Linux-Advocacy Digest #510, Volume #27 Fri, 7 Jul 00 02:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux is just plain awful (Perry Pip)
Re: Linux is just plain awful (Woofbert)
Re: Linux is just plain awful (Woofbert)
Re: Linux is just plain awful (Arthur Frain)
Re: Linux is just plain awful (Perry Pip)
Re: Linux is just plain awful (Arthur Frain)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users? (Steve Mading)
Re: Linux 3X faster than W2K (Arthur Frain)
Re: Just exactly what IS Linux, anyway? (Steve Mading)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Linux faster than Windows? ("Tod D. Ihde")
Re: A cute linux song
Re: ## HOT ## Microsoft software for Linux
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (John Dyson)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (John Dyson)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Linux is just plain awful (jbarntt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: Linux is just plain awful
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 04:24:03 GMT
another identity for suzie_wong/simon777/heather69/steve/teknite.
On Thu, 06 Jul 2000 22:10:08 -0400,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Exactly!
>
>As a behind the scenes OS Linux is decent. Put it in the hands of the general
>public however and a revolt is in order. Linux=geek and it should stay that way.
>
>
>Personally I feel Linux sucks bigtime. It has no useful applications, except
>geek crap. It claims it supports hardware but when you actually try it you
>discover your hardware is reduced to baseline crap. You mean you want to run 3d
>acceleration with that video card? How dare you even ask :(
>
>IMHO Linux is a piece of raw sewerage that is headed toward that great septic
>tank in the sky. A stinky piece of data killing slime is Linux.
>
>Nobody is interested in another operating system, especially one as lame as
>Linux.
>
>Linux is for losers who have nothing better to do with their lives than compile
>kernels.
>
>Linux will die soon and nobody will even come to the funeral...
>
>
>
>
>
>On Thu, 06 Jul 2000 18:31:00 -0700, Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Joel Barnett"
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> <snipped the unimportant parts>
>>>
>>> Schools out for the Summer, eh ? Pretty unimaginative as trolls go,
>>> i.e., obviously bogus storyline, stock Linux complaints,
>>
>>Oh, yes, there can't be anything to the story at all, especially
>>considering that it only rehashes the same complaints you're already
>>familiar with...
>>
>>Now is it just me or does that make no sense? Doesn't it seem as though
>>someone ought to actually look into these complaints and try to fix the
>>problem?
>>
>>From my own experience with Linux, Windows, and Macintosh, I can see how
>>the complaints would make sense. The herd is stampeding to follow a new
>>leader ... only Linux isn't as polished as Windows.
>>
>>For development machines, servers, embedded apps, and tinker-toys, Linux
>>is great. But is it really ready for commercial software?
>>
>>>etc. But keep trying, you might get better. Oh, in order to make a
>>>good troll, it helps to know something more about Linux than what you
>>>pickup in COLA.
>>>
>>> By the way, why did the lawyer lose data ??
>>>
>>> JBarntt
>>>
>>>
>
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is just plain awful
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 21:31:37 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Woofbert wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Joel Barnett"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > <snipped the unimportant parts>
> > >
> > > Schools out for the Summer, eh ? Pretty unimaginative as trolls go,
> > > i.e., obviously bogus storyline, stock Linux complaints,
> >
> > Oh, yes, there can't be anything to the story at all, especially
> > considering that it only rehashes the same complaints you're already
> > familiar with...
> >
> > Now is it just me or does that make no sense? Doesn't it seem as though
> > someone ought to actually look into these complaints and try to fix the
> > problem?
> >
> > From my own experience with Linux, Windows, and Macintosh, I can see how
> > the complaints would make sense. The herd is stampeding to follow a new
> > leader ... only Linux isn't as polished as Windows.
>
>
> The problems mentioned were fixed YEARS AGO.
>
> Hope that helps, dork.
Oh, ow. That really hurts. Hey, just because you called me a dork, I'm
gonna go right out and buy a copy of Linux. Isn't that amazing? This
must be the first time it ever worked.
No, just fooling. I already did that a while back.
> > For development machines, servers, embedded apps, and tinker-toys, Linux
> > is great. But is it really ready for commercial software?
>
> Linux is more home-user friendly than Unix, and Unix systems have been
> more workable as a desktop OS than LoseDOS ever was.
>
> Unix had SEVERAL fully functional GUIs ***BEFORE*** LoseDOS 1.0
>
>
> hope that also helps, dork.
I just installed Red Dog on my G3 and NetBSD on my Quadra. It's fun
playing with the hodgepodge of UI styles.
Just having a UI, and having had it longer than Windoze, is not the
answer to the problem. You're making the same mistake the Windows folks
did, which is to not understand the problem.
--
Woofbert <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>, Datadroid, Infernosoft
Putting the No in Innovation. www.infernosoft.com/woofbert/index.html
Infernosoft: Putting the No in Innovation. http://www.infernosoft.com
"It doesn't matter what I think." -- "Dr." Laura
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is just plain awful
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 21:33:14 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Exactly!
>
> As a behind the scenes OS Linux is decent. Put it in the hands of the
> general public however and a revolt is in order. Linux=geek and it
> should stay that way.
>
>
> Personally I feel Linux sucks bigtime. It has no useful applications,
> except geek crap. It claims it supports hardware but when you
> actually try it you discover your hardware is reduced to baseline
> crap. You mean you want to run 3d acceleration with that video card?
> How dare you even ask :(
>
> IMHO Linux is a piece of raw sewerage that is headed toward that
> great septic tank in the sky. A stinky piece of data killing slime is
> Linux.
>
> Nobody is interested in another operating system, especially one as
> lame as Linux.
>
> Linux is for losers who have nothing better to do with their lives
> than compile kernels.
>
> Linux will die soon and nobody will even come to the funeral...
This is just as foolish as what the other guy was saying. Linux has its
uses, but it's not ready to be a Windows killer.
--
Woofbert <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>, Datadroid, Infernosoft
Putting the No in Innovation. www.infernosoft.com/woofbert/index.html
Infernosoft: Putting the No in Innovation. http://www.infernosoft.com
"It doesn't matter what I think." -- "Dr." Laura
------------------------------
From: Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is just plain awful
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 21:01:24 -0700
Susan and Willy Wong wrote:
[snip]
Another post by Steve with phony statistics posted
under another phony name.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wasn't even a particularly good movie, although
Nancy Kwan was probably considered "hot" at the
time.
Arthur (yawn)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: Linux is just plain awful
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 04:40:30 GMT
On Thu, 06 Jul 2000 18:31:00 -0700,
Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>For development machines, servers, embedded apps, and tinker-toys, Linux
>is great. But is it really ready for commercial software?
Huh?? What do you mean "ready for commercial software" As linux is
already running on development machines, servers, and embedded apps,
it's already competing with commercial software.
Perry
------------------------------
From: Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is just plain awful
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 21:07:40 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
I find it hilarious that about the only serious
resposnses to Steve's posts come from Steve
himself.
Didja notice the /. story about the guy developing
a browser ("Interpet Explorer") for his parrot?
Do you suppose the parrot has Usenet access?
Arthur
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: 6 Jul 2000 23:46:50 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[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?
You really can't expect ISA stuff to always work unless
you manually set the software to match the hardware's
settings, regardless of the OS. However, I have set
up a couple of SB16's that were all seen automatically by
sndconfig.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users?
Date: 7 Jul 2000 04:40:37 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: I have yet to hear of one single person who has stuck with Linux,
: although many have tried it.
Fscking Liar. Who do you think you are arguing with in this newsgroup?
Figments of your imagination?
------------------------------
From: Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux 3X faster than W2K
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 21:15:03 -0700
Rich C wrote:
> "Arthur Frain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:8jvfmd$8m0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > And you're claiming that I'm being misleading?
>
> I'm not claiming anything of the sort. Pete said,
Sorry, Rich, but we're getting out of sync here.
The "And you're claiming ..." was written by me
and directed to Pete, not you. I'm too lazy to
go back and see if I screwed up the indenting.
My newsfeed sucks and I didn't get Pete's
original message, so I responded to Pete
via your response. Sorry for the confusion.
Arthur
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Just exactly what IS Linux, anyway?
Date: 7 Jul 2000 04:54:19 GMT
Rich C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: I have been concerned lately about certain attitudes in this newsgroup.
: It seems that certain Linux "zealots," when confronted with the issue of a
: useability issue with KDE, Gnome, or whatever, argue that these components
: are NOT part of Linux. However, when confronted with the issue that Windows
: version [whatever] has a nice user interface, they instantly point to KDE or
: Gnome being "just as good." This type of two-headed posturing is not
: constructive.
This isn't nearly as two-faced as it seems on the surface. If you have
several choices from set {foo} to put on top of Linux, all of which are
equally viable, then saying "Can Linux do bar" amounts to "Can any of
these choices from set {foo} do bar?" On the other hand, if the
accusation is the other way around, as in "Linux is bad because of
feature 'bar'", then feature 'bar' needs to exist with all choices
from set {foo} for the accusation to be applicable to Linux.
"All X lack Y" can be countered with a single example X that has Y.
"All X have (sucky feature) Y" needs to be true for all X's.
--
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven L. Mading at BioMagResBank (BMRB). UW-Madison
Programmer/Analyst/(acting SysAdmin) mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
B1108C, Biochem Addition / 433 Babcock Dr / Madison, WI 53706-1544
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 7 Jul 2000 00:03:39 -0500
In article <8k38oe$kso$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: In GPL terms, this actually means 'you cannot restrict others
>: *differently* than you have been restricted'; if I want credit for my
>: work, then I cannot state that I must have credit for my work -- even
>: if my only restriction is that one restriction.
>
>You can do this with GPL software. What you can't do is usurp the
>GPL software writers' desire to have their *OWN* code remain GPL'ed.
Perhaps you mean their desire to force the GPL on code that is
not their own.
>If you write your own code, your own code can be distributed however
>you like, so long as it isn't a derivative of the GPL code. (The
>reason for that last part is to avoid the sticky situation where
>some shmuck comes along and adds one irrelevant line of code to
>a GPL tool and then claims it as his own.)
No, the reason is clearly to take control over the whole of
anything that can possibly be considered a derived work,
regardless of the size, value, or author of the other
parts. Read the FSF discussion of why readline is GPL'd
as opposed to LGPL'd if you have any doubts about this.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 7 Jul 2000 00:09:32 -0500
In article <8k39nk$d3m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: Yes, that's what I said. The GPL, in it's attempt to control the
>: whole of a derived work, even the parts where the author of
>: the GPL'd portion made no contribution, restricts these
>: potentially useful works from being distributed. Even in
>: the case where the combined portion is much less restricted
>: than the GPL'd portion.
>
>The reason for the GPL restriction is simply to avoid the
>plagerism of calling the GPL code your own.
No it isn't.
>If you use GPL
>source inside your own source, you can't easily make the two
>have seperate licensing terms: "Okay, lines 1-40 of main.c
>are under GPL, lines 41-44 are not, lines 45-120 are under
>GPL, and lines 121-154 are not, ..." That just can't work.
Note that the restrictions apply just the same if you
link to libraries where the copyright and license terms
are clear and simple.
>If you take great care to make sure your own code is well
>walled-off from the GPL code, for example by making it be
>a seperate executable with seperate source files, then it
>isn't a "derived work" and you then only need to openly
>redistribute the GPL parts, not your own. When you start
>inserting your own code in the midst of the GPL code, then
>there is no good practical way to keep the credit for the
>two parts separate.
How about linking to shared libraries, or any form of
separate distributions where the user does the link
and maintains a clear separation of ownership? This meets
the requirements you mention, but not the political
ends of the FSF.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Tod D. Ihde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
Date: 7 Jul 2000 05:09:17 GMT
Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Tod D. Ihde" wrote:
>>
>> Will you all quit your whining? Who cares? People use what they use.
>> Besides, ever since we moved away from 8-bit machines, nobody has
>> given a darn about good code. Everyone got lazy when memory &
>> CPU cycles got cheap.
> You've never run systems that house corporate databases for a Fortune
> 50 company, have you....
No, but... You don't seem to read what you're replying to, do you? What does
that have to do with code bloat & lazy programming practices?
Oh, that's right - Fortune 50 companies all hire only the best programmers,
known for their ability to save 4 bytes & 18 clock cycles by using RORs.
Sorry, I forgot. How menial of me. I'm not worthy!
Sorry, couldn't resist. It bugs me when people just spew "oh yeah"'s w/o
even touching on the subject at hand.
Oh, btw: as a "Unix Systems Engineer", and fellow UseNet reader, you should
know that your .signature should be limited to ~4 lines of text, out of
courtasy to both your fellow readers & NNTP servers worldwide. But then, you
knew that, right?
> I'm talking about... warehouse inventories
> automotive CAD drawings,
> Customer accounts at stock brokers, etc., etc..
...Which had nothing to do with what I was talking about (see above).
My point was that nobody cares about _good_ code anymore - about saving
that byte, about saving that clock cycle. Everyone's answer is to just throw
more CPU, more memory, more HD space at a problem until it becomes bearable,
not to actually go through their code & try to make it leaner, meaner, more
refined & elegant.
And then, I ended up by saying the following:
>> If you don't like a platform, don't work with it... But please, don't whine
>> about it either.
Which, I think, says it all.
>> *sigh*
Ok, so _this_ says it all.
Again, I just have to say... This .sig is _way_ too long. Put it in your
.finger and change your .sig to read "For my personal crusade against 2
people, and you if you don't agree with what I think is right, finger
[EMAIL PROTECTED]" - It's going to save bandwidth & make anyone who tries
to read your posts/followups much happier. (Besides, now people can't see
that I'm the Lorax & speak for the trees, unless they scroll down two
pages. What a bummer!)
Tod.
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> ICQ # 3056642
> I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
> A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
> B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
> C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
> sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
> that she doesn't like.
>
> D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
> E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (D) above.
> F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
> response until their behavior improves.
> G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
> H: Knackos...you're a retard.
--
* All opinions expressed herein belong to Me. Tod D. Ihde. So there. *
* HTTP://toon.jesus-crispie.com/ HTTP://www.jesus-crispie.com/ *
* "I am the Lorax, I speak for the trees." *
* -Dr. Seuss *
------------------------------
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, 6 Jul 2000 21:03:31 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I wouldn't bring up the subject of medication if I were you, it appears as
though your MPD is acting up again.
It appears as though you have posted usenet articles directed to me using
two different identities today. You have used [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] as well.
Is Susie Wong your real identity, since that email address does appear to be
valid, unlike the simon777 email address. I really hope you have not made a
name collision with a poor innocent, if that is the case I do hope you will
stop using her identity so that you don't cause her any undue complications.
Here are the reasons that it appears that both of these identities are
yours.
You both use the same literary style.
You both use Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 as your news readers.
You both use the X-No-Archive header in your postings.
You both use newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net Earthlink's newserver for
your postings:
You both use an identical Organization header.
You both used almost the same term "Semantic police" and "semantic spelling
police" in messages pseted about two.
You are both based in New York.
Your Simon777 identity connects to the internet by way of AT&T Worldnet in
the case of one of your messages your IP address was 12.79.50.79 which is
equivalent to the host name of
79.new-york-20-25rs.ny.dial-access.att.net--with the phony email address of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your Susie Wong identity connects to the internet by way of Level 3
Communications in the case of one of your messages your IP address was
209.246.98.80 which is equivalent to the host name of
dialup-209.246.98.80.NewYork2.Level3.net.--with what appears to be a valid
email address of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As can be seen from the host names of your posting hosts you both use a
dialup network connection, I am assuming with PPP. The host names also show
that you are both located in the New York area.
This also shows that you are both customers of AT&T Worldnet. All in all,
it appears that you are both one and the same person.
If Susie Wong is not your real identity then please stop using that as a
false identity. There is no reason to get her tangled up into your
problems. If you do involve her, she may be able to take action against
you.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Forget to take your medication today?
>
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.best,alt.linux.sucks,be.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: ## HOT ## Microsoft software for Linux
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 21:05:12 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi Simon. Getting tired of the song thread?
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> What a dork.............
>
> Semantic police alert!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
------------------------------
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: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 00:25:01 -0500
Steve Mading wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : And in the fine print: any work done while sitting here must
> : be given away, along with any tools used to do it. Not
> : quite accurate, but car analogies are always flawed.
>
> Not quite. The GPL does *not* say that derivative work
> must be given away.
>
This statement alone is correct.
>
> You can keep it to yourself and that
> is allowed by the GPL. It's just that *if* you distribute
> the derived work, then you must GPL it. That's a big if.
> And remember that "derived work" does NOT include programs
> that merely used a GPL tool to help make them (for example,
> gcc), as you implied here. It refers to programs that copy
> some of the GPL source code of the tool into their own.
>
And the inconsistancy of the GPL, is that some people call the
GPL 'free', and then apply constraints, rules and regulations to
the redistributions... This makes GPL inconsistant with free
software.
John
------------------------------
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: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 00:28:01 -0500
Sam Holden wrote:
> >>
> >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.
>
Your definition of 'what you do or don't include' is exclusive and
takes away the freeness of the software.
Morally justifying the GPL doesn't allow you to lie about calling it
free.
Next.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 7 Jul 2000 00:20:15 -0500
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.
Yet the GPL is the only one that demands control over the *other*
components of a derived work.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: jbarntt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is just plain awful
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 05:33:57 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Joel Barnett"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > <snipped the unimportant parts>
> >
> > Schools out for the Summer, eh ? Pretty unimaginative as trolls go,
> > i.e., obviously bogus storyline, stock Linux complaints,
>
> Oh, yes, there can't be anything to the story at all, especially
> considering that it only rehashes the same complaints you're already
> familiar with...
>
> Now is it just me or does that make no sense? Doesn't it seem as
though
> someone ought to actually look into these complaints and try to fix
the
> problem?
Think about it, a law firm with 14 pc's - why would one of these
lawyers attempt to upgrade them to Linux, w/o backing up the data ?
First, the law firm would probably have a consultant who would not be
so stupid as to forget to do backup's before installing a new OS. Also,
let's assume that of the 14 pc's 2 are servers, say one for file/print
service and one as a proxy server. You might wish to upgrade the
servers to Linux, but probably not the workstations.
There is no problem here, just a lame troll.
>
> From my own experience with Linux, Windows, and Macintosh, I can see
how
> the complaints would make sense. The herd is stampeding to follow a
new
> leader ... only Linux isn't as polished as Windows.
As a workstation, Linux is not as polished as Windows. I doubt a bunch
of lawyers are being stampeded by the Linux "maelstrom". If some
goofball lawyer decided to revamp the firms network on a whim, without
any real knowledge, then he got what he deserved. He would have similar
problems with NT or Netware.
>
> For development machines, servers, embedded apps, and tinker-toys,
Linux
> is great. But is it really ready for commercial software?
Don't know, don't care. Linux is ready to be a reliable server OS. Like
any server OS, you should know something about the OS and sys admin in
general. Like backing up important data on systems before installing a
new OS. This isn't rocket science.
>
> >etc. But keep trying, you might get better. Oh, in order to make a
> >good troll, it helps to know something more about Linux than what
you
> >pickup in COLA.
> >
> > By the way, why did the lawyer lose data ??
> >
> > JBarntt
> >
> >
>
> --
> Woofbert <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>, Datadroid, Infernosoft
> Putting the No in Innovation. www.infernosoft.com/woofbert/index.html
> Infernosoft: Putting the No in Innovation. http://www.infernosoft.com
> "It doesn't matter what I think." -- "Dr." Laura
>
--
jbarntt
<Chocolate Watchband>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
