >
> > > Typical invective.
> >
> > Illogical. Meanwhile I see you have failed to answer my question again.
> > How ironic, coming from the person who said the following 2 (!!) times in
> > this very posting:
> >
> > BL> You fail to answer the question. Typical.
>
> Evidence please.
You wrote it yourself! Haven't you been paying attention?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Victor Wagner)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: 19 May 2000 18:44:01 +0400
In comp.os.linux.misc Doug Alcorn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> a thing.
: First, the Qt library _is_ now free. Trolltech decided to license it
: using a "free" license. Second, there already was (a now dead?)
Not "free", just "open source". And Raimond have specially tweaked open
source definition, so Mozilla and Qt would pass the test.
In strict Stallman's sense of "free" Qt is not free.
--
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: a great job
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 18:48:11 -0500
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >No. Apple computers were only available from authorized apple
distributors,
>
> Not Apple's, just everyone else's. Although, the requirement
> that one be an 'authorized reseller' hardly pushes a particular
> product out of the mainstream or away from the 'masses' anyways.
I didn't say it did. I said that Apple and Tandy were not available at
k-mart and similar places.
We're talking specifically about Apple and Tandy, not "everyone elses".
> >Rocket scientists are part of "the masses" as well, does that mean Rocket
> >Science has been brought to them?
> >
> >Being "part of" something doesn't make the aggregate whole the same
thing.
>
> That perpetuates the feeble lie that one had to be a rocket
> scientist to operate the early consumer computers.
BS. I didn't say you had to be a rocket scientist to operate computers. I
simply said that Rocket Scientists make up a tiny percentage of the
population, similar to computer hobyists in the 70's and early 80's. Under
no stretch of the imagination could those people be labeled as "the masses"
even if they are part of them.
> ...and as far as 'rocket science' goes: you should see what
> some of the rocketry hobbyists are lauching in the Nevada desert...
I am fully aware. Does that mean that my father is going to be launching
rockets as part of his everyday activities? No.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Sikes)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is the PC era over?
Date: 19 May 2000 23:43:09 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 16 May 2000 12:08:34 -0500, JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>"Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> > Intel's x86 architecture may also be approaching the end of its lifespan.
>>> > Even Intel seem to think it's in need of replacement.
>[deletia]
>>Which brings up a good point: The floppy has got to go. That sucker
>>does next to nothing, and has for years. 1.44 Meg? In like five
>>minutes? Yeah, I care.
>>
>>The one good thing I can say about the iMac: no floppy drive.
>
> ...and nothing to replace it with either.
USB Zip etc. don't count?
Terry
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is the PC era over?
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 23:50:17 GMT
On 19 May 2000 23:43:09 GMT, Terry Sikes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Tue, 16 May 2000 12:08:34 -0500, JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>"Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> > Intel's x86 architecture may also be approaching the end of its lifespan.
>>>> > Even Intel seem to think it's in need of replacement.
>>[deletia]
>>>Which brings up a good point: The floppy has got to go. That sucker
>>>does next to nothing, and has for years. 1.44 Meg? In like five
>>>minutes? Yeah, I care.
>>>
>>>The one good thing I can say about the iMac: no floppy drive.
>>
>> ...and nothing to replace it with either.
>
>USB Zip etc. don't count?
No it doesn't.
At least a SCSI Zip would have reasonable performance.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 23:51:09 GMT
On 19 May 2000 18:44:01 +0400, Victor Wagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.misc Doug Alcorn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>:> a thing.
>
>: First, the Qt library _is_ now free. Trolltech decided to license it
>: using a "free" license. Second, there already was (a now dead?)
>
>Not "free", just "open source". And Raimond have specially tweaked open
>source definition, so Mozilla and Qt would pass the test.
>In strict Stallman's sense of "free" Qt is not free.
Put another way: what would or wouldn't stop you from making
a BeOS or MacOS version?
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Your office and Linux.
Date: 20 May 2000 00:06:01 GMT
abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: *snip a whole bunch of unwrapped lines*
: We can wrap lines, winfag.
Did you notice that he's posting with Pan v0.7.6? That is a newsreader
which runs under GNOME, you twit.
I think you owe this person an apology.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
| = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
| | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
|_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
