Linux-Advocacy Digest #503, Volume #27 Thu, 6 Jul 00 19:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (John Dyson)
Re: A cute linux song ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: LIE-nux is SUPPOST to destroy data (was: Re: This is a Troll, do (sandrews)
Re: A cute linux song ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A cute linux song ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A cute linux song ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A cute linux song ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Where did all my windows go? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Where did all my windows go? (Christopher Barry)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Sam Holden)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 17:44:55 -0500
Sam Holden wrote:
>
> On Thu, 06 Jul 2000 17:08:20 -0500, John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> <major snippage>
> >
> >This is opinion: when a license requires the redistribution of a
> >persons
> >primary work product (livelyhood), then the license is certainly not
> >free.
> >When a license requires attribution, then that doesn't keep it from
> >being
> >free. If the attribution causes alot of expense, then the license isn't
> >free :-).
>
> So the GPL fulfills is goals well enough then.
>
I haven't been arguing about justifying the GPL. You might
or might not like the GPL.
>
> It provides free software from the perspective of the end-user.
>
Free for one should be free for all. If not, then the term needs to
be qualified. Other software has no such constraints. For example,
as an end-effect, the BSDL is freer than the GPL (I mean in things
that you have to do to give binaries away, BSDL doesn't make you
do things that the GPL makes you do. BSDL doesn't make you do
anything (except attribution) that the GPL doesn't make you do. The
cost of simple attribution at the level that BSDL requires is probably
1/4 linear inch of DAT tape :-).)
It is wrong and unfair to those who distribute under BSDL by
diluting the notion of 'free' software. It is wrong, anti
competitive and deceitful to imply the equivalence.
< DELETED >
>
> This situation is free enough for me to call it free.
>
The purposes for words is to communicate. If one is using
terms to purposely mislead (which if you call the GPL free, it
is clear that one is misleading enough people so as to make
it wrong.) It does feel good to call ones own software 'free',
however, it is wrong (and a lie) when it is purposely misused.
Intention and good-vibes don't make it 'right' to lie.
>
> You obviously disagree, which is fine.
>
It is important to disagree, when a wrong is being perpetrated.
>
> To the end user though, the GPL is free software license.
>
Please define 'end user.' :-) Since an attribute of GPLed code is
source code, the end user is both the user of the entire piece
of software AND those who use it as source code. Source code
opens up other classes of users.
If you didn't have to redistribute source code, then the end user
is most likely only those who 'just use' the code.
John
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 22:46:55 GMT
Only in this FUCKING group do people make a big FUCKING deal out of
one FUCKING word.
I was trying to be FUCKING nice but the semantic spelling police have
FUCKING come out of the FUCKING woodwork...
On Thu, 6 Jul 2000 12:40:07 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> It's a fsking cult I tell you.......
>>
>> Now they have their own theme song.....
>
>Do you understand that "fsking" is a mispelling of "fscking" which
>represents the processes of running the filesystem check utility of unix
>that is called "fsck". Your use of the term makes it appear that you think
>that "fsck" is an alternate spelling of a certain four letter word. Your
>statement restated using the Windows and Dos utilitiy programs for the
>similar purpose would be:
>
>It's a chkdsking cult I tell you.......
>
>or
>
>It's a scandisking cult I tell you.......
>
>I know what you meant to say and that would have been stupid enough, but
>using "fsking" makes you appear pathetic and nothing more.
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 18:43:28 -0400
From: sandrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LIE-nux is SUPPOST to destroy data (was: Re: This is a Troll, do
Matthias Warkus wrote:
>
> It was the 3 Jul 2000 20:08:06 -0500...
> ...and Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >>Linux is a competantly built multi-user, multi-tasking OS.
> > >
> > >Then why does it have so many problems?
> >
> > Because there is so much to it - and you are doing odd things with
> > it. You'd spend many thousands of dollars putting together the
> > equivalent functionality on commercial systems and since it would
> > come in dozens of different packages you would expect to spend some
> > time configuring each package correctly and making it all work
> > together on your particular machine. Since it's free and all
> > together on a couple of CD's, you seem to think it should be simple
> > as a result, but there is no reason it should be simpler than
> > all those individual packages.
>
> Indeed, multi-CD Linux distributions such as SuSE Linux 6.4, which
> ships on five CDs IIRC, might be the most complex end-user software
> products that ever shipped -- where "end-user" means that it's
> supposed to work without a Somehow Certified Engineer working on it
> for a week or two to get it all set up.
That be 6 CDs for Suse 6.4.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 22:47:59 GMT
Forget to take your medication today?
On Thu, 6 Jul 2000 13:14:30 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> It's a fsking cult I tell you.......
>>
>> Now they have their own theme song.....
>
>
>Simon777, I was wondering why you use [EMAIL PROTECTED] when you don't
>have and account or mailbox at Earthlink with the user name simon777? If
>you want to use an invalid email address to prevent direct emailing, why
>don't you use a an obviously invalid email address. What if some one would
>establish a real account or mailbox with Earthlink using the name simon777,
>then that person would get all the flames that you would call down on you.
>
>I must say that I am relieved to learn that you are not an Earthlink user.
>Since the merger between Earthlink and Mindspring, you have been from the
>same "online township". As such you would be like the town drunk who is an
>embarrasement to all the other towns people. Now it is evident you are not
>a really from this "town" you are only a vagrant from else where.
>
>The evidence of your fraudulent email address is:
>
> ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> ----- Transcript of session follows -----
>... while talking to mx05.earthlink.net.:
>>>> RCPT To:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
><<< 550 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... User unknown
>550 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... User unknown
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 22:49:08 GMT
You need to get out more often....
The heat from the monitor is getting to you
On Thu, 6 Jul 2000 15:22:13 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>rich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Also schrieb [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.
>
>Yes, this does concur with my own findings. I do believe that his is using
>Earthlink as his news server while he is connecting through AT&T World Net.
>The Path header on his postings seem to confirm that
>newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net was that news server that he posted to.
>The NNTP-Posting-Host header shows that was connected to the net through
>AT&T and his workstation or router had the ip address of 12.79.50.101 which
>corresponds to the host name of 101.new-york-20-25rs.ny.dial-access.att.net.
>Being connected through on ISP and posting through another ISP is not in and
>of itself wrong, but it can be suspicious. I sometimes have to do that
>myself, when my Mindspring's dialup servers are down, I have to connect
>through another ISP which Mindspring owns.
>
>What simon777 is doing wrong that I can not excuse is using a email address
>of [EMAIL PROTECTED] when that is not his account at Eathlink. Of
>course that is in keeping with his use of the X-No-Archive header to burn
>the evidence behind him.
>
>Using a valid appearing and yet invalid email address at Earthlink, can use
>up bandwidth and processor resources at Earthlink and other ISPs to handle
>attempts to delivers to this address and to handle the bounces. This would
>also consume the time of those writing the emails to him. If someone who
>knew nothing about Simon777's aactivities actually did establish an account
>at Earthlink with the name of simon777 they could be flooded with email
>addressed to their account that could be enough to overflow their mailbox.
>On a lark I checked to see if [EMAIL PROTECTED] is a valid email address and
>guess what? Nope it is not.
>
>If this simon777 want to not want to be flooded with the emal that his
>comments could attract, then he should use a obviously phony address like
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] That would be the decent and sensible thing
>to do.
>
>P.S. About your email address, [EMAIL PROTECTED] , is that you way of saying,
>"email yourself"; or "Don't bother me! Tell it to your sysadmin."? ;-)
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 22:50:00 GMT
Well at least there is SOMETHING in your head now....
It's a start anyway...
On Thu, 6 Jul 2000 13:33:33 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Now you have done it! You have really done it!
>
>Now I can't get the tune of Puff the Magic Dragon out of my head! ;-)
>
>
>unicat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Here's one for you to enjoy:
>>
>> Tux the Linux Penguin
>> (sung to the tune of "Puff the magic dragon")
>>
>> Tux, the Linux penguin, was written in "C"
>> And Linus made him open-source, so that we could have him free.
>>
>> Little Billy Gatesy, he hated that penguin Tux
>> And called him hacked and unsupported, and other nasty stuff.
>> (chorus)
>>
>> Together they did struggle and the customers pursue
>> Billy kept his lawyers riled, but there was nought that they could do
>> Developers and coders would rally where'ere Tux came
>> And Pirate hackers would raise their beers when Tux roared out his name
>> (chorus)
>>
>> Now UNIX lives forever, but not so Microsoft
>> As models of bad behavior, Judge Jackson held them aloft
>> Their employees they did bail out, the stock price fell like stone
>> And mean old Billy Gatesy was left standing all alone
>> (chorus)
>>
>> Billy's head was hung in sorrow, the customers came no more
>> And nobody would listen when next-gen windows he did roar
>> Now gloating was a temptation, but this did not suit Tux
>> He showed Billy how to play nice, by porting Office to Linux
>> (chorus)
>>
>> (c)Copyright 2000 by Unicat
>> These lyrics are copyrighted to keep anyone else
>> from Copyrighting them. You may freely distribute or
>> reproduce these lyrics in any form you want
>> as long as you preserve this notice.
>>
>>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 22:50:43 GMT
Fair enough.
All's cool :)
simon
On 6 Jul 2000 20:02:17 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> And don't YOU pretend to understand Linux.
>>
>> You don't have to mount an audio CD....
>>
>
>As I stated before, that was my mistake, I havent listened to an audio CD
>on any platform for about 3.5 years. Too quick to type, not quick enough to
>consider that not everyone converted to mp3 cds when I did.
>
>
>
>
>-----yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 22:55:01 GMT
On Thu, 06 Jul 2000 20:35:34 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (sandrews) wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> Oh Please if that ain`t the kettle calling the pot black.
>> Ever hear of the mindcraft test or the TPC tests add nausium ?
>
>Yes I read the results of those tests and the second set of tests done
>afterwards allowing the Linux guys to retune their system. Windows still
>beat Linux in those tests.
This is true. And special mention was made of the "my shit don't
stink" attitude of some of the Linux guys.
>I've seen the results posted by PC World (I forget the exact name) where NT
>held up better than Linux.
Don't remember that one. I don't usually read PCWorld though.
>I've seen results posted by Spec where the machines weren't exactly the
>same (whoops!) and Linux runs faster than Windows.
I thought both machines were Dell's and they were the same?
I could be wrong though.
>And you want to know what I believe? If Linux was faster than Windows, I'd
>see that in simple results. I don't, therefore it's not.
I prefer a combination of ease of use/speed and applications with
applications first and speed last.
Linux has none of those so it lags Windows in my opinion. For my
applications....
>Stop using the expression 'lose' instead of Windows and I might listen to
>your arguments.
>
>Pete
------------------------------
From: Christopher Barry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 23:01:49 GMT
Pete,
Are you lonely? Would like a friend to help you feel less inadequate? I=
t=20
seems you remain here long after you welcome has expired primarily=20
because you obviously have nowhere else to go. It's OK Pete. We=20
understand. Shhhh...Shhhh.... It'll be OK, buddy. Sometimes things are=20
hard to grasp at first, but if you really try, I'll bet even you can=20
figure it out ok. It doesnt have to operable by a moron to be superior, =
and this is what's got you stumped. It's alright petey, just calm down..=
.=20
Say, isn't it time for your nap?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sam Holden)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 6 Jul 2000 23:02:09 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 06 Jul 2000 17:44:55 -0500, John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Sam Holden wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 06 Jul 2000 17:08:20 -0500, John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> <major snippage>
>> >
>> >This is opinion: when a license requires the redistribution of a
>> >persons
>> >primary work product (livelyhood), then the license is certainly not
>> >free.
>> >When a license requires attribution, then that doesn't keep it from
>> >being
>> >free. If the attribution causes alot of expense, then the license isn't
>> >free :-).
>>
>> So the GPL fulfills is goals well enough then.
>>
>I haven't been arguing about justifying the GPL. You might
>or might not like the GPL.
>
>>
>> It provides free software from the perspective of the end-user.
>>
>Free for one should be free for all. If not, then the term needs to
>be qualified. Other software has no such constraints. For example,
>as an end-effect, the BSDL is freer than the GPL (I mean in things
>that you have to do to give binaries away, BSDL doesn't make you
>do things that the GPL makes you do. BSDL doesn't make you do
>anything (except attribution) that the GPL doesn't make you do. The
>cost of simple attribution at the level that BSDL requires is probably
>1/4 linear inch of DAT tape :-).)
>
>It is wrong and unfair to those who distribute under BSDL by
>diluting the notion of 'free' software. It is wrong, anti
>competitive and deceitful to imply the equivalence.
>
>< DELETED >
>
>>
>> This situation is free enough for me to call it free.
>>
>The purposes for words is to communicate. If one is using
>terms to purposely mislead (which if you call the GPL free, it
>is clear that one is misleading enough people so as to make
>it wrong.) It does feel good to call ones own software 'free',
>however, it is wrong (and a lie) when it is purposely misused.
>
>Intention and good-vibes don't make it 'right' to lie.
The GPL is free from the perspective of the end user. That is what matters.
That is the meaning of free software. The end user is free to tinker with
their software and to give it to others (but must give those others those
same freedoms, which requires them to be given the source as well).
>>
>> You obviously disagree, which is fine.
>>
>It is important to disagree, when a wrong is being perpetrated.
>
>>
>> To the end user though, the GPL is free software license.
>>
>Please define 'end user.' :-) Since an attribute of GPLed code is
>source code, the end user is both the user of the entire piece
>of software AND those who use it as source code. Source code
>opens up other classes of users.
End user is the one who uses piece of software. I don't include people
who take the code and use it in their own software. All those people who
write letters in Word are end users of Word. All those people who embed
Word in their own application are not (though they may be in another context
when they are writing a letter of course).
The GPL is all about those end users. Software developers and distributors
have restrictions placed on them, so that end user freedom will remain. Of
course end users may put on a distributor or developer hat now and then
in which case the restrictions kick in, but only for that activity.
>If you didn't have to redistribute source code, then the end user
>is most likely only those who 'just use' the code.
Redistributing the source code allows the recipient to have all the freedoms
that go with having it - being able to modify the product for example. The
person doing the distributing is given a restrictions (must also distribute
the source) so that the recipient will not have their freedom reduced.
--
Sam
Of course, in Perl culture, almost nothing is prohibited. My feeling is
that the rest of the world already has plenty of perfectly good
prohibitions, so why invent more? --Larry Wall
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
