Linux-Advocacy Digest #500, Volume #27 Thu, 6 Jul 00 18:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (John Dyson)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (John Dyson)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Re: A cute linux song (rich)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Pete Goodwin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 20:53:54 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) wrote in
<8k0f8o$14r3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Not that upgrade, the next one. Click the DrakConf button and
>hit 'Mandrake Update'. But be prepared.
Yes I tried that in Linux Mandrake 7.0, I was not impressed. It seems
better written in 7.1
>And you couldn't do that with a card that supports Linux? The
>nvidia drivers are easy to find. 3dfx might have some but
>if they do they have hidden them well.
Linux was not a priority when I bought the card. If it worked (and as there
is now a driver, that means it will work!), it would have been a bonus.
>The frame buffer is different - there were directions around for
>running the ATI 128's in this mode before the real drivers
>were done.
One thing I've not tried is firing up Windows 2000 with this setup. With
Linux I can't even get VGA as yet. Windows 2000 I think will do this, but
I've yet to try it.
Pete
------------------------------
From: John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 15:55:12 -0500
Hyman Rosen wrote:
>
> John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Your counter-example is fallacious. An example of a GPL-like parking
> > lot is that it is marked 'free parking', but that means that it is
> > 'free' to park there. However, a GPL-parking lot requires that you
> > pay to leave the lot with your car.
>
> No, my counter-example is just that, a counter-example.
>
You are a master of circular reasoning :-). That, of course, doesn't
require intellect, because it is easy to be circular.
You are certainly choosing an easy short-term route, but I fear for
your future in honest dealings with people. Eventually, when the
rubber meets the road, you have to deal in fact, rather than virtual,
contrived reality. You will be in for an unfortunately painful
awakening.
Please refer to reality, and you will really be able to deal with
me better. Sorry, I am stuck in the real world, and cannot grok
extreme disassociative thinking.
John
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 20:56:53 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Yeah, right. Anyone with half a clue criticises 3dfx's 3D
> implementation. Glide also tends to get nearly universally
> panned amongst gamers with any clue.
And others tell me Glide is best supported amongst the games I want to
play. So you pays yer money and takes yer choice.
> Then there's the point that's already been brought up that
> 3dfx is only acknowledging release drivers for 9x and not
> for NT5 even.
Yet there are Beta drivers for Windows 2000.
> This would be a classical case of "buying random hardware at
> compusa" biting you in the but regardless of what OS you're
> running.
CompUSA does not exist in the UK. I knew what I was buying before I bought
it. From what I've seen Voodoo seems to be best supported by a large number
of games. I should know, its part of my job to run up as many games as
possible, checking out my device driver.
>BTW, V5 support is supposed to be in the latest Xfree.
I know.
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 20:59:29 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> An average joe with a clue is going to be using DSL or
> cable which is trivial to set up in Linux and always
> has been (Linux being more LAN centric).
Oh how I wish the UK would catchup with the rest of the world in terms of
personal online. I'm still using a 56K modem, and I still pay by the minute
- we have no free phone calls here in the UK.
ADSL is here (well, almost) and if my cable company is on time, I'll have a
Cable modem by Chrismas.
Pete
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 21:00:40 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Thu, 06 Jul 2000 18:00:40 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Personal opinion is that IF Microsoft entered the Linux market, it
>would be a disaster for everyone.
Actually, it would be a huge success for Microsoft.
>
>With the exception of Windows itself, I don't run any Microsoft
>applications and I suspect that accounts for the stability of my
>system.
You don't run Office?
You don't use Visual C++?
You don't have Powerpoint, Word, or IIS?
Odd, dude.
>
>
>
>
>
>On Thu, 06 Jul 2000 17:38:06 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The
>Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, sandrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote on Wed, 05 Jul 2000 21:12:54 -0400
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>simple [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You'd love Linsux.
>>>>
>>>> Try it sometime....
>>>
>>>What`s Linsux???? a ms ripoff from Linux? Only ms could break something
>>>like Linux.
>>
>>"Linsux" is a term used to deride Linux, much like "Windoze",
>>"Losedoze", "Winsucks", "WinDOS", and "LoseDOS" are used to
>>deride Microsoft Windows, and "Megalosoft", "M$", "Microshaft",
>>"Microslop", or "Monopolysoft" are used to deride Microsoft.
>>I've also seen the term "Open Sores" (open source) used on occasion.
>>
>>I'll leave it to the interested reader as to who uses what terms. :-)
>>
>>AFAIK, Microsoft has made no noises regarding entering the Linux market;
>>they may even be enjoined from doing so by a court injunction (which
>>was intended to protect SCO Xenix or Unix). Or they may not; it might
>>have expired by now.
>>
>>>
>>>I run Linux, versions:
>>> Redhat 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, 6.0, 6.1, 6.2.
>>> Suse 6.2, 6.3, 6.4.
>>> TurboLinux Server 6.01
>>> TurboLinux Workstation 6.01.
>>>on as many machines. That would be 11 machines if you can`t count.
>>
>>That's slightly unusual...are you a tester of some sort? :-)
>>
>>>
>>>Notice no windows. Windows are only good when cut into walls, otherwise
>>>windows are of no value.
>>
>>Debatable, although it's clear that Microsoft Windows has many problems.
>>But it's far from valueless. It's simply that Linux has more. :-)
>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>Linux verses windows is a NO-WIN situation.
>>
>>Also debatable, although it depends in part on what one's coworkers
>>are using. Ideally, they would cooperate nicely. :-)
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 21:01:20 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) wrote in
<8k2add$1so6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>That wouldn't be any fun. What would he have to complain about
>if he couldn't pick obscure hardware and make it fail somehow?
Yeah I couldn't pick it to pieces now could I?
Ahem, since when has AHA152X and SB16 been obscure hardware?
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 21:04:53 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>1. Even though Linux detects my USB ZIP 250 drive, it does not work.
>
>Seems to work for others. Maybe you just need to learn the 'mount'
>command.
Ha ha very funny. Let me see, I did some checking. USB ZIP 250 is not
actually supported by my kernel. It might be in a later version. This is
Linux Mandrake 7.1 I'm running, their latest version.
>HP uses a different protocol on the 4200C than the 4100 and 5200,
>which are supported. Anyways, I went to the HP web page and only
>Win98 drivers are available. HP plans to release W2k drivers but they
>are not ready yet.
No drivers for Linux or Windows 2000. Now what was it I said? "Linux lags
behind Windows"?
>Funny. I just went to www.3dfx.com and they only have Voodoo 5
>drivers for Win 95/98. None for Win2K. So which version of Windows are
>you talking about??
There are drivers for XFree86 4.0.1 and Beta drivers for Windows 2000. So
scratch the Voodoo 5 from the list.
>Seems when you want to say "Linux lags behind Windows" in terms of
>hardware support you mean win98. But when you say "Linux lags behind
>Windows" stability you mean W2k. Hmmm...
I never commented on stability. I know Windows 98 SE is crap in terms of
stability. I know Windows 2000 is far superior in that respect.
However, I still say Linux lags behind Windows.
Pete
------------------------------
From: John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 16:05:23 -0500
Hyman Rosen wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
> > Please explain how that has anything to do with what I described,
> > where the other part of the derived work may be available in
> > source but has some restriction that differs from the political
> > agenda of the FSF, like requiring a copyright attribution or
> > that modified copies of a library not be redistributed.
>
> Requiring advertising (not attribution) is a restriction that isn't
> repugnant to the spirit of the GPL, but happens to be incompatible
> with its wording.
>
Requiring advertising under certain circumstances could make the
software non-free. It depends on the cost and complications of
the requirement. For example, if the requirement requires the
donation of your entire work to those who see the advertising,
then the software isn't free. Similarly, the GPL that requires
the donation of your entire work to those who receive binaries
is also not free.
Frankly those who claim that the GPL is free AND want to encumber
redistribution of work that others do ARE repugnent.
John
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 21:06:04 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (sandrews) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Let me see what does windows not support on my system...
> oh, the Hell with that , lets try again:
>
> Let me see what does windows does support on my system...
> 1. Nothing.
>
> hardware = MAC ;^].
>
>So now I have a broken system. End of evaluation.
Very funny. Not.
My statement "Linux lags behind Windows" still stands, despite your attempt
(bad one at that!) at humour.
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 21:08:24 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> My 250M+ external storage technology works just fine in Linux.
> It won't put undo burdens on anyone who might want to actually
> read that data either.
So? My USB ZIP 250 works on Windows 98/Windows 2000. It didn't even need a
driver on Windows 2000 (Windows 98 SE did).
> My flatbed scanner works fine.
And your flatbed scanner is?
> My voodoo 3 works fine, even while running Quake III or Heavy
> Gear II. I'm not sure I would be able to say the same for NT5
> and the aforementioned V5.
My Voodoo 3 2000 PCI works fine on my Compaq Presario on Windows 2000 at
work. Likewise the Voodoo 3 2000 AGP on the Gateway machine on Windows
2000.
Your point?
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 21:12:54 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> ...and something else. After a quick perusal of some of the
> common storage sales sites it's become rather obvious that
> you have to be somewhat of a fool to bother with ZIPdrives
> to begin with.
See later.
> First there is the compatibility issue. ZIP being a highly
> proprietary format is likely to NOT be available on some arbitrary
> workstation. Even if that machine does have a zip drive there is
> considerably likelihood that it would be only a 100M drive.
So non-ZIP drives can't read my ZIP disks. So what? That's the beauty of a
USB drive. Just hot swap it, and hey presto.
> Then there is the cost of media: ~ $20 a pop. CDRW's and CDR's
> while perhaps slightly more inconvenient (although that really
> depends on the UI) are only ~ $1 or $2 for nearly 3x as much
> storage.
Yep, they're expensive all right.
> Now, back to that compatibility issue. Considering that you likely
> can't expect a random target to have a zipdrive you will likely
> need to take your entire subsystem with you rather than just the
> media. This also presumes that the workstation you will be
> targeting is infact running an OS and version that even supports
> USB.
I take my ZIP drive with me to work, I plug it into Windows 2000 and its up
and running with no problems. No driver needed, Windows 2000 automatically
supported it. I use it to pull files to and from work. Since I don't have a
CD writer at work, it seemed the obvious alternative.
> Now, once you go to all that trouble now what's the point of having
> removable media? For as much as a 250M zipdrive will set you back
> (not even getting into the cost of disks) you can have yourself a
> 10G external fixed disk in a USB chasis.
I don't want 10GBytes. Several 250MByte disks do me. I can plug this baby
into any Windows system that supports USB. I can't say the same about
Linux.
> This would be another good example of being bit in the butt by
> buying "the first random piece of crap you find at compusa".
It suited my needs just fine.
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 21:16:24 GMT
bobh{at}haucks{dot}org (Bob Hauck) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>So you'll be leaving us then?
No, why should I when people are so warm and friendly?
Pete
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 21:16:12 GMT
On Thu, 06 Jul 2000 15:06:40 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 06 Jul 2000 17:38:06 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >In comp.os.linux.advocacy, sandrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >wrote on Wed, 05 Jul 2000 21:12:54 -0400
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >>simple [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> You'd love Linsux.
>> >>>
>> >>> Try it sometime....
>> >>
>> >>What`s Linsux???? a ms ripoff from Linux? Only ms could break something
>> >>like Linux.
>> >
>> >"Linsux" is a term used to deride Linux, much like "Windoze",
>> >"Losedoze", "Winsucks", "WinDOS", and "LoseDOS" are used to
>>
>> Actually WinDOS is not just a term of derision. It is also
>> meant to point out the fact that underneath the Windows that
>> run on most Microsoft users's desktops is a nasty old CLI.
>> It's also meant make sure that current shills don't conveniently
>> neglect the fact that for most of Microsoft's history as an OS vendor
>> (even most of it's history competing with the Macintosh) that it was
>> providing only a simple program loader, incapable of sensibly
>> exploiting modern hardware, possesing a really nasty end user
>> interface.
>>
>
>LoseDOS is further clarification, not only of the DOS component as
>outlined above, that the syllable "win" is NOT appropriate when
>referring to Microsoft products.
[deletia]
...it's a bit further over the edge between somewhat descriptive
and pure derision...
Plus it's beginning to look insufficiently like the original.
--
It only takes a little bit of bad luck to negate the whole benefit
of "runs everything" for a particualar end user.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 17:18:51 -0400
On Thu, 6 Jul 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Jul 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> GPLed software isn't free and has redistribution encumberances. Calling
>>>> the GPL free is not accurate because of the encumberances. I guess that
>>> ...different usage of free. English lexicon isn't as simplistic
>>> as you would like to make it out to be.
>> Nor you. Application of the animate sense of free to something inanimate is
>> nongrammatical and illogical.
> Oddly enough, common online dictionaries (webster's actually)
> quite contradicts you on that point.
Care to prove it? (Hint: you can't.) From www.m-w.com, I find that:
* 1free1[a-d] refers to persons.
* 1free2[a-c] refer to animate entities and mostly persons.
* 1free3[a-b] and 1free4[a-c] contradict the GPL's claims of 'free'.
* 1free5a refers to animate entities, 1free5b contradicts the GPL's
claims of free.
* 1free6 doesn't apply to the GPL (but would be contradicted by the
GPL if it did.)
* 1free7[a-b] don't apply.
* 1free8[a-e] doesn't apply.
* 1free9[a-f] doesn't apply to inanimates.
* 1free10 often applies, but is the 'free beer' sense.
* 1free11[a-d] doesn't apply.
* 1free12[a-b] doesn't apply.
* 1free13 doesn't apply.
* 1free14 *might* apply, except that it refers to animates and not
inanimates.
* 1free15 definitely *does not* apply to GPLed code.
* 2free doesn't apply at all.
* 3free1 could apply if 1free1-9,11-15 applied.
* 3free2 applies in the same way that 1free10 applies.
* 3free3 doesn't apply, either.
Gods, I love it when the illiterate religious decide to go toe to toe with
someone who knows something about linguistics...
If we jumpt to liberty, we find:
* liberty1 might apply, but depends on which 1free is used.
Specifically, liberty1[abde] can't possibly apply to an inanimate,
and liberty1c is mildly contradicted by the restrictions on the
GPL.
* liberty2[ab] could be considered acceptable, but are also applicable
solely to animates.
* liberty3 in the sense of liberty3c applies, but not in the sense of
liberty3[ab] -- although it's not the political 'liberty' you
thought you were getting.
* liberty4 also doesn't apply.
Hopping to freedom:
* freedom1 could be true, but definitely not with:
* freedom1a (there is constraint in choice of action on the persons
using GPLed software)
* freedom1b (meet the new boss, same as the old boss...)
* freedom1[cdef] don't apply to inanimates or are not appropriate.
* freedom1h definitely isn't true about GPLed software.
* freedom1g is true, but again isn't the political meaning desired.
* freedom2 is entirely an animate (legal person) sense.
If we look at the synonym sense of licence:
* LICENCE implies freedom specially granted or conceded and may
connote an abuse of freedom <freedom without responsibility may
degenerate into licence>.
* 1Licence1 and 1Licence2 are precisely what software licences,
including the GPL, provide.
* Neither 1Licence3 nor 1Licence4 apply (although 1Licence4 is true).
* 2licence (all definitions) are the act of licensing, and are the
action of the GPL.
So ...
> Although the liberty in question is intended to be enjoyed by
> all end users equally, so your pedantry is moot anyways.
As I've shown, the definition problem is not moot. You can't say that
software is libre free -- and the GPL doesn't grant such libre freedoms
to end users, either.
Once again, this doesn't mean that the GPL doesn't provide value -- it
just means that suggesting that the GPL 'makes software free' is
repeating an untruth.
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 21:19:04 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Kulkis) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Does Windows have a driver for my 6-tape HP DAT changer????
>
>Noooooooooo.
>
>so, what's your fucking point, moron?
Your weak insults not withstanding...
My USB ZIP 250 does not work
My 4200C scanner does not work
My Voodoo 5 is not working but will hopefully soon
My SB16 needed massaging to work
My AHA152x needed massaging to work.
What's my point?
Linux lags behind Windows,
That's my point.
What's yours? If you can't even be civil about it, then just go away.
Pete
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 21:18:46 GMT
On 6 Jul 2000 14:23:05 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>Moral justifications that only justify the license in it's own right,
>>>but don't justify the lie about the license being free.
>>
>> It's no lie.
>>
>> Minimal encumberances are a necessary element of being "free"
>> in practice rather than merely in theory.
>
>It is really hard to defend this justification, given the large
>variety of software that really is free without the encumberance.
The only software of that kind, truely, is public domain.
That particular sort of software is actually somewhat unusual.
[deletia]
--
It only takes a little bit of bad luck to negate the whole benefit
of "runs everything" for a particualar end user.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (rich)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.admin.networking,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A cute linux song
Date: 6 Jul 2000 21:09:42 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Also schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Well, he's coming from somewhere in AT&T, which owns the 12.x.x.x
domain. According to his nntp-posting-host, that is. It looks like
a dialup account. He's either pretty good at forging headers or he's
using Earthlink to read Usenet. I would guess the latter.
WHOIS ipaddress results.
AT&T ITS (NET-ATT)
101 Crawfords Corner Rd
Holmdel, NJ 07733-3030
US
Netname: ATT
Netblock: 12.0.0.0 - 12.255.255.255
Maintainer: ATTW
Coordinator:
Kostick, Deirdre (DK71-ARIN) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(888)613-6330
Domain System inverse mapping provided by:
DBRU.BR.NS.ELS-GMS.ATT.NET 199.191.128.106
CMTU.MT.NS.ELS-GMS.ATT.NET 12.127.16.70
CBRU.BR.NS.ELS-GMS.ATT.NET 199.191.128.105
CMTU.MT.NS.ELS-GMS.ATT.NET 12.127.16.69
Record last updated on 26-Sep-1998.
Database last updated on 6-Jul-2000 06:17:18 EDT.
--
Catch the cluetrain. http://www.cluetrain.com
ALL programs are poems, it's just that not all programmers are poets.
-- Jonathan Guthrie in the scary.devil.monastery
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 17:20:03 -0400
On 6 Jul 2000, Mark Wooding wrote:
> Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Nor you. Application of the animate sense of free to something
>> inanimate is nongrammatical and illogical.
> Duh! Don't apply that sense, then. Apply a sense which applies to such
> inanimate intangibles as `speech', `enterprise', `will', `time' or
> `love'.
Each of the above items are actions performed by an animate. Software
is a thing, not an action. Still can't. See my latest response to
'Jedi' and you'll understand precisely what I'm talking about.
The language doesn't support the desired goal without great
obfuscation.
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 21:20:16 GMT
On Thu, 6 Jul 2000 15:14:51 -0400, Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 6 Jul 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> On Thu, 6 Jul 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>> John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>>>>> You want Liberty for buyers on the slave labor of add on developers.
>>>>>> You have the trappings of being a capitalist yet you expect
>>>>>> to be able to use other's work for free. That is simply
>>>>>> absurd.
>>>>> Actually, a gift is a gift. I don't argue against using the
>>>> Here would be a classic case of oversimplification.
>>>> This might fly in a preschool but not here.
>>>
>>> It should fly. When I give a gift to someone, I expect nothing back (not
>> Except it is not represented as 'gratisware'. It is quite
>> explicitly represented as 'libreware' with the intent that
>> it always remain so.
>
>Then don't call it 'free'.
>
>> Instead you're spouting "free!free!free!" like a 3 year old
>> without any consideration of the full meaning of that word.
>
>Nope. I'm saying that you're full of shit for pretending that
>'libreware' is 'free' (hint: 'libre' is the animate sense of free, and
>software ain't animate).
Nope, many of merely have different concepts evoked by the
expression of the term 'free'.
[deletia]
--
It only takes a little bit of bad luck to negate the whole benefit
of "runs everything" for a particualar end user.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 21:22:37 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>It's been said a million times, Linux supports hardware that Windows
>doesn't too.
Yes I would not disagree with that but...
> Using the "Linux is inferior because it doesn't support
>(X) hardware" argument is not a solid argument at all.
I'm saying there is more hardware that Linux does not support than Windows
does, as in Linux lags behind Windows.
> I know, you are
>going to shoot back something about how "I'm talking about Linux on the
>desktop, and if I don't own the hardware, then it doesn't matter to
>me."
Did I surprise you then? 8)
> Well, tough luck pal, Linux supports all kinds of hardware, if you
>went out of your way to pick hardware that it didn't support, that
>doesn't make it inferior. That just means you picked hardware it didn't
>support. I'm not insulting you, I'm not saying your stupid, I'm just
>saying what you did. If you picked hardware that didn't work with
>Windows (S/390, Alpha box trying to run 9x, Sparc, etc...) would that
>mean that Windows is inferior? No, it just means that you picked
>hardware it didn't work on, period. That is the only argument that
>holds credibility. That does not make one system better or worse, just
>different.
Ah, but I'm saying there is more hardware that _is_ supported by Windows
than Linux supports. As in, Linux lags behind Windows. I'm not saying
because Linux does not support XYZ, it must be inferior. I'm thinking
numbers.
X amount of devices supported by Linux, Y supported by Windows.
Y > X, therefore Linux lags behind Windows.
Pete
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
